Re: teaching without bounds
 

As a comprimise can't they give parental choice, although I disagree with it, it is perferable to the current 'absolute NO'

Re: teaching without bounds
 

I think most most people know there's nothing sinful or evil about homosexuality. Whether Section 28 is removed ot not there will always be the hardcore minority who will be anti-gay. What with all the anti-racism measures in society, does it look like they are eliminating the problem?

Re: teaching without bounds
 

I don't think even blair is nyeve enough to believe he can elminate prejudice by changing the law. But imagine if the women rights laws were never changed because 'it won't change everyones opinons'

Re: teaching without bounds
 

But we're not talking about gay rights, which covers a broad definition of subjects.

Re: teaching without bounds
 

What if there was a law which prevented women from being told that they can get a career in maths and engineering? Or they weren't allowed to give guidance about how to apply?

Re: teaching without bounds
 

Not quite the same thing though is it...

Re: teaching without bounds
 

I was quite proud of that anology, what's wrong with it?

Re: teaching without bounds
 

Okay, the way I see it is why is there a problem with homosexuality being included in sex education?

What reasons are there for parents not wanting their children to know and understand different types of sexual relationships?

S.28 was a barrier to the issues being discussed/taught in schools, so without it being dropped then there would be no hope of children recieving education in these matters.

Re: teaching without bounds
 

There isn't a problem as such.

Because I want my child to be taught the more 'conventional' approach first.


So it shouldn't be up to the parents to teach them?

Re: teaching without bounds
 

Well said TW

Re: teaching without bounds
 

I'm not being funny now, I'm just interested, would you post the same if your views were about your kid/s being taught an alternative religion?

Why is it not the same?
:confused:

Re: teaching without bounds
 

And don't really exist in a proper sense! :(

Re: teaching without bounds
 

Perhaps a better query would be "What about if Clause 28 prevented sex education for heterorsexual kids"?

Re: teaching without bounds
 

But what does it mean to be taught? If you're child were to be homosexual, teaching them about the 'conventional' approach first is unlikely to be useful and cause confusion with their feelings. Educating them in a balanced way would seem to me to be far more helpful. If the child is heterosexual, then teaching about homosexuality is not going to do any 'harm' and will quite probably enable the child to be more tolerant of people in 'different' relationships.

Parents will always have an influence in their child's education, but state education exists for a reason...to shore up the differences in parents' teachings (i.e. some parents give none while others give plenty). Should it be up to parents to teach their children maths, or drama?

Teaching children about homosexuality is not telling them that they must become homosexual, it is about giving them the information that they need to follow their own path in life.

Re: teaching without bounds
 

I want what's best for my daughter and IMO Christianity is the faith I want her to have but I have no objection to her learning about other religions.

I'm not saying I don't want her being taught about homosexuality, I just want her to be taught about hetrosexuality first.

Do you really think a teacher's opinion is never seen in their work?

No - those are legitimate subject. Social skills (including tolerance) are what a parent should be responsible for.