Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   teaching without bounds (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=4309)

kronas 18-11-2003 02:11
teaching without bounds
 
the controversial section 28 clause which forbids promotion of homosexual relationships in schools is to be abolished on tuesday

but kent council is to keep the clause

this has angered gay rights activists

"We have had tremendous backing from schools and parents across the county, who, while wanting to encourage tolerance, are also clear they want to see family, Christian and other religious and traditional values emphasised."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3277499.stm

im all for it not everyone is hetrosexual some find out they are bisexual or gay later on or do already know they are if your going to teach safe 'straight' sex to a group of people where maybe one or two do turn out to be homosexual/lesbian then safety/safe sex is a primary concern

Russ 18-11-2003 02:14
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Safe sex is a primary concern in any relationship.

kronas 18-11-2003 02:20
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
Safe sex is a primary concern in any relationship.

yep but you cant have the knowledge of other 'choices' that you make unless someone confronts you about them ofcourse you should know which way you swing.......

philip.j.fry 18-11-2003 02:34
Re: teaching without bounds
 
It's right to teach about all forms of sexual/romantic relationships in schools. We're living in a society that has many forms of interpersonal relationships and children need to know about all these to protect themselves (from disease etc) and to make their own choices about their lifestyles. Things like gender issues should be included in this education.

By ignoring it, Kent council are hurting the children in the schools, by ignoring it they are not making these issues not exist and are making it into a problem.

Graham 18-11-2003 03:43
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
Safe sex is a primary concern in any relationship.
Absolutely.

But if the type of relationship you want to have isn't even *discussed* in case that's considered to be "promotion" of it, then you may be denied vital information about the Safe (or, rather "Safer") Sex message.

aliferste 18-11-2003 08:59
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Its not as if the removal of Clause 28 is going to stuff homosexuality down Kids throats!

All they have to do is turn on the telly or open a magazine !

There are a large number of teenage boys that commit suicide due to sexuality issues. t least this might make them think a little more !

ic14 18-11-2003 10:47
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Well as a Bisexual i think the removal of clause 28 is a ggod thing, which is why i think kent councils decsion is strange.

Russ 18-11-2003 10:48
Re: teaching without bounds
 
I say keep Section 28 and get all the kids on to nthellworld.co.uk - after all there's enough 'armchair experts' on here to teach them the ways of the world :D

timewarrior2001 18-11-2003 10:51
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
It's right to teach about all forms of sexual/romantic relationships in schools. We're living in a society that has many forms of interpersonal relationships and children need to know about all these to protect themselves (from disease etc) and to make their own choices about their lifestyles. Things like gender issues should be included in this education.

By ignoring it, Kent council are hurting the children in the schools, by ignoring it they are not making these issues not exist and are making it into a problem.
Its right to teach children about all forms of sexual relationships IF their parenst consent to it.
Kent council are doing what they think is right and having being informed byu parents that thye want a christian way of life taught to their children the council is standing by the parents wishes.
I would not want my young child to be taught all about homosexual relationships at a young age, I dont even think I would want them being taught about hetrosexual relationships at a young age.

Now before I get accused of being homophobic, I dont htink its wrong, I dont think its right either, its a matter of choice. Now if homosexuality is a matter of choice then parents have the right of choice to have thier children taught in a manner that they wish.

Shaun 18-11-2003 10:55
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
I say keep Section 28 and get all the kids on to nthellworld.co.uk - after all there's enough 'armchair experts' on here to teach them the ways of the world :D

Theres nothing armchair about my experiences Russ :naughty:

timewarrior2001 18-11-2003 10:57
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliferste

There are a large number of teenage boys that commit suicide due to sexuality issues. t least this might make them think a little more !
I suspect you will find that they dont commit suicide because they are gay, they do so because they suffer ignorance and intollerance.

Recent moves will not make people look at homosexuality any different, I dont openly go around displaying that I am hetrosexual and I think its not too much to expect homosexual people to be discreet either. But as always you get a minority, Gay rights people can have a chip on their shoulders and they say be openly gay......why? is the man walking down the road there openly hetrosexual, or is he gay, is the teahcer of your child hetrosexual or is she a lesbian? What ****ing difference does it make? what difference is there whether or not this clause is lifted or not? Tolerance will only happen when extremes are stopped and this counts for both parties. For instance kids can see Gay pride, but god help anyone that started "Hetro Pride" while these differences are allowed bigotry will continue, whether or not the clause is lifted.

downquark1 18-11-2003 11:22
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
What ****ing difference does it make? what difference is there whether or not this clause is lifted or not? Tolerance will only happen when extremes are stopped and this counts for both parties. For instance kids can see Gay pride, but god help anyone that started "Hetro Pride" while these differences are allowed bigotry will continue, whether or not the clause is lifted.
The is like current society which now sees being black 'cooler' than being white - in America at least.

