News0 min ago
Do You Agree With These Parents?
163 Answers
I must admit I do hold some sympathy. Whilst I certainly do not condone homophobia I really dont think schools should be promoting LGBT propaganda for children as young as this.
But will the Muslims be able to do better at halting this mad rush to push sex (all types) onto young children than the Christians or atheists have been?
https:/
But will the Muslims be able to do better at halting this mad rush to push sex (all types) onto young children than the Christians or atheists have been?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is zero evidence that they are being taught about "sex acts." If they're old enough to understand a basic romantic relationship (prince/princess, mum/dad, husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend), then they are old enough to understand that some people are gay.
It is painfully obvious that the reason this mum is complaining about it is because she objects to gay people for religious reasons and wants her children to think the same way. I'm glad the school is ignoring her and sincerely hope her children grow up to be just a little bit more enlightened.
It is painfully obvious that the reason this mum is complaining about it is because she objects to gay people for religious reasons and wants her children to think the same way. I'm glad the school is ignoring her and sincerely hope her children grow up to be just a little bit more enlightened.
There’s no doubt that religion motivates this complaint, but that said, the question is should others disagree simply because religion is the motivation or agree because, religion aside, this is an inappropriate topic to introduce to young children? For me, it’s the latter. That my decision may appear to support religion is unfortunate. It doesn't. I simply do not agree that worldly issues should be heaped upon children who have no conception of the adult world - and nor should they. Wrong, just wrong.
The "No Outsiders" programme and all its many variants are propaganda disguised as "tolerance" and "inclusivity" etc. You can tell this from the "two mummies" and "two daddies" content in their training manuals. (We'll leave aside the gender fluidity bit for the time being).
The programmes are not about gay rights and tolerance, their intention is to present these untypical family arrangements as "equally valid" environments for raising children as is the traditional marriage of the book of Common Prayer.
That proposition and its possible consequences ought to be examined very carefully - and critically - before we start imposing an unprecedented social experiment on society and indoctrinating five year olds to embrace it.
The programmes are not about gay rights and tolerance, their intention is to present these untypical family arrangements as "equally valid" environments for raising children as is the traditional marriage of the book of Common Prayer.
That proposition and its possible consequences ought to be examined very carefully - and critically - before we start imposing an unprecedented social experiment on society and indoctrinating five year olds to embrace it.
I say "unprecedented", but I'm wrong, aren't I?
The real aim of the propagandists (not necessarily that of their willing mouthpieces) is the destruction of the traditional family.
The theoretical base was set for this 2,400 years ago in Plat's Republic. In the last century Stalin and Mao set about trying the experiment in practice through an education system which deliberately weakened the natural bonds of love and loyalty a "normal" child would feel for its parents.
Those systems produced a fourteen year old who became a Hero of the Soviet Union for shopping his father, and saw children reviling their teachers in Mao's Cultural Revolution.
The real aim of the propagandists (not necessarily that of their willing mouthpieces) is the destruction of the traditional family.
The theoretical base was set for this 2,400 years ago in Plat's Republic. In the last century Stalin and Mao set about trying the experiment in practice through an education system which deliberately weakened the natural bonds of love and loyalty a "normal" child would feel for its parents.
Those systems produced a fourteen year old who became a Hero of the Soviet Union for shopping his father, and saw children reviling their teachers in Mao's Cultural Revolution.
The whole purpose of gay marriage was extending the definition of 'traditional family' to include homosexual relationships. The 'cultural revolutionaries' you're talking about, v-e, are actually very critical of both gay marriage and (by extension) this kind of education about gay relationships because they think it strengthens the traditional family by co-opting "dissident" sexuality.
--
As for this idea that it's too complicated or children "won't understand it" - this is the whole point of education. You don't go to school to learn things you already understand. If children are capable of understanding what a romantic relationship is, they're capable of understanding what a gay relationship is. I am glad the school is ignoring this complaint.
--
As for this idea that it's too complicated or children "won't understand it" - this is the whole point of education. You don't go to school to learn things you already understand. If children are capable of understanding what a romantic relationship is, they're capable of understanding what a gay relationship is. I am glad the school is ignoring this complaint.
//If children are capable of understanding what a romantic relationship is//
But young children aren't...
Prince/Princess, Mum/Dad, doesn't mean to young children what it means to you. You use the trendy word 'relationship'. Big connotations in that ... completely outside the comprehension of a child.
You would be glad that the school is ignoring this complaint because the children aren't your first priority and it suits your purpose to ignore it.
But young children aren't...
