Would Mormons Ever Consider Gay-Related Anti-Bullying Curriculum?

[rpn]

Let's get real. Anti-gay bullying is the most prevalent kind of bullying in middle schools in American (maybe also in high schools). Kids use the f word as pejorative even when they have no clue what it means, and even when no one is claiming or experiencing any same gender attraction. It is simply the most offensive word that kids can think of. It isn't going to be an effective anti-bullying campaign if the issue is not explicitly addressed. So I say, horray for the catholic church, wanting to have a fully effective anti-bullying effort.

[TAO]

Let's get real. Anti-gay bullying is the most prevalent kind of bullying in middle schools in American (maybe also in high schools).

I'm sorry... I'm going to have to disagree with you here.... I rather dislike using my condition as a crutch, but let's for instance... compare Autism Bullying and Anti-gay Bullying... (sorry, that's just one that's personal to me, so I can feel comfortable talking about it without hestiance).

.

...In Britain (not America, sorry , couldn't find a stat for that which was directly called bullying for America) 2/3 of people who represent themselves as homosexual experience bullying (according to Wikipedia).

And according to this article, roughly 9/10 (88%) of kids with Autism are bullied. Of course, this is in Massachusetts, rather than in Britain (link), so it could be said that the studies are not comparable.

So nah, it's not necessarily most prevalent. It is really bad though. All bullying is really bad.

Kids use the f word as pejorative even when they have no clue what it means, and even when no one is claiming or experiencing any same gender attraction.

To be quite honest, I rarely here that work at my school. I usually hear the other F word which means something along the lines of sex.

And I have never actually heard that word actually used to describe anybody I know who considers themselves homosexual (I have several friends who do). Of course, this is my school only, and only when I am around, so that is rather limited I guess.

It is simply the most offensive word that kids can think of.

To be quite honest, I find the b word worse by a tiny bit. I think it has to do with the intensity people say the B word... it annoys me more =P. And it is said more often sometimes. Or at least I hear it more often.

It isn't going to be an effective anti-bullying campaign if the issue is not explicitly addressed.

Actually, addressing specifically would require each and every bullying case to be addressed separately, tbh. For example, again, using Autism... it differs greatly from other conditions, such as schizophrenia. Yet under the law, they are all under the blanket of mental condition, or something like that. That technique is not very effective though, because someone who has schizophrenia will act differently than someone who has Autism. Thus, if you were to really cover each anti-bullying case specifically... well that would be a lot of class work to teach. A year course... more or less? Rather impractical, tbh. Much easier, and imo, more effective, to teach instead, to respect other people's differences. Disagree with them, yes, maybe, but to voice your disagreement in a mild manner if at all. To teach people to be kind to all, and about the advantages of serving others. That is what I would like to be taught in schools, if you know what I mean. Respect, Courtesy, Kindness, Humility, and Patience. We need more of those virtues =).

So I say, horray for the catholic church, wanting to have a fully effective anti-bullying effort.

Hehe, I hurrah too, for any type of work against bullying, that I do. =)

[TAO]

"No, I taught my son that hitting is wrong period."

W00t for Bones =D. Awsome show I've heard... I should be watching some of it... the person I *cough* like *cough* enjoys the show a lot and so I probably should get 'edumacated', if ya' know what I mean ;-)

[urroner]

I wonder if any gays would ever consider doing a program on not bullying those who disagree with their life style or would that be asking too much?

[USU78]

Would the bullies who employ government to compel others' behavior and quash others' speech and criminalize others' thoughts give up the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force's enforcement mechanisms and respect others' liberties?

[USU78]

I wonder if any gays would ever consider doing a program on not bullying those who disagree with their life style or would that be asking too much?

Sorry urroner: you said it sooner and far better than I did.

[Stargazer]

Like has been mentioned by others I don't find it at all appropriate to make gay-related bullying an object to be specific about.

None of my children are gay, but they got bullied and picked on at church because they went to a different high school than most of the rest of the kids in the ward. At least two of my children want nothing to do with church at all because of the treatment they got from their peers, who were, interestingly enough frequently children of some of those in leadership positions in the ward.