Graham 18-11-2003 13:00
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
Its right to teach children about all forms of sexual relationships IF their parenst consent to it.
Pardon me if I disagree. This sounds the same as "it's right to teach children about Darwin IF their parents consent to it".

Do you want to *educate* children or *indoctrinate* them? If you want the former, you give them the facts and let them decide. If you want the latter you say "this is how it is, don't ask questions".

I can't see any advantage in the latter except to preseve the "power base" of a group that is becoming increasingly isolated.

Quote:
Kent council are doing what they think is right
Kent council are pandering to the prejudices of homophobes.

Quote:
and having being informed byu parents that thye want a christian way of life taught to their children the council is standing by the parents wishes.
And what about those who *aren't* christian and would prefer that their children get taught *all* the facts? Why should the majority suffer for the beliefs of what is now most certainly (and you can argue this all you want, but you know it's true) a minority?

Quote:
I would not want my young child to be taught all about homosexual relationships at a young age, I dont even think I would want them being taught about hetrosexual relationships at a young age.
What do you call a "young age"? 5? 7? 11? 13? 16? Where do *you* draw the line? Ideally, of course, the "right age" is the age at which *the child* starts asking questions, but that will vary from child to child, so a decision has to be made somewhere along the line.

Personally I think the right time is to teach children *before* they actually *need* the knowledge, rather than *after*. Sex education (and, more importantly, and something we sadly lack in this country *relationship* education*) should begin *before* puberty and continue *during* that time so that when they need it, they'll have it.

(To those who argue that "if we don't teach them about it, they won't do it", my response is that that makes as much sense as "if I don't teach my child to swim they won't go near the water, fall in and drown"!)

Quote:
Now before I get accused of being homophobic, I dont htink its wrong, I dont think its right either, its a matter of choice. Now if homosexuality is a matter of choice then parents have the right of choice to have thier children taught in a manner that they wish.
But homosexuality is *NOT* a "matter of choice"! Someone doesn't sit down at age 14 and say "hey, I think I'll fancy another boy/ girl, that's a good idea!", they find themselves *drawn* to the same sex, for reasons which are completely beyond them.

Now the question is what happens then. If they have been *taught* that it is not "unnatural" or "sinful" or "evil" or whatever to feel this way and that people to talk to and information about how they feel is available (which is *not* "promotion" of homosexuality as an "alternative" style of relationship) then they will be saved at least *some* of the anxiety and stress and suffering that otherwise they would encounter because of Section 28 et al.

So, do you want these children to suffer?

Graham 18-11-2003 13:02
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
I say keep Section 28 and get all the kids on to nthellworld.co.uk - after all there's enough 'armchair experts' on here to teach them the ways of the world :D
Well I say it's a bloody good job that there *ARE* people who are willing to give out the information that these children so desperately *need* to help them understand what they are feeling.

It's just a damned shame that they are *forced* to go to "alternate" sources of information because the ones that are *supposed* to supply the information have let them down so badly due to the homophobic legislation of Section 28.

dr wadd 18-11-2003 13:41
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
I say keep Section 28 and get all the kids on to nthellworld.co.uk - after all there's enough 'armchair experts' on here to teach them the ways of the world :D
Section 28 is nothing more than legislated bigotry. I believe that if people are introduced to the concept of these issues at a young enough age, in a *neutral* fashion then you will end up with a society that is a lot more tolerant of the different lifestyles that people lead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
But homosexuality is *NOT* a "matter of choice"! Someone doesn't sit down at age 14 and say "hey, I think I'll fancy another boy/ girl, that's a good idea!", they find themselves *drawn* to the same sex, for reasons which are completely beyond them.
My personal opinion is that all humans are initially bisexual, but for whatever reason, societal pressures push them one way or the other, be it straight, gay or bi. We are after all a hedonistic species. Homosexual activity is now very well documented within the animal world, and at the end of the day we are nothing more than animals.

downquark1 18-11-2003 13:45
Re: teaching without bounds
 
I don't see why it shouldn't be taught. They will find out about Homosexuality from soaps (remember corry is on at 7:30), shows like Friends and newer shows like Will and Grace (bad as the show is). Do you want this to be their ownly source of information about it?

