teaching without bounds

[downquark1]

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

[Russ]

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]

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]

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

[downquark1]

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]

Not quite the same thing though is it...

[downquark1]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Tolerance will only happen when extremes are stopped and this counts for both parties.

Well said TW

[Shaun]

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?

[Shaun]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.