[Stargazer]

On the Show "Bones" the FBI character Booth has son. The subject came up of the son hitting. Another character asks Booth "Didn't you teach your son that hitting girls is wrong" IIRC Booth responds "No, I taught my son that hitting is wrong period."

Hitting is wrong, period? You have to let the bullies beat on you? Or run away and hope the bully is slower? What better way to send the message: "Open season on me! I won't defend myself!"

Here's to bullies, everywhere:

[jskains]

I was bullied as a kid for having glasses and being a "nerd". I was heavily into computers even during highschool.

Bullying has nothing to do with being homosexual. Bullying is about seeking a weakness and exploiting it. Being fat, having glasses, having a stutter. Even if homosexuality was viewed as normal by everyone, it would do nothing to stop bullying. Focusing on homosexual bullying is just short sighted.

But then I DISPISE the term "hate crime". As if a white woman getting raped is somehow inferior to a black woman getting raped. We have to specially handle the case cause a black woman was involved? Really? Rape is rape, no matter if the motive was anger, sexual fustration or because she was black. It is all equally evil.

Homosexual bullying is a buzz concept driven by the homosexual agenda to give the gay community special privileges. It's horrifying to think that a kid getting beaten every day because they have say red hair is not as important as one who gets attacked cause they walk around acting the gay stereotype....

*Sigh*

JMS

[frankenstein]

Homosexual bullying is a buzz concept driven by the homosexual agenda to give the gay community special privileges. It's horrifying to think that a kid getting beaten every day because they have say red hair is not as important as one who gets attacked cause they walk around acting the gay stereotype....

*Sigh*

JMS

what special privilege? almost all laws in the united states are neutral so what special privilege is being given when say a policy or law says "no bullying based on sexual orientation". A law/policy such as this means your closet-homosexual-family-values-republican-teabagger boss, can not bully you for being a heterosexual. there is no special privilege.

[USU78]

what special privilege? almost all laws in the united states are neutral so what special privilege is being given when say a policy or law says "no bullying based on sexual orientation". A law/policy such as this means your closet-homosexual-family-values-republican-teabagger boss, can not bully you for being a heterosexual. there is no special privilege.

Examples: "protected classes" of people get special set-asides for government contracts. There are "racial minority" set-asides and "disabled veteran" set-asides, and all other kinds of set-asides. There are "protected classes" set-asides in education in the name of "diversity." There are "hate crimes" statutes which value "protected classes" more highly than other people who find themselves victims of criminal predation.

To question "special privilege" is act the wide-eyed ingenue.

Francis hasn't the figure for it.

[Deborah]

But then I DISPISE the term "hate crime". As if a white woman getting raped is somehow inferior to a black woman getting raped.

I was going to make that point. Rape is a hate crime no matter what the reason someone did it; that goes for murder or any kind of assault.

How in the heck does someone determine if the red-headed kid with freckles was bullied because he is openly gay or because he had red-hair and freckles. My G-son has been bullied at church and in school because he isn't athletic and is socially awkward (and has red hair). Fortunately he is a big boy now, and I mean footballer big and husky, and doesn't get picked on so much. Furthermore it's even ridiculous to assume elementary students know what gay is or who is gay or if the gay child himself knows he is gay. Not all effeminate appearing boys are gay and not all husky athletic girls are gay.

What we need is to teach against hate and to teach love and compassion, which is what the church does. Unfortunately not everyone listens to those lessons.

[MorningStar]

Any kid who doesn't know bullying is wrong period is a moron. I don't believe in having a curriculum for one group of people when so many kids are bullied for many reasons.

[frankenstein]

There are "hate crimes" statutes which value "protected classes" more highly than other people who find themselves victims of criminal predation.

CFR or you can rephrase.

What "hate crime" statutes one its face (black letter) values "protect classes" more highly than other people who find themselves victims of criminal predation.

----------

also the question was about the gay agenda and special privileges, what special priveleges are there when a law is all inclusive?

[USU78]

CFR or you can rephrase.

What "hate crime" statutes one its face (black letter) values "protect classes" more highly than other people who find themselves victims of criminal predation.

----------

also the question was about the gay agenda and special privileges, what special priveleges are there when a law is all inclusive?

Don't need to rephrase or CFR if something is self-evident to the non-deluded.