Quote:
My personal opinion is that all humans are initially bisexual, but for whatever reason, societal pressures push them one way or the other, be it straight, gay or bi. We are after all a hedonistic species.
I'd have to disagree, simply because people where still homosexual when they would have been killed for it. But of course it's your opinion.

timewarrior2001 18-11-2003 14:26
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Pardon me if I disagree. This sounds the same as "it's right to teach children about Darwin IF their parents consent to it".

Do you want to *educate* children or *indoctrinate* them? If you want the former, you give them the facts and let them decide. If you want the latter you say "this is how it is, don't ask questions".

I can't see any advantage in the latter except to preseve the "power base" of a group that is becoming increasingly isolated.



Kent council are pandering to the prejudices of homophobes.



And what about those who *aren't* christian and would prefer that their children get taught *all* the facts? Why should the majority suffer for the beliefs of what is now most certainly (and you can argue this all you want, but you know it's true) a minority?



What do you call a "young age"? 5? 7? 11? 13? 16? Where do *you* draw the line? Ideally, of course, the "right age" is the age at which *the child* starts asking questions, but that will vary from child to child, so a decision has to be made somewhere along the line.

Personally I think the right time is to teach children *before* they actually *need* the knowledge, rather than *after*. Sex education (and, more importantly, and something we sadly lack in this country *relationship* education*) should begin *before* puberty and continue *during* that time so that when they need it, they'll have it.

(To those who argue that "if we don't teach them about it, they won't do it", my response is that that makes as much sense as "if I don't teach my child to swim they won't go near the water, fall in and drown"!)



But homosexuality is *NOT* a "matter of choice"! Someone doesn't sit down at age 14 and say "hey, I think I'll fancy another boy/ girl, that's a good idea!", they find themselves *drawn* to the same sex, for reasons which are completely beyond them.

Now the question is what happens then. If they have been *taught* that it is not "unnatural" or "sinful" or "evil" or whatever to feel this way and that people to talk to and information about how they feel is available (which is *not* "promotion" of homosexuality as an "alternative" style of relationship) then they will be saved at least *some* of the anxiety and stress and suffering that otherwise they would encounter because of Section 28 et al.

So, do you want these children to suffer?
OK I'll agree to disagree with you.
I'll also state that if I find out my child has been FORCEFULLY taught about homosexual relationships which include details about sexual relationships too I will withdraw my child from school. If my child was to ask me about homosexuality I would do my best to ensure they were given the facts.

If my child is forcefully taught religion I will do the same thing.
If my child then asks to be baptised they can be with my blessing.

I was allowed to make choices for myself, I was never taught about homosexuality, I dont disciminate against homsexuals and I dont hate them. Where is the problem with this ruling? I was educated in a time where it was sociallu acceptable to pick on someon for being gay, even to use violence against them. Do I do that now? no. There simply is NO need to lift this clause.

dr wadd 18-11-2003 14:31
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
I'd have to disagree, simply because people where still homosexual when they would have been killed for it. But of course it's your opinion.
I take your point on board, but that logic also applies to murderers where there is the death penalty. The societal pressures at play could be more subtle than simply "this is bad, don`t do it".

I've often wondered whether if you analyse the number of homosexuals within any given society or culture whether you can make direct correlations with other social aspects prevalent at the time.

downquark1 18-11-2003 14:54
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Here's an interesting article (it is a few years old) http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge...ml?record=8697

But the cause of homosexuality is a debate for another thread

Russ 18-11-2003 18:37
Re: teaching without bounds
 
As a parents, we want what we think is best for our children. My own view is that they should be taught about hetro relationships primarily and only about homosexual issues if the parents agree. We don't need the enforcement or removal of Section 28 to encourage our children to tolerate and accept homosexuals.

dr wadd 18-11-2003 18:53
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
As a parents, we want what we think is best for our children. My own view is that they should be taught about hetro relationships primarily and only about homosexual issues if the parents agree. We don't need the enforcement or removal of Section 28 to encourage our children to tolerate and accept homosexuals.
In this instance, I`m assuming that this decision has been made on the basis of your religious grounds (correct me if I`m wrong). But what if the parents object out of sheer hate, because the parents themselves were homophobic? Would you agree that in this situation the parents should have the right to determine what is and isn`t taught? I would have thought that those conditions have the potential to reinforce the predujice within the child, rather than giving them a balanced outlook on the world.

