teaching without bounds

[downquark1]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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