I kick the crap out of a Norwegian American in Utah: I'm charged with assault and it doesn't cause any particular harm, it's a Class A misdemeanor; if I cause serious harm, it's a 2nd degree Felony.

If I kick the crap out of a black guy in Utah and the prosecutor can prove I did it because he's a black guy: it's a 3rd degree felony if I don't cause any particular harm, and if I cause serious harm, it's a 1st degree Felony.

Ergo, the black guy is more valued than the Norwegian.

Turn it around: a black guy kicks the crap out of the Norwegian BECAUSE he's a Norwegian and causes no particular harm, it's a Class A misdemeanor; if he causes serious harm, it's a 2nd degree felony. WHY? Because being Norwegian doesn't put you in a protected class and there are no counterexamples that I've ever been able to dig up.

WHY? Because the black dude is of more value than the Norwegian.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

[urroner]

Don't need to rephrase or CFR if something is self-evident to the non-deluded.

I kick the crap out of a Norwegian American in Utah: I'm charged with assault and it doesn't cause any particular harm, it's a Class A misdemeanor; if I cause serious harm, it's a 2nd degree Felony.

If I kick the crap out of a black guy in Utah and the prosecutor can prove I did it because he's a black guy: it's a 3rd degree felony if I don't cause any particular harm, and if I cause serious harm, it's a 1st degree Felony.

Ergo, the black guy is more valued than the Norwegian.

Turn it around: a black guy kicks the crap out of the Norwegian BECAUSE he's a Norwegian and causes no particular harm, it's a Class A misdemeanor; if he causes serious harm, it's a 2nd degree felony. WHY? Because being Norwegian doesn't put you in a protected class and there are no counterexamples that I've ever been able to dig up.

WHY? Because the black dude is of more value than the Norwegian.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Living in the South, I have heard of several cases where white people were charged with hate crimes, but I don't ever recall ever hearing a minority ever being charged with a hate crime.

[frankenstein]

Don't need to rephrase or CFR if something is self-evident to the non-deluded.

I kick the crap out of a Norwegian American in Utah: I'm charged with assault and it doesn't cause any particular harm, it's a Class A misdemeanor; if I cause serious harm, it's a 2nd degree Felony.

If I kick the crap out of a black guy in Utah and the prosecutor can prove I did it because he's a black guy: it's a 3rd degree felony if I don't cause any particular harm, and if I cause serious harm, it's a 1st degree Felony.

Ergo, the black guy is more valued than the Norwegian.

Turn it around: a black guy kicks the crap out of the Norwegian BECAUSE he's a Norwegian and causes no particular harm, it's a Class A misdemeanor; if he causes serious harm, it's a 2nd degree felony. WHY? Because being Norwegian doesn't put you in a protected class and there are no counterexamples that I've ever been able to dig up.

WHY? Because the black dude is of more value than the Norwegian.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

nice try, but you need to show what you claim.

You claim "There are "hate crimes" statutes which value "protected classes" more highly than other people who find themselves victims of criminal predation."

You need to prove that a hate crime statute in and of itself is written to value a "protected class" over someone else.

Your complaint is about the application of a statute e.g. "and the prosecutor can prove I did it because he's a black guy"; so it sounds as though two things need to be done in Utah one, never trust 12 people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty, two get new prosecutors who will APPLY the neutral law in a neutral and consistent manner.

What are the protected class considerations in Utah, are any of these the "classes" race, color, disability, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, or gender. So "If the prosecutor can prove" you kicked the crap out of the Norwegian because of his national origin or ancestry, then its a hate crime (if the list herein is the list of considerations for hate crimes). that you can not find a case on the matter does not prove that a neutral law on its face is biased, you need to be able to distinguish between black letter law and the biased application of black letter law.

-----------------------------

it is interesting and disturbing that many of you are so quick to give exceptions to bullying/hitting. Yes, section 98, says a persons life - who has offended me thrice - is in my hands and I am justified, but the rule is turn the other cheek.

[Deborah]

You need to prove that a hate crime statute in and of itself is written to value a "protected class" over someone else.

Why do you think hate crimes were written if not to protect a certain group? Obviously you haven't read the news much.