kronas 18-11-2003 18:58
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
As a parents, we want what we think is best for our children. My own view is that they should be taught about hetro relationships primarily and only about homosexual issues if the parents agree.
yep i think they should be taught both regardless of the parents wishes but if they want there children to opt out then i accept that

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
We don't need the enforcement or removal of Section 28 to encourage our children to tolerate and accept homosexuals.
i see the lifting of the ban as something thats a positive atleast it can be talked about maybe the negativity in some childrens minds can be addressed in the classroom

Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
OK I'll agree to disagree with you.
I'll also state that if I find out my child has been FORCEFULLY taught about homosexual relationships which include details about sexual relationships too I will withdraw my child from school. If my child was to ask me about homosexuality I would do my best to ensure they were given the facts.

If my child is forcefully taught religion I will do the same thing.
If my child then asks to be baptised they can be with my blessing.
i see religion has affected your ability to see the light :D



Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
I was allowed to make choices for myself, I was never taught about homosexuality, I dont disciminate against homsexuals and I dont hate them. Where is the problem with this ruling? I was educated in a time where it was sociallu acceptable to pick on someon for being gay, even to use violence against them. Do I do that now? no. There simply is NO need to lift this clause.
i can see your way now :rolleyes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
My personal opinion is that all humans are initially bisexual, but for whatever reason, societal pressures push them one way or the other, be it straight, gay or bi.

i disagree i think its part of the growing up process you will know what your preference is society will not affect someone who is homosexual

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
And what about those who *aren't* christian and would prefer that their children get taught *all* the facts? Why should the majority suffer for the beliefs of what is now most certainly (and you can argue this all you want, but you know it's true) a minority?
your absolutely right i dont want half the facts i want all the facts

Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
Its right to teach children about all forms of sexual relationships IF their parenst consent to it.
sex education is part of the curriculum isnt it ?

so if you leave it to parents do you really think parents are going to take the responsibility to teach there children about sex i see some parents are doing
an excellent job of keeping there kids on the straight and narrow these days :rolleyes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
I would not want my young child to be taught all about homosexual relationships at a young age, I dont even think I would want them being taught about hetrosexual relationships at a young age.
sex education is vital to a young persons education IMO if you look in to the teenage pregnancy rates they are high im not saying all those people did not know the consequences of there actions but some have no clue at what they are getting in to

philip.j.fry 18-11-2003 19:13
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
As a parents, we want what we think is best for our children. My own view is that they should be taught about hetro relationships primarily and only about homosexual issues if the parents agree. We don't need the enforcement or removal of Section 28 to encourage our children to tolerate and accept homosexuals.
I agree that the removal of Section 28 is not directly related to tolerance and acceptance. But people cannot choose their child's sexuality for them, children need all of the facts so that they can protect themselves on their chosen course in life. I fail to see any dangers in educating children in all issues of sexuality.

Russ 18-11-2003 19:27
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
In this instance, I`m assuming that this decision has been made on the basis of your religious grounds (correct me if I`m wrong). But what if the parents object out of sheer hate, because the parents themselves were homophobic? Would you agree that in this situation the parents should have the right to determine what is and isn`t taught? I would have thought that those conditions have the potential to reinforce the predujice within the child, rather than giving them a balanced outlook on the world.
No, I've always had these views irregardless of my faith. If the parents are homophobic themselves then they need to be educated just as well.

ic14 18-11-2003 19:33
Re: teaching without bounds
 
OK my 2 pennys worth.....
If Section 28 was abolished while i was in school, i wouldnt have spent nights at home worrying so much.....
I think it can only be a good thing. But i respect what some people are saying here, that some parents may not want their kids learning about Homosexuality, so i guess there culd be some kind off opt out system?

dr wadd 18-11-2003 19:34
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
No, I've always had these views irregardless of my faith. If the parents are homophobic themselves then they need to be educated just as well.
But how can you enforce teaching for the parents if you are unwilling to enforce education for the children?

This next bit isn`t directed at you specifically, but is related to a comment you made, which was that you had always held those views. Those views aren`t present at birth, so they had to be impressed upon the individual at some point. This implies that either through accident or design someone has taught the child that homosexuality is wrong (the magnitude of that opinion obviously differing for each specific case). A large part of our society is teach another large part of our society that somone is less worthy (for want of a better term) merely because of their sexual orientation. I don`t see that as a particularly progressive approach.

