Should homosexuals be allowed to teach in Catholic schools?

[costargh]

A job is a job? I don't know?

[costargh]

I don't see how it's fair that the school gets to choose to discriminate against applicants. A qualified teacher should be able to be able to teach at any school of their choosing. Sexuality shouldn't be allowed to make a difference.

How about when they are teaching a subject that underpins a parents choice to send their child to a Catholic school?

[Mao]

I don't see how it's fair that the school gets to choose to discriminate against applicants. A qualified teacher should be able to be able to teach at any school of their choosing. Sexuality shouldn't be allowed to make a difference.

How about when they are teaching a subject that underpins a parents choice to send their child to a Catholic school?

that is only if they impose their belief on the child

how the teacher is feeling about what is being delivered should have no impact on what is actually being delivered, and how it is being delivered.

[costargh]

That seems to be the problem though. I don't have a problem with homosexuals working in Catholic schools but when they say something like "the Catholic belief is that homosexuality is wrong but just on a side not, I think its a load of shit", it should be quite clear to the school and the boards or whatever they have that something is seriously wrong.

[Eriny]

But the schools shouldn't be privy to information about sexual preference. Therefore, there is no problem.

[Collin Li]

I don't see how it's fair that the school gets to choose to discriminate against applicants. A qualified teacher should be able to be able to teach at any school of their choosing. Sexuality shouldn't be allowed to make a difference.

Here are some common examples: taxi drivers should be allowed to choose who they pick up and market stalls often price discriminate with foreigners.

You do not specifically have a right to a taxi or a right to what the market is selling. You do not have an inherent right to teach wherever you'd like either. They have to accept you. It is not a choice just made by one person - the school should decide which applicants become their staff.

[Rietie]

why would a homosexual person want to teach at catholic schools anyway, i'm pretty sure they don't believe in religion and since christianity forbids same sex intimate relationships, why would they bother?

Christianity does not forbid same sex intimate relationships. Catholicism is against same sex marriage (not sure about other religions under Christianity) not against the actual relationship - well, that's my understanding of it.

You should also be careful in stating the all homosexuals do not believe in religion. I'm pretty sure many homosexuals would be part of one faith or another. I know of a family member is a homosexual and that person is Catholic.

You also seem to be confusing Christianity with Catholicism - there are some pretty big distinctions between them. For a start, Catholicism is very conservative. Other Christian religions can be very progressive - some allow females ministers for example.

Another point is that while some people may be Catholic, they may not believe in the Church's teachings (I am one of those people). Therefore it is possible for a homosexual to believe in loving thy neighbour and be against the Church's position to abortion.

[Eriny]

I don't see how it's fair that the school gets to choose to discriminate against applicants. A qualified teacher should be able to be able to teach at any school of their choosing. Sexuality shouldn't be allowed to make a difference.

Here are some common examples: taxi drivers should be allowed to choose who they pick up and market stalls often price discriminate with foreigners.

You do not specifically have a right to a taxi or a right to what the market is selling. You do not have an inherent right to teach wherever you'd like either. They have to accept you. It is not a choice just made by one person - the school should decide which applicants become their staff.

But I don't see how sexuality should make a difference? A person has a right to privacy, and the schools should be obligated to let potential employees have that privacy (except for where factors that may actually affect their ability to be a teacher come into play such as pedophilia), and so it shouldn't matter.

Of course not everyone has an inherent right to be a teacher, but they shouldn't be stripped of that ability just because they're gay. Why should a person have to feel as though they aren't taken seriously for opportunities because of discrimination? Furthermore, if you're a minority being discriminated against, it's very difficult to make people give a damn. Minorities have very little power, that's why they are minorities. It takes a lot of effort and major change to rid society of harmful perceptions of minorities. This isn't just a couple of reports on A Current Affair (although they'd probably harm the cause), we're talking about decades worth of uprising and changes in social dynamics. And if you say it's okay to discriminate against minorities, then you will see a rise in discrimination against minorities. Anti-discrimination laws have helped the cause and have ensured that no group is cut-off from employment because they live in an intolerant society. The type of school is irrelevant - nobody should be refused to be employed on the basis on anything other than their ability to perform the job. Letting schools judge candidates on anything other than their suitability projects the idea that discrimination is reasonable, practically state sanctioned, and that it's okay to be intolerant. This is a ridiculous move to make, especially in the school sector where ideally you'd like young people to learn what they need in order to progress society, not to further racism/sexism/whatever.

And the examples given above don't prove anything. Just because discrimination happens, doesn't make it right. It's unfair to price discriminate with foreigners. It's unfair if a taxi drivers pick who they want to give a ride to on the basis of anything other than whether or not they are a paying customer. Everyone at least has the inherent right to be treated equally. Refusing to sanction this right is reprehensible.

[Collin Li]

Your proposal requires coercion - you need to coerce the taxi drivers, you need to coerce the sellers at the markets and you need to coerce the schools. There is no way to do this in a just way.

Why should taxi drivers be obliged to take home whoever wants a taxi? They shouldn't. It is their choice. Of course, they have a monetary incentive to, but if they ultimately decide that their preference overrides the monetary benefit of ignoring their preference, then it is okay. The same argument can be extended to sellers at markets and schools.

