This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Parents withdraw kids from LGBT history lesssons.
Scroll to see replies
curryADD
Nor do they need pedophiles who would only do the same (and then act upon their indoctrination) to have their behavior recognized by society as Okay.
Thing is it'd just be adults putting their stigmas onto the shoulders of the next generation. Parents make their children paranoid there are "paedophiles" lurking round every corner as it is. People just need a childhood. You're really irritating.
In my opinion it is ridiculous that in a PRIMARY school they are teaching children this. They should teach it in secondary school at least from Year 8-onwards, without parents permission.
But this only applies, if it is definate that homosexuality is something you are born with, or whether it is your surroundings. If it is the first one, then sure, why not, but the second one I find it disturbing. We are trying to make an illness normal?
But this only applies, if it is definate that homosexuality is something you are born with, or whether it is your surroundings. If it is the first one, then sure, why not, but the second one I find it disturbing. We are trying to make an illness normal?
Pavlik
Why don't they teach kids something useful, like how to do multiplication and how to spell? To hell with 'LGBT'.
Seconded. Teach them something useful, not where to put your cock so you don't catch some disease!
What the hell is going on with the gov't in UK!!!!
Why did you call it 'LGBT' lesson? It blatantly wasn't that. Why is it such a buzzword?
Pfft. To be honest, I think parents should be able to say that when they find a lesson offensive they should be allowed to remove their child from it. It would be fine if this was a lesson on religion that they found offenisive, no-one would bat an eyelid. However, because it was about homosexuality, everyone is up in arms. It's ridiculous.
Pfft. To be honest, I think parents should be able to say that when they find a lesson offensive they should be allowed to remove their child from it. It would be fine if this was a lesson on religion that they found offenisive, no-one would bat an eyelid. However, because it was about homosexuality, everyone is up in arms. It's ridiculous.
If the kids are so young that they have to use Fairy Tales to educate them on history (how does that make sense?), then they're too young to understand.
When I learnt sex education, things were explained, in a friendly way, but just simply explained. If some story about toads has to be used to get me to understand then it's better to just wait until I'm older imo or until the issue comes up.
When I learnt sex education, things were explained, in a friendly way, but just simply explained. If some story about toads has to be used to get me to understand then it's better to just wait until I'm older imo or until the issue comes up.
I think LGBT history should be compulsory, and is an important part of a rounded education, but I also think it's important to draw the line somewhere. A friend (who is gay, incidently) recently alerted me to a disturbing radical movement that actually advocates teaching Q/P/whatever they're calling it these days. Polygamous relationships, bestiality, even paedophilia for crying out loud. Beyond the regular boundaries of homosexuality, bisexuality etc, it should be left to the kids to find out themselves in due course and make their own judgements rather than be confused by too broad a sexual education.
It concerns me how so many people are against this; we learn about civil rights every single year of our school lives, and suddenly we object to learning about gay rights? It's not like this is teaching them the ins and outs of homosexual sex, or whatever, it's raising awareness and appreciation for people who differ from the perceived "norm" of society. I, for one, am glad to see this, maybe we'll have one for other sexualities too.
Dionysus
I think LGBT history should be compulsory, and is an important part of a rounded education.
Oh come on! The whole ******* history of humanity, the battles, the principles died for and the great civilisations built... and you think they should be teaching about a bunch of gay blokes in New York who got kicked out of their illegal pub and had a fight with the police?
L i b
Oh come on! The whole ******* history of humanity, the battles, the principles died for and the great civilisations built... and you think they should be teaching about a bunch of gay blokes in New York who got kicked out of their illegal pub and had a fight with the police?
It's one of those rare moments that we agree on something
Pavlik
It's all part of the same politicising of education, civil rights/race is included in that. It seems that less and less useful teaching goes on in schools and kids are exposed to an increasing amount of indoctrination.
How's about kids have 5 minutes of one science lesson devoted to homosexuality, how it exists in other animals, how it is caused etc. They don't need someone's leftist ideology drumming into their heads 24/7.
That's not to say that all of the teachers are to blame of course, but it's a problem with our education system and many teachers are complicit.
How's about kids have 5 minutes of one science lesson devoted to homosexuality, how it exists in other animals, how it is caused etc. They don't need someone's leftist ideology drumming into their heads 24/7.