I expect I`ll be asked this, but I can honestly say that I have never held the view that homosexuality is in any way incorrect. I first became aware of it at around the age of 10, and at that time my mother explained to me there was nothing wrong with it and it is perfectly natural.

dr wadd 18-11-2003 19:41
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ic14
But i respect what some people are saying here, that some parents may not want their kids learning about Homosexuality, so i guess there culd be some kind off opt out system?
I think those are the parents we need to worry about the most. To give them the option to attempt to ensure that their children do not learn about a specific aspect of the world forces one to question why they want to take that attitude. If it comes from homophobia and hate then I think that these children of all could benefit from a balanced and honest look at all aspects.

Russ 18-11-2003 19:46
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
This next bit isn`t directed at you specifically, but is related to a comment you made, which was that you had always held those views. Those views aren`t present at birth, so they had to be impressed upon the individual at some point. This implies that either through accident or design someone has taught the child that homosexuality is wrong
Not quite - I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong per se - but the majority of the population are straight therefore hetrosexuality is more 'normal' - and I use that word to describe the prevailing status quo and NOT in a derogatory way. Perhaps 'common' or 'conventional' would be of better use. Nobody put this view in to me, it came from my own observations of the world.

dr wadd 18-11-2003 19:54
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
Not quite - I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong per se - but the majority of the population are straight therefore hetrosexuality is more 'normal' - and I use that word to describe the prevailing status quo and NOT in a derogatory way. Perhaps 'common' or 'conventional' would be of better use. Nobody put this view in to me, it came from my own observations of the world.
But surely, that begs the question, why is it more common? Nature or nuture? The ancient Greeks were well known for their homosexual activity. If it nature, I personallys struggle to believe that something could have changed in our genetic structure so radically in the last 2000 years or so to turn the balance so drastically. The upshot of this viewpoint is that it would suggest that it is more nuture than nature, so at some point it must have been considered to be "wrong". This has propogated through the ages to the point where homosexuality, by one definition of the word is not considered "normal". The problem is that other people can interpret the concept of "normal" differently, and this results in an intolerance for homosexuals.

ic14 18-11-2003 19:58
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
I think those are the parents we need to worry about the most. To give them the option to attempt to ensure that their children do not learn about a specific aspect of the world forces one to question why they want to take that attitude. If it comes from homophobia and hate then I think that these children of all could benefit from a balanced and honest look at all aspects.
yeah thats true.
But the thing is will there ever stop being homophobics? I think it will be the same as with racists and sexists. No.
Whichc is a damn shame tbh

Bex 18-11-2003 19:59
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ic14
<snip>OK my 2 pennys worth.....
If Section 28 was abolished while i was in school, i wouldnt have spent nights at home worrying so much.....
i think that more information should be available to kids..................maybe they should be introduced into schools in PD lessons fromt he age of 14 maybe....info should be available...

my best mate went through a similar thing ic14.....he realised he was homosexual when he was about 16, after battling with it, but only ever admitted it to the school counsellor, i had known for years that he was, but he only admitted it to me a year or so ago, he made himself sick, through panicing about telling me, and ended up getting completely trashed before he would admit it................


ok if i dont make any sense im sorry, im exhausted and have a killer headache

ic14 18-11-2003 20:09
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bexy
i think that more information should be available to kids..................maybe they should be introduced into schools in PD lessons fromt he age of 14 maybe....info should be available...
That would be a very good idea. Unfortunatly i dont think it would happen

Quote:
Originally Posted by bexy
my best mate went through a similar thing ic14.....he realised he was homosexual when he was about 16, after battling with it, but only ever admitted it to the school counsellor, i had known for years that he was, but he only admitted it to me a year or so ago, he made himself sick, through panicing about telling me, and ended up getting completely trashed before he would admit it................
I think thats what happens to most people.... One my friends was like that when he told me

Quote:
Originally Posted by bexy
ok if i dont make any sense im sorry, im exhausted and have a killer headache
Hope your headache gets better:)

Bex 18-11-2003 20:19
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ic14
That would be a very good idea. Unfortunatly i dont think it would happen

I think thats what happens to most people.... One my friends was like that when he told me

Hope your headache gets better:)
well i think we need to become more open......
when i taught sex ed, we were allowed to mention homosexuals but we were only allowed to talking about hetrosexual sex and relationships......:erm:

thanks ic14 about the headache :)

Paul 18-11-2003 21:50
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Why is it people who disagree with a particular view are labelled as a racist, or sexist or homophobic or any other multitude of labels and told they need "educating".

