ChatterBank1 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.
// Frankly it’s an insult [for Jim] to suggest that anyone here would tell their children to distance themselves from any child of same sex parents ... //
Never said anyone here would do that -- but it's not an unheard-of reaction, especially when coupled with, as I think the "sin" part of my post implied, an aggressive religious motivation.
Meanwhile, can I echo the criticism of the word "chosen". There is no choice about to whom you are attracted, or about how you view yourself. It is what it is. Perhaps it was an unintentional oversight, but can I suggest that you be more careful in your choice of language in future?
Never said anyone here would do that -- but it's not an unheard-of reaction, especially when coupled with, as I think the "sin" part of my post implied, an aggressive religious motivation.
Meanwhile, can I echo the criticism of the word "chosen". There is no choice about to whom you are attracted, or about how you view yourself. It is what it is. Perhaps it was an unintentional oversight, but can I suggest that you be more careful in your choice of language in future?
The point is Krom, we shouldn’t be explaining the complexities of your problems in life to four year olds. Infant/Primary school children don’t need to know and shouldn't be concerned with it. And gay people do choose their lifestyles insofar as they so very often choose to broadcast it in one way or another. I know several gay people – some of whom have children - who live quite happily with their partners without the need to trumpet it – or to impose it upon anyone else – and that includes little children.
Pixie, no, I wouldn’t read a Mrs & Mrs book to small children. Time enough to find out more about life when they’re older.
Jim, you can suggest whatever you like.
Pixie, no, I wouldn’t read a Mrs & Mrs book to small children. Time enough to find out more about life when they’re older.
Jim, you can suggest whatever you like.
//The point is Krom, we shouldn’t be explaining the complexities of your problems in life to four year olds//
I really think you should explain what you mean by 'my problems in life.' Because you don't know anything about me, and I'm going to assume that this isn't coming across the way you intended it to.
//I know several gay people – some of whom have children - who live quite happily with their partners without the need to trumpet it – or to impose it upon anyone else – and that includes little children. //
Who is 'imposing' anything on children? Teaching children that same-sex relationships exist and are fine is not an imposition. It's educating them about the world in an age-appropriate way. That is what school is for.
I really think you should explain what you mean by 'my problems in life.' Because you don't know anything about me, and I'm going to assume that this isn't coming across the way you intended it to.
//I know several gay people – some of whom have children - who live quite happily with their partners without the need to trumpet it – or to impose it upon anyone else – and that includes little children. //
Who is 'imposing' anything on children? Teaching children that same-sex relationships exist and are fine is not an imposition. It's educating them about the world in an age-appropriate way. That is what school is for.
//Who is 'imposing' anything on children?//
Andrew Moffat is – and you’re supporting him.
//It's educating them about the world in an age-appropriate way.//
This is not age appropriate… that's the whole point ....but I’ve already said that so we’re going around in circles. The bottom line is this is not part of the National Curriculum - no one is obliged to teach it - so what right does Andrew Moffat have – or you – to completely disregard the wishes of parents?
Andrew Moffat is – and you’re supporting him.
//It's educating them about the world in an age-appropriate way.//
This is not age appropriate… that's the whole point ....but I’ve already said that so we’re going around in circles. The bottom line is this is not part of the National Curriculum - no one is obliged to teach it - so what right does Andrew Moffat have – or you – to completely disregard the wishes of parents?
The point of the two mummy stuff is to teach children not just that "alternative" family arrangements to Mummy and Daddy exist, but that those alternatives are (in the jargon) "equally valid".
Some might think the two mummy narrative is insufficiently inclusive for a program which calls itself "No Outsiders". So, a question to the two mummy advocates:
Is there any alternative arrangement which you think is not equally valid and, if so, why not?
I'll give some hypothetical examples: daddy and four mummies; three daddies; one mummy and an alsatian dog.
Some might think the two mummy narrative is insufficiently inclusive for a program which calls itself "No Outsiders". So, a question to the two mummy advocates:
Is there any alternative arrangement which you think is not equally valid and, if so, why not?
I'll give some hypothetical examples: daddy and four mummies; three daddies; one mummy and an alsatian dog.
Educators are not supposed to just do whatever parents want them to do. Their job is to educate.
It is not an imposition to teach children that same sex relationships exist and are fine. If you think it is, then you need to demonstrate why rather than just insist you don't like it due to your personal distaste for the subject matter.
No clarification I notice on the nasty ad hominem "my problems in life" comment. Perhaps you'd like to withdraw it?