That's not to say that all of the teachers are to blame of course, but it's a problem with our education system and many teachers are complicit.
This isn't something reserved for a leftist ideology. On the contrary, this is the furthest away from indoctrination than you can get; are we teaching them Christian principles of believing homosexuals are sinning? No. I don't think this should be a fundamental part of the curriculum but it can do no harm.
It got to an extremely racist point at our school when one particular set of parents wanted to withdraw their child from learning about Islam in RE lessons, stating something like "Why would we want her to learn about them lot?"
Is it not a fundemental part of our lives to bring up our children in a world that is as relatively-free from prejudice as we can get it? Or those intelligent enough to see that prejudice just brings hatred along with it, so try to prevent it as much as possible, nevermind withdrawing your kid from a class, learning about things that are relatively unknown to them - their only impressions at that time of the subject at hand are those which the parent displays in regards to it.
Is it not a fundemental part of our lives to bring up our children in a world that is as relatively-free from prejudice as we can get it? Or those intelligent enough to see that prejudice just brings hatred along with it, so try to prevent it as much as possible, nevermind withdrawing your kid from a class, learning about things that are relatively unknown to them - their only impressions at that time of the subject at hand are those which the parent displays in regards to it.
Yuffie
Teaching primary school children about this is reprehensible. They have plenty of time to learn about it later in life without schools promoting this. I think if people are strictly religious and their religion disagrees with homosexuality it's insensitive to thrust it upon their children. It's the right of the parents at the end of the day.
The other thing is, what next? Children learning about safe anal sex when they're 7?
The other thing is, what next? Children learning about safe anal sex when they're 7?
Strange how you think it's fine for children to HAVE anal sex at 7, with a peadophile, but not learn about. Ho hum.
I think reading books such as the ones described, are perfectly fine, rather than making an issue out of homosexuality and presenting it as an issue to be taught.
Pavlik
They are presenting homosexuality as something normal. However it is not, it is abnormal.
It's abnormal only in so far as it's practised by a minority of the the population - just as a belief in god is abnormal in majority agnostic/atheist East Anglia.
Pavlik
Homosexuals are only 1% - 3% of the population.
That's not true. According to the government's own official statistics, over 6% of the UK population is openly gay or lesbian. In other words, there are more homosexuals in the UK than there are Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Scientologists and Jews combined.
Pavlik
The reality is that homosexuality is a perversion of normal human sexuality, as is paedophilia for example.
Why do adopt a normative stance with regard to heterosexuality? After all, the concept of heterosexuality - i.e. that people are inherently exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex, is relatively new.
Sexuality has always been seen as fluid.
Pavlik
Nor are homosexuals 'just the same' as any other group in society; for example their relationships are shorter and less stable than heterosexual ones, their sexual promiscuity is outstanding, they are known to suffer from more mental illness and they are responsible for a disproportionate number of child abuse cases.
Afro-Caribbean heterosexual couples also have shorter, less stable relationships than the average couple in the UK; heterosexual men are infamous for their sexual promiscuity - especially in pop culture; women of south Asian origin and Afro-Caribbeans also suffer from a disproportionate level of mental illnesses.
Pavlik
That does not mean to say that we should persecute homosexuals.
That's so kind of you.
Pavlik
However, part of the leftist agenda is to undermine the family unit and traditional social structure, and by promoting homosexuality they are doing just that.
Do you have any proof?
Pavlik
We can trace the results of such thinking; look at our society, look how the institutions of marriage and family have been damaged, see the grave consequences that this has had and is having for our society.
Causation does not imply correlation. Plus, there's nothing particularly 'wrong' about contemporary British society. We have never been more tolerant of different ethnic groups; women have never enjoyed the rights which they enjoy today; gay people are treated with dignity and equal treatment - all of which would have been unimaginable for gay people who lived in the past; crime is relatively low; and etc.
Pavlik
It's abnormal in any human society, religious belief is not.
Religious belief is abnormal in Sweden (and a number of other countries) where the majority of people are irreligious.
And homosexuality is considered normal in many parts of the world e.g. many parts of contemporary Western Europe, classical Greece and etc.
