Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Older primary school children are 11-12, not 7-9.
    a quick point, as i dont have time.

    primary school is from 4/5-11. bearing in mind a comparable infant school runs from 4/5-7 and then junior school is 7-11. i think the older primary school refers to those between 7-11 or at least 9-11.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    That's not unrealistic. Most figures I've heard suggest 10% of the population is gay. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people either gay or bisexual enough not to mind wouldn't be something like 16-20%
    I disagree. These are fantasy statistics. Gay propaganda.

    Even in Brighton, arguablyt the gay capital of England less than 2% of couples living together are same sex. I realize that this isn't the be all and end all of measurements but I think we can draw conclusions about your 20% figure based on this.

    From a personal point of view I must ask myself "how many people do I know"? Good question! 1000? 2000? I've never tallied them.

    But how many homosexuals do I know? Erm......2. Now, I'm not homophobic and don't go out of my way to avoid gays, (but nor do I frequent gay bars) so wouldn't you think I might know a few more than 2? (especially given how "in your face" the gay community is these days)

    I think your stats are optimistic on the part of the gay interest groups that publish them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no, it does not have the responsibility. it can help and provide pastoral support and knowledge(even to the parent if they are clueless), but the education of a child rests with the parent. period.
    and then the children of parents who will not or cannot will suffer as a consequence. is it not unfair to disallow a child moral education due to the downfalls of their parents?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    and then the children of parents who will not or cannot will suffer as a consequence. is it not unfair to dissalow a child moral education due to the downfalls of their parents?
    Pete: *cough* 'disallow' *cough*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    a quick point, as i dont have time.

    primary school is from 4/5-11. bearing in mind a comparable infant school runs from 4/5-7 and then junior school is 7-11. i think the older primary school refers to those between 7-11 or at least 9-11.
    *shrugs* Sweden has shown that you can succesfully teach sexual education from age 7 onwards. I don't know what you're imagining they teach but I doubt it's that full on. If you think you can refute the evidence then go ahead, but if we can reduce teenage pregnancy, abortion and STD rates then I think that's great, don't you? :confused:

    (Original post by Howard)
    I disagree. These are fantasy statistics. Gay propaganda.

    Even in Brighton, arguablyt the gay capital of England less than 2% of couples living together are same sex. I realize that this isn't the be all and end all of measurements but I think we can draw conclusions about your 20% figure based on this.

    From a personal point of view I must ask myself "how many people do I know"? Good question! 1000? 2000? I've never tallied them.

    But how many homosexuals do I know? Erm......2. Now, I'm not homophobic and don't go out of my way to avoid gays, (but nor do I frequent gay bars) so wouldn't you think I might know a few more than 2? (especially given how "in your face" the gay community is these days)

    I think your stats are optimistic on the part of the gay interest groups that publish them.
    Not all the gay community is "in your face." That's just a reaction to previous oppression. Like a nice big stretch after you've been sitting down for a long time.

    I know half a dozen gay people where I work, that's more than 10% of the people I know there.

    Hate to break it to you Howard, but you've probably met dozens of gay people and just never knew it. Here's a newsflash: most of them are just normal people who happen to be gay too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Not all the gay community is "in your face." That's just a reaction to previous oppression. Like a nice big stretch after you've been sitting down for a long time.

    I know half a dozen gay people where I work, that's more than 10% of the people I know there.

    Hate to break it to you Howard, but you've probably met dozens of gay people and just never knew it. Here's a newsflash: most of them are just normal people who happen to be gay too.
    I agree! It was not that long ago that it was illegal to be a practising homosexual. I think the reason that so many gay people are in your face is that they feel liberated and can openly express their sexuality.

    I also agree that there are many homosexuals who are not instantly noticeable. It’s just the way different people choose to express their sexuality. Personally, I don’t choose to wear mine as a sash although many of my dearest friends do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    very simply, one can't make judgement from ONLY what they see. this world is a huge one.

    is the percentage of homo-population really that matters? i'm just wondering even if the community grows over time, so does that mean homosexuality would break our society down just coz' the family value and birth rate greatly disturbed?

    I must admit that, hypothetically, larger portion of gay population would cause influence on the structure of family and on giving birth. I just don't believe that it will be prevailing over heterosexuals. it's still too far lagged behind.

    May sound crazy, but it may be a possible way-out for our dear overcrowded planet...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scottus_Mus)
    I agree! It was not that long ago that it was illegal to be a practising homosexual. I think the reason that so many gay people are in your face is that they feel liberated and can openly express their sexuality.

