Is this homophobia dressed up as parents' rights?

[GroundEffect]

Derek Smith said:

Hayek said:

NoNeed said:

GroundEffect said:

NoNeed said:

I think schools should focus on academic stuff, subjects such as relationships, religion and politics are better suited to the family

And you think parents would actually properly engage this stuff? Or just push their own opinions on their children (who will take it as gospel)?

This has served use well for many millenia, in fact it has made us the most dominent species on the planet.

Parents have a vested interest in their offspring and will do what they believe is right. 1 hour a week in a lesson at school will not change parental teachings, if anything it will become more dogmatic as it will start by "don't listen to what they told you".

Agreed. And I think the reasons given for LGBT related lessons are a pretext.

Some may find Peter Hitchens relevant this week (this stuff is becoming compulsory for children from age 5 next year).

The State Seizes Yet More Power From Parents - and it is the Tories who are responsible

Peter Hitchens said:

Revolutionaries love to indoctrinate children. You can look up yourself who said these words ‘When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

But it does not really matter who it was. It is horribly true, and it is what all these meddlers think, and why they are all so keen on getting control of schools and youth movements.

This week, they took a great step towards their goal, which is the eradication of all that is left of conservative Christian opinion in this country.

Some of you will be astonished (I am not) that it was a nominally Conservative government which last week announced the........ (continued)

Hitchens has never forgiven his brother for being more famous than he.

If the lessons are a pretext, and not aimed at trying for a more inclusive society, then what can this pretext be? To Hitchesn, it is the eradication of conservative christian opinion. It seems an odd logic. Teaching christian beliefs as fact and/or reasonable would be, quite clearly, indoctrination. All this initiative is aimed at is to try and make kids realise that an inclusive society is beneficial.

The meddler in this circumstance is Hitchens, and he meddles in everything. Well, everything that he thinks his brother would have supported.

To an extent, I pity Hitchens. Nothing but anger and resentment in his comments. But then, reading the content, I feel sorry for anyone who reads it.

Nasty man.

His brother still out-debates him today...

[stitched]

Why was I not supported during the protracted piss taking when my so called school friends discovered I had a girlfriend with red (not bloody ginger, whatever they say) hair, or a mate of mine who preferred ‘ample’ girls.
Because kids take the piss, adults do too.
I really do not care what your race, religion,sexuality, or politics are but if you cannot take a bit of flak defending those choices then ffs just don’t tell me.

[anonymous-user]

stitched said:

Why was I not supported during the protracted piss taking when my so called school friends discovered I had a girlfriend with red (not bloody ginger, whatever they say) hair, or a mate of mine who preferred ‘ample’ girls.
Because kids take the piss, adults do too.
I really do not care what your race, religion,sexuality, or politics are but if you cannot take a bit of flak defending those choices then ffs just don’t tell me.

Top bombing.

[Rivenink]

Thorodin said:

Talk about miss the point! It somewhat validates my criticism of the arrogance of self-appointed commentators who see nothing but problems that feed their misinterpretations. The problem lies not in the education of infant children but with those morons now past education who join the bandwagon of group hatred at 'differences' that come from a standpoint of ignorance and prejudice. There is no inherent sense of ridicule or hatred in an infant child's mind that needs a promotion of differing sexuality to resolve it. Until, that is, their elders show their own. The law has now progressed to having suitable force to gradually bring about the extinction of such hatred without this latest 'educational' experiment.

You're wrong.

You use the word "promotion". As if you think that kids are being taught that being LGBT is preferable. Your words reveal a potential thinking that homosexuality is a choice, and that exposing a child to the very idea of it might make them choose it. And since you're so opposed to the "promotion" of such a thing, it follows that you do not like the idea of kids "choosing" homosexuality.

Yes, people past the education age need to have their consciousness raised to understand better the LGBT community better, so they're not operating on dated stereotypes and ignorance; but this is harder to achieve than teach tolerance to kids. The older someone is, the more likely they are to be set in their ways and resist change.

