I'm never one to cry censorship nor do I typically care to press the issue, but not today.

I think it's completely out of line and bigoted for an English teacher, paid to teach English and expose children to appropriate and relevant cultural topics such as food, music, greetings etc.
to come here and preach highly controversial and inappropriate topics to children. Any NET who disagrees should be fired. This is an issue for parents to discuss with their children, not YOU!

I'm assuming I received not only a warning but a threat, from the mods, for suggesting that homosexuality was a mental disorder.

Well, the APA amended homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. I believe it was fully removed in the 1980s.
To be fair, the DSM was said to be originally based on Religious scripture, meaning there was no scientific evidence or study to classify it as a mental disorder in the first place.
Do some research and look into the details of the study and methodology that the APA used to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. You'll find that:

- The APA's task force assigned to find proof that homosexuality wasn't a mental disorder was comprised of quite a few homosexual psychologists.

- The first key piece of proof came from Alfred Kinsey, a man who used imprisoned sexual offenders as his sample group for normative sexual behaviour and tried to get infants to climax. Wonderful fellow, I'd put him in the same group as Alister Crowley.

- The second came from Freud, particularly an experiment were Freud tried to turn a heterosexual woman homosexual by exposing her to homoerotic material. It didn't work and he concluded that sexual preference was innate.

I forget the rest of the evidence, but it was just as dodgy. Do a bit of digging for yourself if you don't believe me, it's not easy to find the journal articles exposing these things.
So, at best we can argue that there exists NO definitive scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is innate and natural or a mental disorder, or stress response as we see in the animal kingdom.

This means that it is perfectly reasonable to allow people to hold either belief. I said I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder and I will stick with it.
I don't hate gay people nor do I wish harm on them, I view them in the same way I'd view someone with depression, chronic anxiety or OCD, a person to be treated with respect, but not to be celebrated for their issues. I'll leave people to their ideologies, but will absolutely call them out should they wish to spread it to children, particularly when it's not their personal or professional place to do so.

As said in the beginning, I don't  easily cry censorship nor do I care to press these kinds of issues, but I ascribe to logic and if the mods are going to accuse me of using "homophobic language", they better articulate EXACTLY how I do so
in nothing less than a logical and concise fashion. I don't see how we can claim to destigmatise people who go through depression and other mental health issues while likening the suggestion that homosexuality is a mental disorder as
calling someone a sex offender; complete hypocrisy.

I don't take kindly to threats nor do I tolerate being bullied into embracing completely unscientific ideologies as objective truth.

So, mods, have the guts to articulate how I incited violence and hatred to others or follow through with your little threats. I stick to my principles.

.... But, invisible man says no.

.... But, invisible man says no.

Apples and oranges.

Nobody is discussing morality, the discussion is  whether someone should be ridiculed and bullied for suggesting that homosexuality is a disorder when there exists no evidence to refute their claim, or not.
If you have a logical argument to prove me wrong, I'd love to read it. I guarantee that courtesy and respect will be reciprocated if it is extended, so lets move past the edgy "invisible man" angle, I hope we're both
better and beyond that.

Leaving morality, religion and other such things aside and sticking to science and medicine, it would be hard to make a decisive case one way or the other.

Given that there is likely some genetic basis for homosexual behavior, it would be hard to define it wholly as a 'mental disorder' given its likely genetic prevalence, which would suggest some sort of evolutionary population adaptation. One would have to establish that this was a clear 'error' and that there was no evolutionary basis for it having some sort of benefit to the species (i.e. sickel-cell, and adaptation to malaria).

One could theorize that homosexual behavior prevents catastrophic social unit deterioration in times of mate availability, population and resource stress. If a population of hominids experienced a sudden die-off in females or males, homosexual behavior could allow that hominid population to maintain its social cohesiveness (and thus improve their chances of survival) vs. descending into fratricide.

Now that being said, that is not established scientific fact, only amateur speculative theory, but it is plausible that there could be a basis for it. However, it could in fact, NOT be an advantage in such situations or any situation (reduced population would be a primary one) and in fact, an outright 'error'. We just don't have enough information to make a scientifically determined case one way or the other.