You also forget that the competition of the market deals with these factors quite well. Let us assume there is initially discrimination against homosexuality for no practical reason (e.g.: there are no statistics that show they are worse teachers), then employers will take advantage of the low cost that is assigned with them (due to low demand as a result of the initially assumed discrimination). The more cost-effective schools will thrive and survive - these are the ones that are willing to shed their discrimination for homosexual teachers in order to get cheap, yet effective teachers. This means that schools that have the objective at hand (providing a quality cost-effective education) will survive, while those seeking to propagate their own bigoted personal beliefs will not (they pay a premium for being too selective without increasing the quality of education that the consumers care about). Discrimination will always exist in some form, but on the whole, it is a problem that does not require the force of coercion. There is no point comparing the system to perfection when coercion does not deliver it.

There were some assumptions there:
(1) There are no statistics that show they are worse teachers.
(2) Consumers are not discriminatory.

If (1) is not true, then it is rational for employers to be more averse from hiring homosexual teachers. There is nothing wrong with favouring better teachers.

If (2) is not true, then the consumer may desire a homosexuality-free teaching environment. Parents should have the choice to send their children to schools without homosexual teachers if they want, and although it may be bigoted, they should be allowed to choose a school that flaunts a homophobic hiring policy. It is their choice, not yours.

[Collin Li]

At the same time:

It is in the best interest of the school to avoid finding out the sexual proclivity of the prospective teacher if it intends to avoid hiring homosexuals, at least for non-religious subjects, so that its students may gain the best possible education.

Exactly! Even if you have a problem with individuals discriminating each other, there is a big efficiency equilibrium that suggests discrimination will be stamped out (monetary incentive attached to it).

[Odette]

Christianity does not forbid same sex intimate relationships. Catholicism is against same sex marriage (not sure about other religions under Christianity) not against the actual relationship - well, that's my understanding of it.

Um just to point something out... they do forbid same sex intimate relationships. What's accepted is how they feel, but when they act on those feelings (by that i mean relationships, sex, marriage,etc) that is what Christianity is against...

[Eriny]

I think some people are forgetting just how profound and irrational discrimination can be. 'Science' used to be manipulated in order to prove that white people are smarter than black people; that same science claimed that women were inferior to men. Whatever compels religion to be discriminatory is probably even easier to manipulate than science which is the Bible - if you literally interpret the Bible you can't sit on a chair that a pregnant woman sat on (or something like that, I read it in a hotel once). Marginalised people are not going to stop being marginalised by the free market alone because there is outside, unfair interference - usually under the guise of scientific or moral 'fact'. What do you think the women's movements and the civil rights movements were all about? I repeat, in hiring employees, nothing but their ability to perform the job should be assessed. If the gay employee started overtly behaving against the Catholic religion in the classroom, it's reasonable to fire them - but only public behaviour should matter, not what one practices in their private life.

[Rietie]

Christianity does not forbid same sex intimate relationships. Catholicism is against same sex marriage (not sure about other religions under Christianity) not against the actual relationship - well, that's my understanding of it.

Um just to point something out... they do forbid same sex intimate relationships. What's accepted is how they feel, but when they act on those feelings (by that i mean relationships, sex, marriage,etc) that is what Christianity is against...

Huh... I thought Christianity was against the marriage of homosexuals and them having sex, not their having a relationship. Meh.

Does anyone actually know about all the religious of Christianity and their stances on homosexuality? I'm not exactly sure. I always through Catholicism was one of the most conservative and there were other ones that had more progressive views on homosexuality (including sex and marriage).

[Collin Li]

It is an abomination that there are bigoted individuals that choose to discriminate on irrelevant factors. However, what is more of an abomination is if we become arrogant and coerce them without giving them the freedom of choice to do what they would like with their own private property and contracts (their land, their school and their staff). We ought to persuade schools that discrimination is bad and unnecessary, but we should not force schools to adopt our views. We live in a society where freedom of speech is integral to a democratic society, not because a Big Brother regulates society to be democratic.

[beezy4eva]

Christianity does not forbid same sex intimate relationships. Catholicism is against same sex marriage (not sure about other religions under Christianity) not against the actual relationship - well, that's my understanding of it.

Um just to point something out... they do forbid same sex intimate relationships. What's accepted is how they feel, but when they act on those feelings (by that i mean relationships, sex, marriage,etc) that is what Christianity is against...

Huh... I thought Christianity was against the marriage of homosexuals and them having sex, not their having a relationship. Meh.

Does anyone actually know about all the religious of Christianity and their stances on homosexuality? I'm not exactly sure. I always through Catholicism was one of the most conservative and there were other ones that had more progressive views on homosexuality (including sex and marriage).

our religion teaches us that the main reason for any relationship is to reproduce, so any relationship where it is more for pure enjoyment rather than for the growth of human kind is seen as sinful. Since homosexuals can't have children thats why they fit into this category. Its also why christianity is against things like sex before marriage, infidelities, contraception, ect.

*note: just cause im catholic doesn't mean i actually believe this.