It is not an imposition to teach children that same sex relationships exist and are fine. If you think it is, then you need to demonstrate why rather than just insist you don't like it due to your personal distaste for the subject matter.
No clarification I notice on the nasty ad hominem "my problems in life" comment. Perhaps you'd like to withdraw it?
Krom, //Educators are not supposed to just do whatever parents want them to do. Their job is to educate.//
Their job is to do what they’re paid to do – not to decide to teach children as they see fit.
My comment was simply an observation. You clearly feel that a problem exists in that gay people are not afforded proper equality and that they merit greater recognition and acceptance of their status than they are currently experiencing. I’ve nothing to withdraw.
V_e has asked an interesting question. Any chance of addressing it?
Their job is to do what they’re paid to do – not to decide to teach children as they see fit.
My comment was simply an observation. You clearly feel that a problem exists in that gay people are not afforded proper equality and that they merit greater recognition and acceptance of their status than they are currently experiencing. I’ve nothing to withdraw.
V_e has asked an interesting question. Any chance of addressing it?
It was a pretty spiteful comment, naomi. You know very, very little about me. I'm not surprised that you stick by it, though.
//Is there any alternative arrangement which you think is not equally valid and, if so, why not? //
Of course there is such a thing as an invalid family arrangement. Most of the ones that occur in the real world involve an abusive parent or carer. I'm a bit perplexed by the insinuation that same-sex couples are somehow on the same level as being raised by a dog, though, unless I've seriously misunderstood.
//Is there any alternative arrangement which you think is not equally valid and, if so, why not? //
Of course there is such a thing as an invalid family arrangement. Most of the ones that occur in the real world involve an abusive parent or carer. I'm a bit perplexed by the insinuation that same-sex couples are somehow on the same level as being raised by a dog, though, unless I've seriously misunderstood.
Also if you're going by the most applicable definition of "valid" in this case (i.e., 'legally or officially acceptable' - the others don't really work) - then they are absolutely correct to teach kids that same-sex families are equally valid. Given that this is something they probably won't be taught at home given their parents' obvious disdain for gay people, I'm glad that Moffat is acting with some responsibility as an educator.
Krom, //I'm a bit perplexed by the insinuation that same-sex couples are somehow on the same level as being raised by a dog, though, unless I've seriously misunderstood. //
You have – twice now. v_e didn’t say that. He said one mummy and a dog. Can’t help thinking you’re allowing your sensitivities to get the better of you with this discussion.
You have – twice now. v_e didn’t say that. He said one mummy and a dog. Can’t help thinking you’re allowing your sensitivities to get the better of you with this discussion.
He was clearly suggesting it as a 'family arrangement'. If he just meant 'a single parent who has a pet'... I'm not sure how that would make any sense in context of the point he's making.
//Can’t help thinking you’re allowing your sensitivities to get the better of you with this discussion.//
If you could perhaps find it within yourself to talk about this topic (or any topic actually) without impugning your opponent's motives or making slimey accusations about their character, we might be a few steps closer to having a 'discussion.'
//Can’t help thinking you’re allowing your sensitivities to get the better of you with this discussion.//
If you could perhaps find it within yourself to talk about this topic (or any topic actually) without impugning your opponent's motives or making slimey accusations about their character, we might be a few steps closer to having a 'discussion.'
Kromo: //the most applicable definition of "valid" in this case (i.e., 'legally or officially acceptable' - the others don't really work) - then they are absolutely correct to teach kids that same-sex families are equally valid//
No, I was not using the word "valid" in its 'legally or officially acceptable' sense. Neither is it what the two mummy advocates mean when they use the term. Nor why they lobbied successfully for changing the law to grant adoption rights to gay couples. I and they are talking about alternative ways of raising children such that the child has the best chance of having a fulfilling life as an adult and being a positive contributor to the wider society (I assume we all agree on the objective). And whether these alternatives are equally conducive to achieving that end. They think so; I think not.
Take the "traditional family" in which a child is raised by its natural parents. Is this on the whole a better arrangement than common alternatives like the single-parent family, or the family with a step-father or mother? And is there any evidence to support or refute that contention?
Adoption by gay couples, on the other hand, is a very new social phenomenon and there's not much by way of evidence to suggest whether this will work out well or badly (although, I notice, in a recent notorious case an which a child was murdered by her adoptive "father" the gay marriage bit wasn't mentioned at all in the mainstream media for a day or two.). I view gay adoption as a social experiment in which the guinea pigs are children. That is why I oppose it, and that is why the educational establishment should not be promoting it.