Surely in a free world everyone is entitled to their own views. What makes one groups view any more right than anothers ?

Maggy 18-11-2003 22:04
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronas
the controversial section 28 clause which forbids promotion of homosexual relationships in schools is to be abolished on tuesday

but kent council is to keep the clause

this has angered gay rights activists

"We have had tremendous backing from schools and parents across the county, who, while wanting to encourage tolerance, are also clear they want to see family, Christian and other religious and traditional values emphasised."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3277499.stm

im all for it not everyone is hetrosexual some find out they are bisexual or gay later on or do already know they are if your going to teach safe 'straight' sex to a group of people where maybe one or two do turn out to be homosexual/lesbian then safety/safe sex is a primary concern
It's about time.Hopefully us teachers can now address sex education properly without having to go around the houses.It's very :welcome:

Incog.insert teacher smiley here. :)

Stuart 18-11-2003 22:04
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
I say keep Section 28 and get all the kids on to nthellworld.co.uk - after all there's enough 'armchair experts' on here to teach them the ways of the world :D
:disturbd:

You aren't referring to the Origin of Aids thread by any chance?

I personally think that those that want to experiment with gay sex, will, regardless of whether it is promoted or not. Clause 28 doesn't make much difference to that.

It does, however, stop teachers teaching safe gay sex.


I say get rid of Clause 28..

Russ 18-11-2003 23:03
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scastle
:disturbd:

You aren't referring to the Origin of Aids thread by any chance?
No.

Quote:
I personally think that those that want to experiment with gay sex, will, regardless of whether it is promoted or not. Clause 28 doesn't make much difference to that.
Absolutely.

Quote:
Why is it people who disagree with a particular view are labelled as a racist, or sexist or homophobic or any other multitude of labels and told they need "educating".
A VERY good point. However the 'educating' I referred to was against intolerance and persecution.

Quote:
The problem is that other people can interpret the concept of "normal" differently, and this results in an intolerance for homosexuals.
This is why I stressed my perception of it.

Graham 19-11-2003 00:25
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
if I find out my child has been FORCEFULLY taught about homosexual relationships which include details about sexual relationships too I will withdraw my child from school. If my child was to ask me about homosexuality I would do my best to ensure they were given the facts.

If my child is forcefully taught religion I will do the same thing.
If my child then asks to be baptised they can be with my blessing.
What is this "forcefully" business? Are they "forcefully" taught about maths or history or biology?

The difference is that if the teaching they get is *one sided* without any "on the other hand" opinions or "this also happens", then I, for one, would have a problem.

Quote:
Where is the problem with this ruling? I was educated in a time where it was sociallu acceptable to pick on someon for being gay, even to use violence against them. Do I do that now? no. There simply is NO need to lift this clause.
Do others, however? You better believe they do! Children and adults are still persecuted for their sexuality. Teachers and MPs have been hounded from their jobs for being gay.

The point is that this ridiculous ruling says you should not "promote" homosexual lifestyles as an "alternative" to straight ones, but "promote" is so vague it's like "obscene" being described as "liable to corrupt or deprave", ie it can be made to mean anything that anyone *wants* it to.

So the practical upshot is that teachers don't want to take the risk of saying *anything* that could be seen as "promoting" homosexuality, even to the extent of saying "look, there's nothing wrong with being gay, there's lots of other people" who are as well and that having a gay relationship is ok.

This ruling simply panders to the prejudices of narrow minded bigots who would be happy if they could eliminate homosexuality altogether, but, since they can't, they'll just make life as damned difficult as possible for anyone who wants to engage in "unnatural practices".

Graham 19-11-2003 00:34
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pem
Surely in a free world everyone is entitled to their own views. What makes one groups view any more right than anothers ?
What makes it *more wrong* is when they try to *inflict* that viewpoint on others, to the exclusion of all other contrary opinions.

There are people who support Section 28 who, as I mentioned above, would probably prefer that homosexuals be ostracised from our society, burned at the stake or forcibly "re-educated" into being straight.

All that the majority of the gay community and those who oppose S.28 want is for children to have access to *all* the facts, instead of getting a one-sided and biased view based on bigotry and prejudice where important information is suppressed for some supposed "good" reason.

