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".