Row over minder scheme for gay pupils

[mackie]

Quoting Midget from 10:00, 20th Jun 2006
Clearly a) sex ed should be taught b) it should include gay sex. In fact although only 10% or so of the country are so called "homosexuals" many more will have homosexual sex etc, and anyway as nighteyes so rightly points out there isn't really gay sex and straight sex, theres just dicks, cunts, arseholes, mouths, fingers etc being used in different combinations, so school needs to discuss these things anyway.

tintin is a rightwing heterosexual from a private school background, its difficult adapting to the 21st century under these conditions, I pity him in some way.

I fully agree Midget!

[tintin]

Quoting Midget from 10:00, 20th Jun 2006
tintin is a rightwing heterosexual from a private school background, its difficult adapting to the 21st century under these conditions, I pity him in some way.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg "Little!"
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100090

How amusing it is to be pitied by people because of their background and beliefs.

I think we'll all have to agree to disagree on this one, because I'm not going to change what I think and all those anti my cynical old Tory ranting aren't either!

[mackie]

Quoting tintin from 10:34, 20th Jun 2006

How amusing it is to be pitied by people because of their background and beliefs.

I think we'll all have to agree to disagree on this one, because I'm not going to change what I think and all those anti my cynical old Tory ranting aren't either!

I'm not trying to change your beliefs. I'm simply trying to get my head around them, which is proving impossible. I hope you don't have any gay kids in the future, that's all I'm saying.

[scallywag]

Hey,
I don't really disagree with anything people have posted on tis thread... just thought I'd give my own perspective on it...

If there's one thing you can never really emmulate it's the innocence of childhood. Before age 12/13, in my opinion sex and all the questions, concerns and feelings that come with it should be as undiscussed as possible.

I guess my real concern is more personal. At the moment, i guess i can label myself as 'gay' however, I am not so much of the belief that this is a product of nature as opposed to a product of my past. This includes (seriously overprotective) parental influences and friends during (admittedly v.right-wing) public secondary school (who unbeknown to me untill 5th year all turned out to be gay.) Guess i'm just glad that i don't have things primary school teachers said to add to that list!

Although I hold nothing against gay people, generally finding them to be caring, friendly people who have suffered at the hands of prejudice, it's not really the life i want for myself. I'm not sure i'm willing to sacrifice to a life of not having kids, suffering prejudice (both intentional and non-intentional) and turning a back on my faith.

I'm not pretending to have all the answers, indeed i'm still going through professional guidence to try and find them - nor am I unhappy, having fantastic friends and having had some great boy and to some degree girlfriends in the past. Guess the point I'm trying to make is if at 22 i'm still discovering who I am, i don't reckon kids should start burning their bridges in primary school.

I do fully agree with a complete hetero and homo sex-ed, however uniforming and equaling sexualities by teachers is not necessarily painting a truthful picture and it should be up to the individual to decide in they're own time.

[scallywag]

Guess I agree with midget that nobody's 100% gay/straight, and to some degree it's possible to alter this

[mackie]

Quoting scallywag from 11:47, 20th Jun 2006

I'm not sure i'm willing to sacrifice to a life of not having kids, suffering prejudice (both intentional and non-intentional) and turning a back on my faith.

You can still have kids. And you don't have to turn your back on your faith. In fact, you might want to question your faith if you think that because you sleep with a member of the same sex or have a relationship with them, you have to "turn your back" on it. Surely your faith should accept you for who you are.

Other than that, I liked your post

[Nick82]

Possibly the very fact that such a big deal is made of this whole issue makes it a bigger issue than it really is? Possibly this could actually be one of the very few cases where interfering only makes things worse and turning a blind eye would see things die a quiet death in a couple of years? Not an issue I've thought about much but I am a firm believer that kids don't need to be as mollycoddled as they are.

[Al]

Quoting tintin from 05:52, 20th Jun 2006

Quoting grousefanatic from 23:49, 19th Jun 2006
I am 97.5% certain that I am aware of who this person is in real life. It makes his rants a little more amusing.

[hr]

veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

Well I've never met you in "real life" - perhaps you would care to tell me who you are, so then I could laugh at you

How - if you don't know who he is - do you know that you haven't met him?