Pavlik
Source? 1-3% is a reputable statistic. 6% openly homosexual does not tie in with my personal experiences either, and the same goes for most others I should imagine.
1-3% is not a reputable statistic. You just pulled it out of thin air.
Here's the source you asked for: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/11/gayrights.immigrationpolicy
Pavlik
I'm not well acquianted with the history of sexuality. But if in general self-identified homosexual or heterosexual people are not exclusively attracted to one sex, we can certainly say that they are almost exclusively attracted to one sex.
Even if there is a relatively clear line between homosexuality and heterosexuality - which is debate e.g. ancient Greece, that's no reason to then go on and take a normative position with regard to heterosexuality, as you did in your earlier comment.
ps. I think most people would be in agreement that a middle-aged man who molests a 9 year old child would probably be regarded as a pedophile.
Pavlik
Fair comparisons have one variable, in this case homosexuality. I think you will find that with all other things constant, what I said is true.
Not really. You argue e.g. that homosexuals disproportionately suffer from mental illness, but you fail to explain why that may be - merely claiming that homosexuality per se is responsible for it. I would argue that - assuming gay people do indeed disproportionately suffer from mental issues - that this is due to bullying and discrimination.
Pavlik
That's quite a big thing to prove. But you could start here:
http://www.fifthinternational.org/LFIfiles/marxismandfamily.html
"Marxists understand the family unit, then, as a key structure through which the social oppression of women is perpetrated. It is necessary to capitalism because there is no other profitable means of ensuring the production and reproduction of labour power.
And because it plays this role for capitalism it should be no surprise that the ideology to justify the individual family – put yourself and your own first – enables capitalism to divide us. Fundamental divisions are created by the family because it is the material basis of the social oppression not only of women but also of youth and lesbians and gay men.
Youth are oppressed because they are completely dependent on the family and have few rights within capitalism. Economic dependence and the absence of democratic rights can, literally, imprison youth within the family unit, even where that unit is the site of violence, abuse and persecution against them.
Lesbians and gay men are oppressed because of the centrality of the family for capitalism. Any groups who undermine the monogamous, heterosexual “norm” of the bourgeois family are regarded as a dire threat to society and stigmatised accordingly.
Lesbians and gay men pose a threat to the ideology of the monogamous family unit. They testify to the fact that sex is a pleasurable experience in its own right, separate from the family unit. The price they pay for championing love and pleasure over the capitalist norm is not only being branded abnormal but of being deprived of democratic rights concerning child custody, recognition as couples where pensions and property is concerned, in housing allocation and so on.
Such divisions cannot be simply wished away. The capitalist family unit has to be challenged and replaced at both an ideological and practical level."
http://www.fifthinternational.org/LFIfiles/marxismandfamily.html
"Marxists understand the family unit, then, as a key structure through which the social oppression of women is perpetrated. It is necessary to capitalism because there is no other profitable means of ensuring the production and reproduction of labour power.
And because it plays this role for capitalism it should be no surprise that the ideology to justify the individual family – put yourself and your own first – enables capitalism to divide us. Fundamental divisions are created by the family because it is the material basis of the social oppression not only of women but also of youth and lesbians and gay men.
Youth are oppressed because they are completely dependent on the family and have few rights within capitalism. Economic dependence and the absence of democratic rights can, literally, imprison youth within the family unit, even where that unit is the site of violence, abuse and persecution against them.
Lesbians and gay men are oppressed because of the centrality of the family for capitalism. Any groups who undermine the monogamous, heterosexual “norm” of the bourgeois family are regarded as a dire threat to society and stigmatised accordingly.
Lesbians and gay men pose a threat to the ideology of the monogamous family unit. They testify to the fact that sex is a pleasurable experience in its own right, separate from the family unit. The price they pay for championing love and pleasure over the capitalist norm is not only being branded abnormal but of being deprived of democratic rights concerning child custody, recognition as couples where pensions and property is concerned, in housing allocation and so on.
Such divisions cannot be simply wished away. The capitalist family unit has to be challenged and replaced at both an ideological and practical level."
You're trying to dismiss the gay rights movement, feminism and the entire progressive left-wing movement with a quote from a radical segment.
croissantfever
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160067/Parents-face-court-action-removing-children-gay-history-lessons.html
First off, I don't want this thread to turn into a debate about the ethics of homosexuality.