Prince/Princess, Mum/Dad, doesn't mean to young children what it means to you. You use the trendy word 'relationship'. Big connotations in that ... completely outside the comprehension of a child.
You would be glad that the school is ignoring this complaint because the children aren't your first priority and it suits your purpose to ignore it.
What is 'my purpose' naomi, and more importantly, why does it prove I am wrong? As usual, you're resorting to ad hominem arguments rather than debating the issue rationally.
Also, you have no way of demonstrating that young children are incapable of understanding what a relationship is. Even if they can't, though, it seems to me that the whole point of going to school is to learn about things they don't already understand.
Also, you have no way of demonstrating that young children are incapable of understanding what a relationship is. Even if they can't, though, it seems to me that the whole point of going to school is to learn about things they don't already understand.
Krom, no ad hominem argument – and yes, children do go to school to learn, but teaching is, quite rightly, usually age-appropriate. Four year olds don’t do advanced mathematics. Young children don’t understand what a ‘relationship’ is – and no, as a parent who can only speak from experience, I have no way of demonstrating that. However, (I would say by the same token, but since you aren’t a parent it isn’t) you have no way of assuring me that young children will not be confused and potentially damaged by this project. Personally I am not prepared to experiment – or gamble - with young minds. Adults who are on a mission to normalise their unconventional lifestyles to the rest of the world – and we get that from every section of the LGBT community – gays calling partners husbands/wives, trans women insisting on being called ‘she’ and complaining that heterosexual men aren’t interested in them - have no interest in protecting innocence. If it suits their agenda, and it suits this teacher's agenda, such is their selfishness that they have no hesitation in burdening children with that which they cannot understand.
Gay/trans/whatever, their problems are theirs and have no place in primary school.
Gay/trans/whatever, their problems are theirs and have no place in primary school.
Would a school be well-justified in discussing these issues in reaction to, say, a particular teacher being known to be in a same-sex relationship, or if one or more of the children has two parents of the same sex? Then perhaps it's forced to come up, and surely if the school doesn't intervene then you would risk letting ignorance and prejudice reign in the place of tolerance.
The follow-up question would then be that, if children who are anyway exposed to the issue are perfectly capable of handling it, where is the harm in being proactive and encouraging tolerance and openness anyway? There is, after all, nothing peculiarly adult about any relationship between two people except for what goes on in the bedroom.
The follow-up question would then be that, if children who are anyway exposed to the issue are perfectly capable of handling it, where is the harm in being proactive and encouraging tolerance and openness anyway? There is, after all, nothing peculiarly adult about any relationship between two people except for what goes on in the bedroom.
It has never been the case that a teacher's relationships are private. At Primary school especially, where most of the teachers end up being young women, it isn't exactly uncommon for them to disappear over Summer and come back with a new surname, revealing of course their marriage -- or, equivalently, they end up going on maternity leave. So ti does come up, indirectly. Of course children are hopefully(!) ignorant of the mechanics, but it's the usual (and entirely accidental) conceit, I would suggest, of heterosexual people that they aren't quite conscious of just how open they are about their relationship status.
Therefore gay teachers have the same right to be, not brazen and explicit, but certainly open and unashamed of their relationship status. If it comes up -- and it can do, as a direct mirror, as I say, of heterosexual relationships, even at Primary School -- then it's clear that the School is obliged to acknowledge and discuss it with the children.
Leaving it to the parents risks pandering to the sort of prejudices that kept homosexuality underground, in so many damaging ways.
Therefore gay teachers have the same right to be, not brazen and explicit, but certainly open and unashamed of their relationship status. If it comes up -- and it can do, as a direct mirror, as I say, of heterosexual relationships, even at Primary School -- then it's clear that the School is obliged to acknowledge and discuss it with the children.
Leaving it to the parents risks pandering to the sort of prejudices that kept homosexuality underground, in so many damaging ways.
Kids don't leave primary school until they are 9. I'm sure any sex education would be age appropriate.
I didn't have sex education until middle school (we had a three tier system) and it was mainly about hygiene and periods. Taught us naff all. Luckily my mother and grand mother were very open with any questions we had.
My son is gay....I guessed he was when he was very young so you'd be surprised at how much a child knows, especially if they have older siblings.
I didn't have sex education until middle school (we had a three tier system) and it was mainly about hygiene and periods. Taught us naff all. Luckily my mother and grand mother were very open with any questions we had.
My son is gay....I guessed he was when he was very young so you'd be surprised at how much a child knows, especially if they have older siblings.