Russ 19-11-2003 09:52
Re: teaching without bounds
 
But to assume the lifting of Section 28 will cause a reduction in intolerance against gays is surely without foundation?

downquark1 19-11-2003 10:10
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
But to assume the lifting of Section 28 will cause a reduction in intolerance against gays is surely without foundation?
Of course it won't at first but given a gerneration or two it may help.

The age when children are given sex education they are usually aware of the gay society exists anywany, denying questions will only lead to misunderstandings and ignorance.

timewarrior2001 19-11-2003 11:42
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
Of course it won't at first but given a gerneration or two it may help.

The age when children are given sex education they are usually aware of the gay society exists anywany, denying questions will only lead to misunderstandings and ignorance.
It wont make a slightest bit of difference at any time.
You cant override the teachings of a parent, any parent that was homophobic will rubbish what the child is taught at school.

I have been discussing this issue with my homosexual friends (incidently they prefer the word Fag *shrug*). They think this clause is stupid, but they also think anyone thinking it will change anything is stupid.
I remember one friend (no names in case he reads this) who stood up at a party and announced he was gay. Everyones reaction was "yes and you would like us to react how exactly?" No one cared simple as that. Yet in this group of people there were my mates (moshers) and others (trendies) that would religiously beat the living crap out of each other because we were different.

Being gay doesnt make you different, your still human, your still male or female. People do see this, its the actions of people that are gay and make it out to be such a struggle, something they had to hide etc that make things worse for others. The world has moved on, yes isolated incidents still occur, same as some over zealous religious people will still persecute others for not beleiveing in a particular religion, not beiong devout etc.

Anyone that feels they have to hide the fact they are gay are the ones with the problem.

These are my beliefs and understandings, built from friendships with gay people and incidents I have personally experienced in my life.

downquark1 19-11-2003 12:32
Re: teaching without bounds
 
timewarrior2001, your opinions seem to be that if it won't do anything don't do it, yet you are willing to argue profusely why it shouldn't be done even though nothing will become of it.

Granted it may not do anything major to help, but for some people it may, so there is no harm in removing it. Which is more inconvenient, editing the law or teachers generations ahead unable to answer childrens quesions?

timewarrior2001 19-11-2003 12:45
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
timewarrior2001, your opinions seem to be that if it won't do anything don't do it, yet you are willing to argue profusely why it shouldn't be done even though nothing will become of it.

Granted it may not do anything major to help, but for some people it may, so there is no harm in removing it. Which is more inconvenient, editing the law or teachers generations ahead unable to answer childrens quesions?
Wouldnt it have been easier to have lifted the law without such a hoo ha?
Nah you see thats not how it works, get as much publicity as possible, make sure the kids ask difficult questions, draw attention.

No god help us if we tried to do it quietly lol.

You do have a point, but as I said I am looking at it and I havent said its a good or bad thing, all I said was whats the point?
I dont want my child to receive homosexual sex ed, *shrug* sue me for it, hang draw and quarter me, I wont apologise, thats my thoughts and beliefs.
I dont think homosexuality is wrong, I also dont consider it right.
I certainly dont htink its "normal" and I certainly dont consider myself to be "normal".

My views dont suite everyone I know and understand that, but hey it doesnt make them wrong. Lifting this clause will make no difference, leaving it where it is will make no difference. Change will occur when people are ready, not when they are told to change.

Graham 19-11-2003 12:49
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
But to assume the lifting of Section 28 will cause a reduction in intolerance against gays is surely without foundation?
No, it is not "without foundation".

It won't cause a change overnight. Nor, probably, in the next few years.

But what it *will* do is to help educate this generation and the next that there is nothing wrong or sinful or evil or bad about homosexuality and that if people want to live a gay life it's up to them and nobody else.

Eventually there will be a reduction in intolerance and that can *only* be a good thing.

downquark1 19-11-2003 12:53
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'

Russ 19-11-2003 13:28
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
No, it is not "without foundation".

It won't cause a change overnight. Nor, probably, in the next few years.

But what it *will* do is to help educate this generation and the next that there is nothing wrong or sinful or evil or bad about homosexuality and that if people want to live a gay life it's up to them and nobody else.

Eventually there will be a reduction in intolerance and that can *only* be a good thing.
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?

downquark1 19-11-2003 13:54
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
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?
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'

Russ 19-11-2003 15:16
Re: teaching without bounds
 
But we're not talking about gay rights, which covers a broad definition of subjects.

downquark1 19-11-2003 15:22
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
But we're not talking about gay rights, which covers a broad definition of subjects.
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?