How much control should parents have over what is taught in school?
How much is this true? Should parents have the right to withdraw their children from any lessons that they disagree with? Be it religious education, sex education, learning about LGBT people, the holocaust, evolution?
If they should, then what gives them the right? When they sent their child to a school, they basically entered into and agreement saying that the school could educate their child as the school saw fit. If they object that much, they can always have the child homeschooled.
Also, what do you think these parents are scared of that will happen to their children if the learn that 'some people are gay and that is OK'?
First off, I don't want this thread to turn into a debate about the ethics of homosexuality.
How much control should parents have over what is taught in school?
How much is this true? Should parents have the right to withdraw their children from any lessons that they disagree with? Be it religious education, sex education, learning about LGBT people, the holocaust, evolution?
If they should, then what gives them the right? When they sent their child to a school, they basically entered into and agreement saying that the school could educate their child as the school saw fit. If they object that much, they can always have the child homeschooled.
Also, what do you think these parents are scared of that will happen to their children if the learn that 'some people are gay and that is OK'?
Parents shouold have near 100% controll over what is taught in schools.
Thankfully I'm going to be rich enough to be able not to send my children to the governemnts marxist re-education camps.
Pavlik
My point was that homosexuals will always be a small minority in any society, but in a given society nearly everyone can be religious, and in fact that is the typical scenario. So homosexuality is inherently abnormal, religious belief only in a parochial sense.
We've established that gay people are a minority. So what?
Pavlik
And here is a more recent source saying 1-2%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576700/Just-one-in-100-tells-researchers-I'm-gay.html
Apparently that is the first actual government survey
"Only one in 100 Britons would describe themselves as gay, according to the first government research into the nation's sexuality."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505277/Six-per-cent-of-population-are-gay-or-lesbian,-according-to-Whitehall-figures.html
As we see here, the 6% figure was an untrustworthy estimate:
"A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said: "It is to my knowledge the first time the Government has released a figure of this sort, but it does come with caveats.
"It is based on a number of studies by different interest groups, but fundamentally there is very little reliable information about the size of the lesbian, gay and bisexual group."
Yeah, a real unbiased and reputable source. But of course the Guardian omitted this important information because it was inconvenient.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576700/Just-one-in-100-tells-researchers-I'm-gay.html
Apparently that is the first actual government survey
"Only one in 100 Britons would describe themselves as gay, according to the first government research into the nation's sexuality."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505277/Six-per-cent-of-population-are-gay-or-lesbian,-according-to-Whitehall-figures.html
As we see here, the 6% figure was an untrustworthy estimate:
"A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said: "It is to my knowledge the first time the Government has released a figure of this sort, but it does come with caveats.
"It is based on a number of studies by different interest groups, but fundamentally there is very little reliable information about the size of the lesbian, gay and bisexual group."
Yeah, a real unbiased and reputable source. But of course the Guardian omitted this important information because it was inconvenient.
You attack the source I've provided, by the survey you cite is no more accurate. According to the link you provided, a significant percentage refused to answer the question.
Secondly, there are countless people in the UK who are gay but remain in the 'closet'. So if you're trying to come to an honest estimate about the number of gay people in the UK, you should always add a few percentage points to a figure provided by a survey.
Pavlik
That doesn't change the fact that they are different in this way. But in any case bullying and discrimination doesn't explain away the prevalence of child abuse, the degenerate lifestyle etc.
The prestigious American Psychiatric Association states that "there is no credible evidence that lesbians and gay men are more likely to commit such offenses than others. Gay men and lesbians do not pose any particular threat to youth and should not be singled out or discriminated against in any manner."
Here's another source - the American Psychological Association - which is of the same opinion on this matter: http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31
And what do you mean when you say 'degenerate lifestyle'? Perhaps if you quit deploying emotive and prejudicial rhetoric when referring to gay people and put forward actual points to defend your views it wouldn't be so confusing.
Pavlik
No, it's just an example of leftist ideas about the family. You can do your own research and I think you will conclude that leftism is not favourable to traditional family life.
If by the 'traditional family life' you refer to a society where women were subjugated and gay people are actively marginalised, then yes, I guess the left is against the traditional family life.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
