teaching without bounds

[Bex]

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]

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

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

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]

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......

thanks ic14 about the headache

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 ?

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

Incog.insert teacher smiley here.

[Stuart]

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

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]

Originally Posted by scastle

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

No.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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]

But to assume the lifting of Section 28 will cause a reduction in intolerance against gays is surely without foundation?

[downquark1]

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.