You're right to say that children do not have hate or prejudice in their minds... they learn it from those around them as they get older. Parents are generally reticent when it comes to talking about sex and relationships with their children. So when it comes to LGBT, if they're not taught the facts about it at school, all they hear are the tired homophobic 'jokes' and make inferences from them.

The Equality Act is not an educational tool, it's only a statement that minorities are protected by law. It does nothing to change the minds of racists, homophobes and transphobes. Instead, they just feel victimised by political correctness.

[Rivenink]

stitched said:

Why was I not supported during the protracted piss taking when my so called school friends discovered I had a girlfriend with red (not bloody ginger, whatever they say) hair, or a mate of mine who preferred ‘ample’ girls.
Because kids take the piss, adults do too.
I really do not care what your race, religion,sexuality, or politics are but if you cannot take a bit of flak defending those choices then ffs just don’t tell me.

Race isn't a choice. No-one should have to defend the colour of their skin.

Sexuality isn't a choice. No-one should have to defend who they seek loving consensual relationship with.

Edited by Rivenink on Tuesday 5th March 14:24

[J4CKO]

Not sure why people think its promoting LGBT, even if it was actually a recruitment drive, with a really compelling presentation and video aimed squarely at converting kids does anyone think that would actually make a blind bit of difference to the eventual outcome ? I saw Army and RAF Careers videos, didnt join up, showered weekly with loads of other lads and never felt the urge of anything else other than to get dressed and get out of their as it smelt like the Monkey House.

Would every class of kids end up as 100 percent gay (or other choice that isnt a traditional heterosexual) and the species die out ? is that the concern ? 7.7 billion odd humans, 25 million extra already this year, we are breeding quicker than we are dying out so it really isnt that, and anyway, gay couples find a way which is a whole other debate that causes much froth.

Or is it a case of if you are gay, tough st, crack on its hetero only for you we cant have "Shame on the Family" or any suggestion that the chip off the old block isn't a rampant heterosexual, cant miss out on that son and heir.

[grumbledoak]

Rivenink said:

Your words reveal a potential thinking that homosexuality is a choice, and that exposing a child to the very idea of it might make them choose it. And since you're so opposed to the "promotion" of such a thing, it follows that you do not like the idea of kids "choosing" homosexuality.

Your own words are quite revealing, too. A distinct whiff of practiced campaigning, which is fine here but has no place in primary schools.

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

Your own words are quite revealing, too. A distinct whiff of practiced campaigning, which is fine here but has no place in primary schools.

Of the things said in the post what is unsuitable for a school?

[Rivenink]

grumbledoak said:

Your own words are quite revealing, too. A distinct whiff of practiced campaigning, which is fine here but has no place in primary schools.

If personal experience growing up gay in a school environment where homosexuality was taboo, a family life littered with homophobic 'jokes' and literally no place to turn to to understand my feelings comes across as 'practiced campaigning' then so be it.

My experience is anecdotal, but the data backs it up. LGBT youth are 4 times more likely to commit suicide, and LGBT people are more likely to suffer from mental illness like anxiety and depression in adulthood.

Do you have anything other than ad hominems?

Why do you think understanding and recognition of LGBT people should not have a place in schools?

[Ian Geary]

Thorodin said:

Lots of flag waving here, maybe by a predominance of victims of homophobia. Given the 'official' stats, allowing for a natural reticence, and allowing for a 10% bias from a frankly unrepresentative but frantic group of echo chamber fanatics, just how many infant school children have the foggiest idea what it's all about? It is indoctrination of immature minds and totally unnecessary. Aren't there better and more relevant starts for the inculcation of precious lives of children? One of those scary cases of 'if you aren't vigorously for us you must by definition be violently against and therefore beyond redemption and evil in the extreme'. I am eternally grateful my two beautiful children were not infected by this and other viruses. We should be ashamed of these false prophets.

This thread seems to lose its point in an attempt to look clever.

However, a couple of easy observation from me, both in bold.

Infant: point of order.

The school is primary aged, not infant. The difference is primary schools go from 4-11, whereas infants only 4-7.

An honest mistake maybe? Doubtful. I think the word was chosen purposefully. But correcting here as the phrase infant puts an incorrect slant on the age of the pupils concerned.