Russ 19-11-2003 15:23
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Not quite the same thing though is it...

downquark1 19-11-2003 15:28
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
Not quite the same thing though is it...
I was quite proud of that anology, what's wrong with it?

philip.j.fry 19-11-2003 15:34
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.

Russ 19-11-2003 15:38
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
Okay, the way I see it is why is there a problem with homosexuality being included in sex education?
There isn't a problem as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
What reasons are there for parents not wanting their children to know and understand different types of sexual relationships?
Because I want my child to be taught the more 'conventional' approach first.


Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
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.
So it shouldn't be up to the parents to teach them?

Shaun 19-11-2003 15:38
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
Tolerance will only happen when extremes are stopped and this counts for both parties.
Well said TW

Shaun 19-11-2003 15:47
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
As a parents, we want what we think is best for our children. My own view is that they should be taught about hetro relationships primarily and only about homosexual issues if the parents agree. We don't need the enforcement or removal of Section 28 to encourage our children to tolerate and accept homosexuals.
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:

Shaun 19-11-2003 15:54
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
But we're not talking about gay rights, which covers a broad definition of subjects.
And don't really exist in a proper sense! :(

Stuart 19-11-2003 15:56
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
I was quite proud of that anology, what's wrong with it?
Perhaps a better query would be "What about if Clause 28 prevented sex education for heterorsexual kids"?

philip.j.fry 19-11-2003 16:08
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
Because I want my child to be taught the more 'conventional' approach first.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
So it shouldn't be up to the parents to teach them?
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.

Russ 19-11-2003 17:22
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dellwear
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?
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.

Quote:
Parents will always have an influence in their child's education, but state education exists for a reason
Do you really think a teacher's opinion is never seen in their work?

Quote:
Should it be up to parents to teach their children maths, or drama?
No - those are legitimate subject. Social skills (including tolerance) are what a parent should be responsible for.

philip.j.fry 19-11-2003 17:47
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
I'm not saying I don't want her being taught about homosexuality, I just want her to be taught about hetrosexuality first.
I'm still failing to see why? Why can they not be taught at the same time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
Do you really think a teacher's opinion is never seen in their work?
You have selectively quoted me there, I didn't mention anything about teachers opinions. Of course though a teachers opinion will always be expressed, however they also have a duty to present a balanced view in accordance with the curriculum...thereby ensuring that all children (hopefully) recieve a similar standard of education.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
No - those are legitimate subject. Social skills (including tolerance) are what a parent should be responsible for.
Social skills are a legitimate study, if it helps call it sociology - the scientific study of human interaction. Drama is predominately taught in schools for the social aspect, it is not taught because it is expected that most of those children will go on to acting careers.

downquark1 19-11-2003 17:49
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
I'm not saying I don't want her being taught about homosexuality, I just want her to be taught about hetrosexuality first.
What do you mean first? One after the other or years apart. I don't think anyone is suggesting we teach homosexuality first, I think the the removal will just mean they can teach homosexuality.

At the moment, it's like it is forbidden for teachers to say some people write with the left hand.

kronas 20-11-2003 03:38
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ D
.
So it shouldn't be up to the parents to teach them?
i dont think parents find sexual related issues as something that is 'comfortable' to talk about

Russ 20-11-2003 09:59
Re: teaching without bounds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronas
i dont think parents find sexual related issues as something that is 'comfortable' to talk about
The parents don't have to talk about the sexual aspect. That will come in time. Just along the lines of, say, "Some girls find other girls attractive" etc

Quote:
What do you mean first? One after the other or years apart. I don't think anyone is suggesting we teach homosexuality first, I think the the removal will just mean they can teach homosexuality.
I want my daughter know that the more common situation is for a man to be attracted to a woman and a woman is attracted to a man. Once this has been established she should then be taught "But sometimes, it doesn't work like that....".

Quote:
I'm still failing to see why? Why can they not be taught at the same time?
As above.

Quote:
Social skills are a legitimate study, if it helps call it sociology - the scientific study of human interaction. Drama is predominately taught in schools for the social aspect, it is not taught because it is expected that most of those children will go on to acting careers.
I'm referring to the kind of social skill that teach kids they can't just go around stealing things, hitting others, being nasty etc, the sort of things that should be taught pre-school and thereabouts.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:15.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum