Food & Drink5 mins ago
Gay promotion in schools.
127 Answers
MEP fights 'gay' books for schools
Books illustrating gay relationships are becoming part of the school curriculum under the new Sexual Orientation Regulations Act.
Titles such as 'The Sissy Duckling', 'Hello Sailor' and 'Daddy's Room mate' are recommended by Government departments for children aged 5 upwards.
One shows pictures of two males in bed together and cuddling on a sofa whilst 'Elmer' in 'The Sissy Duckling' is promoted as "a terrific role model for any child" on a Government website.
'Strange Boy' aimed at secondary stage pupils contains an explicit description of a homosexual act between two boys aged 10 and14 years old.
UKIP MEP Derek Clark described the books as "completely unsuitable" and said he was "appalled" at the decision by some local authorities to use the books.
"How is it in any way suitable for schools to promote under age homosexual acts?" asked Mr Clark, himself a teacher of 39 years.
"Schools should be concentrating on teaching children how to read and write. Is it any surprise that the UK has some of the worst rates of literacy in Europe when our teachers are having to spend their time promoting gay rights to youngsters?"
The new regulations could see schools compelled to promote gay rights in the curriculum rather than counter threats of legal action from gay activists.
I find this extremely alarming and I'm sure the majority of others will too. This sort of politically correct brainwashing ill-serves our children.
Books illustrating gay relationships are becoming part of the school curriculum under the new Sexual Orientation Regulations Act.
Titles such as 'The Sissy Duckling', 'Hello Sailor' and 'Daddy's Room mate' are recommended by Government departments for children aged 5 upwards.
One shows pictures of two males in bed together and cuddling on a sofa whilst 'Elmer' in 'The Sissy Duckling' is promoted as "a terrific role model for any child" on a Government website.
'Strange Boy' aimed at secondary stage pupils contains an explicit description of a homosexual act between two boys aged 10 and14 years old.
UKIP MEP Derek Clark described the books as "completely unsuitable" and said he was "appalled" at the decision by some local authorities to use the books.
"How is it in any way suitable for schools to promote under age homosexual acts?" asked Mr Clark, himself a teacher of 39 years.
"Schools should be concentrating on teaching children how to read and write. Is it any surprise that the UK has some of the worst rates of literacy in Europe when our teachers are having to spend their time promoting gay rights to youngsters?"
The new regulations could see schools compelled to promote gay rights in the curriculum rather than counter threats of legal action from gay activists.
I find this extremely alarming and I'm sure the majority of others will too. This sort of politically correct brainwashing ill-serves our children.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hammer Head. 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.
The effect of the clause, though, was to ward teachers off ever discussing homosexuality for fear of falling foul of deliberately ambiguous law.
I was at a boys' comprehensive school in the 80s and 90s and I can say with confidence that homosexuality was never mentioned, ever.
900 boys and not one of them was gay. What do you put that down to? A statistical freak? Or a climate where being gay is considered unacceptable, thanks to not teaching tolerance towards homosexuality.
I was at a boys' comprehensive school in the 80s and 90s and I can say with confidence that homosexuality was never mentioned, ever.
900 boys and not one of them was gay. What do you put that down to? A statistical freak? Or a climate where being gay is considered unacceptable, thanks to not teaching tolerance towards homosexuality.
Theland
That's where the problem lies...how can teachers not tell pupils about gay relationships being a valid 'alternative lifestyle' when it's patently true that it is.
We need to seperate opinion from fact.
People may not like the fact that gay couples live together, work, pay taxes, go on holiday, and have sex - but it's a fact.
Civil partnerships are now enshrined in law, so it would wrong for teachers to try and 'demote' gay relationships, because they disapprove of homosexuality.
That's where the problem lies...how can teachers not tell pupils about gay relationships being a valid 'alternative lifestyle' when it's patently true that it is.
We need to seperate opinion from fact.
People may not like the fact that gay couples live together, work, pay taxes, go on holiday, and have sex - but it's a fact.
Civil partnerships are now enshrined in law, so it would wrong for teachers to try and 'demote' gay relationships, because they disapprove of homosexuality.
I refer you to my previous answer. Teachers in the 80's - 90's where frightened to death by the Gay extremists who where intent on making sure the law was misinterpreted. How many teachers actually read the phrase kindly provided by JTP above? It was just heresay and they where afraid of falling foul of the law heance they gave the whole thing a wide birth.
Loosehead
I don't think we should be applying teaching methods of the 70s to children of the 00s.
In the 70s we were only ten years past the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
Now we have civil partnerships and a far, far, far greater understanding of different relationships.
Goalposts have moved!
I don't think we should be applying teaching methods of the 70s to children of the 00s.
In the 70s we were only ten years past the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
Now we have civil partnerships and a far, far, far greater understanding of different relationships.
Goalposts have moved!
Theland
I assume you're straight right?
Now...if you sat down and watched Brokeback Mountain on a continuous loop for three days straight, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to jump up, run to your nearest disco and sing along to every Steps song you heard, right?
It simply doesn't work like that.
I cannot stand cabbage. It doesn't matter how many people tell me that they love it...I will never ever, ever eat it.
Same with the 'promotion' of gay 'lifestyles' (in quoted because I hate that term - it's meaningless). You cannot persuade someone to 'try it' unless they wanted to.
It's simply a myth.
I assume you're straight right?
Now...if you sat down and watched Brokeback Mountain on a continuous loop for three days straight, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to jump up, run to your nearest disco and sing along to every Steps song you heard, right?
It simply doesn't work like that.
I cannot stand cabbage. It doesn't matter how many people tell me that they love it...I will never ever, ever eat it.
Same with the 'promotion' of gay 'lifestyles' (in quoted because I hate that term - it's meaningless). You cannot persuade someone to 'try it' unless they wanted to.
It's simply a myth.
What I see, is a gay culture that is totally alien to my own. How many gay pride parades around the world are necessary before they realise that we heterosexuals, are probably getting a bit fed up with them flaunting their orientation at us so publicly, so loudly. What happened to modesty and decency? Do they get thrown out when somebody, "comes out?" Why do they seem to set out to shock? Why can't they do what they do in private? That sort of carry on is certainly not normal to me.
Big problem here is of course a loud mouthed and militant minority forcing their wishes and beleifs on the majority.
I strongly suspect there is a lrger than average proportion of homosexuals in parliament, they then interpret this as being the norm across the country. It isn't.
I have absolutley no problem with people doing what they want behind closed doors in the privacy of their own home be it smoking, bizarre sexual acts or practicing homosexuality. I do have an issue with it being rammed down my throat (pardon the expression) at evrey opportunity and I particularly have an objection to under 16's having explicit works (be it homosexual or hetrosexual) foist upon them. Next it will be the ******* act II - anyone is fair game. Just where does it stop?
And, just out of interest, are Islamic schools excempt from promoting this 'vile' proctice as they see it?
I strongly suspect there is a lrger than average proportion of homosexuals in parliament, they then interpret this as being the norm across the country. It isn't.
I have absolutley no problem with people doing what they want behind closed doors in the privacy of their own home be it smoking, bizarre sexual acts or practicing homosexuality. I do have an issue with it being rammed down my throat (pardon the expression) at evrey opportunity and I particularly have an objection to under 16's having explicit works (be it homosexual or hetrosexual) foist upon them. Next it will be the ******* act II - anyone is fair game. Just where does it stop?
And, just out of interest, are Islamic schools excempt from promoting this 'vile' proctice as they see it?
Whoa there. Get over yourself. No-one's ramming it down your throat.
I don't eat sprouts. I can't stand them and I don't understand how anyone can eat them. But I don't expect sprout eaters to only eat them behind closed doors, or keep quiet about them. And I don't object to other people talking or writing about them.
And would you believe it, I'm not alone. The majority of us don't like sprouts.
Is this another case of a loud mouthed and militant majority of sprout eaters forcing their wishes and beliefs on the minority?
The suggestion that people who do things that the majority of us dislike should have to do it in secret is absolutely, staggeringly arrogant.
I don't eat sprouts. I can't stand them and I don't understand how anyone can eat them. But I don't expect sprout eaters to only eat them behind closed doors, or keep quiet about them. And I don't object to other people talking or writing about them.
And would you believe it, I'm not alone. The majority of us don't like sprouts.
Is this another case of a loud mouthed and militant majority of sprout eaters forcing their wishes and beliefs on the minority?
The suggestion that people who do things that the majority of us dislike should have to do it in secret is absolutely, staggeringly arrogant.
sp1814, I don't see why we couldn't 'promote' gay lifestyles. You could have a big promotion at Asda's... buy one, get one free... rent Michael Barrymore for one night and we'll give you Julian Clary free of charge... the very thought would be enough to make any previously wavering teenager go gay at once, don't you think?
NJOK I must have missed the sprout eaters rights movements. Get real mate you know exactly whet I mean and you can twist it any way you like. Fact is it is rammed down my throat and my real objection is children should be protected from ALL types of sexually explicit material.
Perhaps the peado's should be allowed their rights and say too in schools ?
Perhaps the peado's should be allowed their rights and say too in schools ?
I'll just copy this over from another thread I posted it on. Homosexuality isn't the only thing condemned in the Bible. I hope everyone is obeying these other orders too. It's never easy being a Christian.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I think we're all agreed that parents should have the right to pull their children out of sexually explicit education of any kid. Oh, hang on - they already do.
What we're talking about isn't sexually explicit though. None of the books we've talked about are in any way explicit. They merely acknowledge gay lifestyles.
Loosehead, governments don't 'make' things legal. Everything - from ******* to sprout eating - is by default legal to begin with. What you mean is 'decriminalise'.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
News9 mins ago
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.