Indoctrination:

You're talking about the parents' religion of course? I can't see how you can't be.

A national curriculum promoting values is not indoctrination, under any definition.

Unless you are a parent with narrow (being polite) bigoted (being fair) views, and want to try and shut down legitimate discussion about why your views are narrow / bigoted.


Ian

[oyster]

stitched said:

Why was I not supported during the protracted piss taking when my so called school friends discovered I had a girlfriend with red (not bloody ginger, whatever they say) hair, or a mate of mine who preferred ‘ample’ girls.
Because kids take the piss, adults do too.
I really do not care what your race, religion,sexuality, or politics are but if you cannot take a bit of flak defending those choices then ffs just don’t tell me.

Where can I go to choose my race or sexuality? Do you know?

[anonymous-user]

oyster said:

Where can I go to choose my race or sexuality? Do you know?

Dunno about race but if you pop along to the binary non binary thread you can choose your sexuality and if you want to be a sister instead of a mister its as cool as cool can be.

[NWTony]

MrNoisy said:

amusingduck said:

Homosexuality easily trumps Religion.

If you removed all human knowledge and started over, being homosexual would still exist. The same cannot be said of any religion.

Couldn't agree more.

In fact, seems like quite a tempting proposition when you put it like that...

I don't believe that is true. Take away all human knowledge and a belief in something bigger, some creator will arise again, its human nature.

I'm a fairly staunch atheist btw,

[Troubleatmill]

But it won’t be the same Diety, profit. (See what I did there)

Something like 1 in 50 or so animals is homosexual.

So Sky Fairy can’t be that bothered about it.

[paua]

Troubleatmill said:

But it won’t be the same Diety, profit. (See what I did there)

Something like 1 in 50 or so animals is homosexual.

So Sky Fairy can’t be that bothered about it.

2% of sky fairies are also gay?

This whole argument should be resolved by a simple philosophy of "live & let live". I really don't care if someone is lgbt, straight or somewhere in between - it does not negatively ( or positively) impact my ( or your) life. Similarly, black, white or green from a red planet.
It does, however, negatively impact society at large, when someone is attacked/ denigrated for being outside of 2 std deviations ( see what happened there) of the bell-curve of life.

[Countdown]

Apologies if this sounds a bit harsh but, for those people who think this is wrong....why are you so scared about kids being taught about homosexuality? Are they that simple-minded that learning about LGBTQ issues is going to make them want to change their own sexuality? And even if they did, so what?

[amusingduck]

NWTony said:

MrNoisy said:

amusingduck said:

Homosexuality easily trumps Religion.

If you removed all human knowledge and started over, being homosexual would still exist. The same cannot be said of any religion.

Couldn't agree more.

In fact, seems like quite a tempting proposition when you put it like that...

I don't believe that is true. Take away all human knowledge and a belief in something bigger, some creator will arise again, its human nature.

I'm a fairly staunch atheist btw,

Religion in general would exist, but none of the ones we have currently would re-appear after the big reset

[Sticks.]

paua said:

2% of sky fairies are also gay?

This whole argument should be resolved by a simple philosophy of "live & let live".

Agreed.

Which is why I don't use phrases like 'sky fairies'. Imho it's just like the language used towards gay people in my youth. Same intolerance, different target.

Not picking on you, paua, it's widely accepted, but time we moved on.

[gregs656]

Troubleatmill said:

Something like 1 in 50 or so animals is homosexual.

So Sky Fairy can’t be that bothered about it.

This argument doesn’t work for the religious, as they generally accept free will to combat the problem of evil.

So being gay is a free choice (or a disorder), not something ordained by God. They also slimely say they condem the act not the actor in some cases, although I think this is mostly to appear progressive, but even so to act is a free choice.

Although none of the profits seem that bothered about it, so go figure.

[Russian Troll Bot]

"[the program] is telling us it's ok to be gay and muslim"
"our religious beliefs are not here to be changed"

As the crowd cheers. At least the admit it's because they hate gays.

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1103718078980997...