    I also agree that there are many homosexuals who are not instantly noticeable. It’s just the way different people choose to express their sexuality. Personally, I don’t choose to wear mine as a sash although many of my dearest friends do.
    Quite right. Plenty of heterosexuals are "in your face" too - you just have to go to a football match or clubbing on a Saturday night to notice that. Howard, don't you think gay people are equally offended when straight couples snog each other's faces off in pubs and in the street?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    Quite right. Plenty of heterosexuals are "in your face" too - you just have to go to a football match or clubbing on a Saturday night to notice that. Howard, don't you think gay people are equally offended when straight couples snog each other's faces off in pubs and in the street?
    To be honest I don't really like it when any couple snogs the face off each other! If i do that with my boyfriend I do it in the comfort of my own home and then I know that I don't make anyone uncomfortable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    Quite right. Plenty of heterosexuals are "in your face" too - you just have to go to a football match or clubbing on a Saturday night to notice that. Howard, don't you think gay people are equally offended when straight couples snog each other's faces off in pubs and in the street?
    I don't know. I don't think such public displays of affection are warranted by anyone. I'm heterosexual and I'M OFFENDED by heterosexual couples (or homosexual ones) eating one another and swapping spit in public.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't know. I don't think such public displays of affection are warranted by anyone. I'm heterosexual and I'M OFFENDED by heterosexual couples (or homosexual ones) eating one another and swapping spit in public.
    So why single out the 'gay community' for special attention?

    In fact, should we even say 'gay community'?

    Is there a 'straight community'?

    I don't think so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    So why single out the 'gay community' for special attention?

    In fact, should we even say 'gay community'?

    Is there a 'straight community'?

    I don't think so.
    I'm not singling anyone out. I just said I find such displays offensive regardless of participants.

    Perhaps this thread should not exist at all. If our aim is not to single out the gay community what are we doing discussing the increase in the numbers of gays in the first place?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm not singling anyone out. I just said I find such displays offensive regardless of participants.

    Perhaps this thread should not exist at all. If our aim is not to single out the gay community what are we doing discussing the increase in the numbers of gays in the first place?
    I don't think there has been an increase in the number of gay people. All threads like this are pointless. I guess how appropriate public displays of affection are should be another thread.

    I think Weasal showed himself to be a homophobe when he titled the thread. He presumed that there was some sort of 'homosexual crisis', that's pretty damn homophobic.

    It's just the dying squeals of the religous/conservative attitude to sexuality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    I don't think there has been an increase in the number of gay people. All threads like this are pointless. I guess how appropriate public displays of affection are should be another thread.

    I think Weasal showed himself to be a homophobe when he titled the thread. He presumed that there was some sort of 'homosexual crisis', that's pretty damn homophobic.

    It's just the dying squeals of the religous/conservative attitude to sexuality.
    Well, I don't know about that. What Weasal said was the homosexual community had increased threefold over the last 10 years.

    I imagine what he was driving at was that if this increase continued at this rate then before long so much of the population would be homosexual that the world would rapidly depopulate.

    Perhaps Weasal was referring to a crisis for mankind rather than a homosexual crisis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weasel)
    Figures suggest that the estimated gay population in Britain has increased 3 fold since 1993. There was approximately 3 540 000 gay people in Britain in 1993, in 2003 this figure has shot up to an astonishing 10 620 000!
    Are you sure of these numbers - that would make it so that every 1/6 people were gay (about 60 million in the country).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Are you sure of these numbers - that would make it so that every 1/6 people were gay (about 60 million in the country).
    I think these numbers are plain daft. Besides, 10 years is a very short time span which would indicate that many people suddenly became gay. What did they do? Wake up one morning and think to themselves....."Boy, am I bored of fanny, think I'll grab me a piece of man meat"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Boy, am I bored of fanny, think I'll grab me a piece of man meat"?
    Did you have to be so crude?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    It's just the dying squeals of the religous/conservative attitude to sexuality.
    not short on some inaccurate generalisations yourself. in what way is conservatism homophobic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think these numbers are plain daft. Besides, 10 years is a very short time span which would indicate that many people suddenly became gay. What did they do? Wake up one morning and think to themselves....."Boy, am I bored of fanny, think I'll grab me a piece of man meat"?
    It's just become more socially acceptable to admit to it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    and then the children of parents who will not or cannot will suffer as a consequence. is it not unfair to disallow a child moral education due to the downfalls of their parents?
    not its not unfair. the states only interest is to have an intelligent and/or able workforce, whether its fair that one child has a better education, better parenting does not effect the states obligations to each
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2004
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.