[frankenstein]

Why do you think hate crimes were written if not to protect a certain group? Obviously you haven't read the news much.

your claims that I do not know what I am talking about are childish and boorish.

From the FBI:

Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

So who gets the special privilege under this definition? A Jew who hates Jews can by definition commit a hate crime against another Jew. A person of any particular color who commits an offense based on the victims color can by definition commit a hate crime. A mormon who hates mormons can by definition commit a hate crime against mormons. Can you show the special privilege in the black letter of the law?

There is a very important distinction - which is lost on many here claiming the "special privilege" mantra - between the black letter of a law and the APPLICATION of a law. That distinction is very important and until one understands the difference they are being dishonest in claiming "special privilege".

[USU78]

your claims that I do not know what I am talking about are childish and boorish.

From the FBI:

Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

So who gets the special privilege under this definition? A Jew who hates Jews can by definition commit a hate crime against another Jew. A person of any particular color who commits an offense based on the victims color can by definition commit a hate crime. A mormon who hates mormons can by definition commit a hate crime against mormons. Can you show the special privilege in the black letter of the law?

There is a very important distinction - which is lost on many here claiming the "special privilege" mantra - between the black letter of a law and the APPLICATION of a law. That distinction is very important and until one understands the difference they are being dishonest in claiming "special privilege".

If "minority on majority" or "minority on minority" hate crime prosecutions are so very plentiful, perhaps Francis can share one or two with us so as to demonstrate their abundance.

USU "Noticed Francis chose not to comment on minority setaside contracts and equal opportunity matters" 78

PS: Black folks are of more value to society than Norwegians, whether Francis chooses to acknowledge it or not. '78

[frankenstein]

If "minority on majority" or "minority on minority" hate crime prosecutions are so very plentiful, perhaps Francis can share one or two with us so as to demonstrate their abundance.

USU "Noticed Francis chose not to comment on minority setaside contracts and equal opportunity matters" 78

PS: Black folks are of more value to society than Norwegians, whether Francis chooses to acknowledge it or not. '78

lets examine what I posted, counselor.

"So who gets the special privilege under this definition? A Jew who hates Jews can by definition commit a hate crime against another Jew. A person of any particular color who commits an offense based on the victims color can by definition commit a hate crime. A mormon who hates mormons can by definition commit a hate crime against mormons. Can you show the special privilege in the black letter of the law? "

Counselor, can you show a special privilege in the black letter of the law? surely your years of learning and application haven't escaped you that a simple concept so difficult.

"There is a very important distinction - which is lost on many here claiming the "special privilege" mantra - between the black letter of a law and the APPLICATION of a law. That distinction is very important and until one understands the difference they are being dishonest in claiming "special privilege"."

you are the perfect and worst example of being lost on the very important distinction, and shamefully so counselor one would expect better.

You posted an example that only the bias in the APPLICATION of a law, not in the law as written.

If a prosecutor can prove motivation for a crime based on "protected class" then the prosecutor has a good case for hate crime. The law as written, pay close attention AS WRITTEN, states that motivation based on listed classes can be the basis for a hate crime, pay close attention again that is how the law is written. So as written the law applies to hate crime for self-haters of a class who victimize others in the same class based on the shared class status.

[urroner]

You posted an example that only the bias in the APPLICATION of a law, not in the law as written.

But, in reality, what is important is the APPLICATION of the law and not the written law. A written law that is not practice is nothing, but how the law is applied is everything.

[thesometimesaint]

I suggest if a white person feels that a black person is more valued than they are, try being black for a while.

[ERayR]

But, in reality, what is important is the APPLICATION of the law and not the written law. A written law that is not practice is nothing, but how the law is applied is everything.

As allowed to be applied by the courts.

[frankenstein]

USU "Noticed Francis chose not to comment on minority setaside contracts and equal opportunity matters" 78

did you also notice your inability to focus on the issue being discussed or did you want to derail the discussion?

---------------------------

urroner, yes a law that is not applied means nothing.

The bias in the application/enforcement of society, police, judges, prosecutors, juries, and possibly defense attorneys who do not fight the bias thus giving tacit approval.

hate crimes laws, nor the anti-discrimination legislation adopted by SLC, which the Church voiced approval of, does not create special privileges for one group more than another.