One key thing is that for much of early human history and indeed into our relatively recent history (and even now to some extent), small population was NOT good for survival. Being few in numbers or alone DRAMATICALLY increased the chances of population die-off due to a host of factors. There's a reason exile was one of the worst punishments that could be inflicted for a long period of time. It was basically a slow death sentence for much of human history. You need groups of people to divide labor, procure food, reproduce, prevent natural or man-made predation, etc.

I didn't see the thread, but I would think that while cautioning against the presentation of such a lesson due to the potential professional consequences it could bring would be fine, broader discussion as to the nature of homosexuality within a moral or an assertive mental health diagnosis context is likely outside the TOS. Even my comment is probably at the edge (trying to be as neutral and non-moral judging as possible while encouraging people to be open to possibilities that challenge their assumptions- on both sides).

I don't hate gay people nor do I wish harm on them, I view them in the same way I'd view someone with depression, chronic anxiety or OCD, a person to be treated with respect

 I stick to my principles.

There's not really anything inherently homophobic about the discussion you're trying to prompt here. It's also a point you didn't make in the other thread. Nor was the other thread about that.  Instead it was an out of context, stand alone comment along the lines of "One of the things I like most about Korea is that it doesn't approve of this mental disorder." I suppose respect is different to everyone, but I wouldn't consider that very respectful.

There is a zero percent chance the lesson goes over well and a very large and real chance that there is serious punishment for it.

Is that good? Is that "fair?" Probably not, but one has to be pretty naïve to teach that here. It would be like me going to teach in Saudi Arabia and constantly talking about how beer is made and doing a vocab lesson on brewing techniques. It is NOT going to go over well. I imagine a very large chunk of Koreans don't genuinely care if a person is gay or not, but that's not the same thing as having a Pride lesson in an English class.

I think most people would agree with this.

There is no way that is what Aristocrat received his warning for. Multiple people brought up similar concerns. The comments were deleted because it went from "this lesson isn't going to go over well" to "keep your mental disorder out of Korea" to "In Canada, they let children identify as cats and eat food from the floor during lunchtime"

Yeah, but why didn't they just delete those posts that took the conversation well out beyond the lesson plan discussion?  That was irresponsible moderating.  In fact, that was the opposite of moderating.  Any naive teacher that does that lesson plan may be posting on here the next day asking "What can I do if my school won't give me a letter of release?"  A lot of those responses had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather the appropriateness of that theme for a lesson plan.  Right on topic. 

Yeah, but why didn't they just delete those posts that took the conversation well out beyond the lesson plan discussion?  That was irresponsible moderating.  In fact, that was the opposite of moderating.  Any naive teacher that does that lesson plan may be posting on here the next day asking "What can I do if my school won't give me a letter of release?"  A lot of those responses had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather the appropriateness of that theme for a lesson plan.  Right on topic.

I agree that they could, and probably should, have left the on topic replies. But as to the point of this topic, I don't think Aristocrat received his warning for his post related to the appropriateness of the lesson. Did you get a warning for your deleted post?

I agree that they could, and probably should, have left the on topic replies. But as to the point of this topic, I don't think Aristocrat received his warning for his post related to the appropriateness of the lesson. Did you get a warning for your deleted post?

Oh no, Aristocrat did his usual " I have no problem with XYZ,  but here's where I am better than you and here are the problems I have with XYZ" schtick.  That should've been deleted.  He didn't need to take the conversation that direction and no surprise Hangook jumped in.  I was just surprised he didn't work salaries into it.  Aristocrat's comments here doubling down on homosexuality as a mental disorder will probably get this thread removed soon.  We probably shouldn't waste too much time commenting as it will all disappear. 

 (If you wanna argue Hitler was great, this ain't the forum; if you wanna say critical race theory has become a problem in America, go for it, as that is an identified issue that is about ideas debated in the public forum.

Since you brought it up, are you saying Hitler wasn't one of the great figures of history?  I am surprised that a former journalist and a guy that makes a stink about language being used incorrectly would equate the word great with good or positive.  We do use it that way as in "great job" or I had a great day.  But, great means to have had an impact.  I remember an early adoptee of virtue signaling back in a university history class in the nineties getting all worked up because the T.A. had included Hitler as a great figure in history.  He was arguing that his local greengrocer was a greater man than Hitler.  Clearly didn't understand how the word is used.  I am pretty sure that when people reference the Great Depression or the Great Famine they don't look back fondly. 

Well, so much for following my own advice to not write too much on a thread that the mod from yesterday will likely come and remove.