No, I was not using the word "valid" in its 'legally or officially acceptable' sense. Neither is it what the two mummy advocates mean when they use the term. Nor why they lobbied successfully for changing the law to grant adoption rights to gay couples. I and they are talking about alternative ways of raising children such that the child has the best chance of having a fulfilling life as an adult and being a positive contributor to the wider society (I assume we all agree on the objective). And whether these alternatives are equally conducive to achieving that end. They think so; I think not.
Take the "traditional family" in which a child is raised by its natural parents. Is this on the whole a better arrangement than common alternatives like the single-parent family, or the family with a step-father or mother? And is there any evidence to support or refute that contention?
Adoption by gay couples, on the other hand, is a very new social phenomenon and there's not much by way of evidence to suggest whether this will work out well or badly (although, I notice, in a recent notorious case an which a child was murdered by her adoptive "father" the gay marriage bit wasn't mentioned at all in the mainstream media for a day or two.). I view gay adoption as a social experiment in which the guinea pigs are children. That is why I oppose it, and that is why the educational establishment should not be promoting it.
If people in same sex relationships exist and are an accepted part of society (which I assume you have no problem with, but do correct me if I'm wrong), then children do need to have this explained to them. Especially if they come from families who aren't likely to explain this to them at home.
As to your question about family arrangements - it could well be the case that the traditional family is on average better for children. As far as I'm aware, the available evidence indicates that there is little significant difference. But let's assume for the sake of argument that's all wrong or the result of new world order liberal conspiracies or whatever. What exactly is the implication you're making about what should be done? Are we really going to forbid all family arrangements that are even slightly sub-optimal? Shall we leave children in care because the perfect family is not available to them? There's about 70,000 children in the care system last I checked, and adoption rates are falling. Even if (if!) same-sex parenting is sub-optimal in some way, it seems like bad policy to reduce the number of potential adopters in such circumstances. Not to mention the fact that it would take away rights from same-sex couples that heterosexual ones have and is therefore fundamentally against the principle of equality.
If you don't think we should be disallowing same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual ones to adopt children (and why should we?), then we're back to square one when it comes to education. Same-sex relationships, and same-sex parents, are part of society, regardless of whether you or these religious lunatics like it or not. This needs explaining in an age-appropriate way to children if our education system is going to be worthy of the name.
As for your assertion (and assertion it remains) that this is all a plot to undermine the traditional family - I'm afraid you'll have to prove it. People who actually, genuinely, do want to undermine the traditional family typically hate this sort of thing (gay marriage and gay adoption both, and teaching kids about it) because they think it robs homosexuality of its dissident nature and makes gay relationships "respectable" when what they actually want gay people to do is be living critiques of "bourgeois" respectability itself. People like Ryan Conrad are particularly influential on this, but he's by no means alone. That's what radical leftists actually think, as opposed to the cartoon ones you have imagined masterminding this policy.
As to your question about family arrangements - it could well be the case that the traditional family is on average better for children. As far as I'm aware, the available evidence indicates that there is little significant difference. But let's assume for the sake of argument that's all wrong or the result of new world order liberal conspiracies or whatever. What exactly is the implication you're making about what should be done? Are we really going to forbid all family arrangements that are even slightly sub-optimal? Shall we leave children in care because the perfect family is not available to them? There's about 70,000 children in the care system last I checked, and adoption rates are falling. Even if (if!) same-sex parenting is sub-optimal in some way, it seems like bad policy to reduce the number of potential adopters in such circumstances. Not to mention the fact that it would take away rights from same-sex couples that heterosexual ones have and is therefore fundamentally against the principle of equality.
If you don't think we should be disallowing same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual ones to adopt children (and why should we?), then we're back to square one when it comes to education. Same-sex relationships, and same-sex parents, are part of society, regardless of whether you or these religious lunatics like it or not. This needs explaining in an age-appropriate way to children if our education system is going to be worthy of the name.
As for your assertion (and assertion it remains) that this is all a plot to undermine the traditional family - I'm afraid you'll have to prove it. People who actually, genuinely, do want to undermine the traditional family typically hate this sort of thing (gay marriage and gay adoption both, and teaching kids about it) because they think it robs homosexuality of its dissident nature and makes gay relationships "respectable" when what they actually want gay people to do is be living critiques of "bourgeois" respectability itself. People like Ryan Conrad are particularly influential on this, but he's by no means alone. That's what radical leftists actually think, as opposed to the cartoon ones you have imagined masterminding this policy.