[grousefanatic]

Quoting Al from 15:00, 20th Jun 2006
How - if you don't know who he is - do you know that you haven't met him?

I was wondering that myself, and also on what grounds he would have to laugh at me.

[hr]

veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

[David Bean]

Has it occurred to anyone else that 'homophobia', with its derivatives, is one of the most stupid and misleading words in the English language? Which moron invented it, anyway? If we look at its composition, we see 'phobia' meaning 'fear', and 'homo' meaning 'the same'. Now, 'homosexuality' means sexuality relating to [members of] the same [gender], which is sensible enough, but it's hardly the only word that takes the form. What if I live in fear of misusing language by confusing two similar-sounding words (homophones) or I like my milk straight from the cow (i.e. not homogenised) - why couldn't either of those situations equally make me 'homophobic'?

Moreover, the emotion what we call 'homophobes' feal towards homosexuality and homosexuals by and large isn't fear anyway - it's dislike or distaste, possibly resulting from fear but not, I would assume, in the majority of cases - and it results in a discrimination equivalent to racism or sexism, whose practicioners we wouldn't assume to be afraid of Asians or girls, but merely prejudiced against them.

So why do we not simply refer to 'sexualism' instead?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Insight]

Surely the term "phobia" extends beyond plain old fear, in terms of phobia of a concept, rather than a thing. Fear in itself comes from a variety of sources, misunderstanding/ignorance can be a large part of fear. This may be expressed outwardly as "hate" or "distaste" - in a way. it is almost a fear of something that you cannot or will not attempt to understand.

I've just returned from a national summit on LGBT Health Issue, the term health referring to well-being and visibility. I went in wondering what on Earth it was going to cover - I left with a very clear feeling that there is a still a lot of work to be done for the LGBT "cause".

Homophobic bullying in schools has rocketed every decade since decriminalisation & homophobic hate crimes are still frighteningly high - 1,036 in London last year alone.

As I see it, one of the biggest obstacles to full acceptance (note acceptance, not tolerance) of the LGBT population in this countries is the interefence of the religious right. I have no issue with *anyone's* faith, I wouldn't presume to campaign for restriction of faith practices of the UK's religious community, as long as they were all law-abiding (no sacrifices etc) - however, they quite often feel it is their duty to stick their oar into LGBT (and other) legal issues, trying to steer an increasingly secular nation with their own agenda.

What of faith schools - why should teenagers be denied sexual education because their parents decided they should go to a Catholic school? Surely the health departments of the nation feel competent & comprehensive sexual education in schools would be beneficial for young people, they *ALL* deserve the oppurtunity to learn about it, in a safe & stable environment. What happens to all the LGBT people going through Catholic high schools who are denied the oppurtunity to learn about themselves, the life they face etc because their parents beliefs dictate so - or, even better, be told, as I was, they would "burn for all eternity in the pit of Hell". Surely if it is *so* important to their parents/faith community that they not adopt safe sex practices (or indeed sex practices at all), it is up to the parents/faith community to dissuade them otherwise. The education system should be freed up from it. (I'm questioning the need for faith schools here - not saying they should be forced to teach things which go against doctrine).

I'm not saying parents don't deserve a say - I just feel it would be better if the national education system provided one service across the board - and the religious community lobby their stances WITHIN their community - not without.

Reading back over this, I realise I have phrased all this very badly & I will get my ass flamed off for it all. I know what I mean & it's not quite as controversial as it may sound...

[hr]

SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378

[nighteyes]

No flames from me - from someone who went thought the Catholic Education system I completly agree with what you are saying.

[hr]

i didnt say i was consistant, just right!

[LK Today]

This, of course, is not an issue restricted to Catholic schools. I am not sure of the education system in GB, but in N. Ireland we have compulsary RE classes until GCSE (with option to opt-out on religion reasons - ie if not Christian). I did not go to a Catholic school, or a Protestant school for that matter, but I have two distinct memories from RE Sexual morality classes.

1. Why are people gay? Possible reasons- they haven't had any luck with people of the other sex, they are too lazy to try to find a partner of the other sex, they have psychological problems and (my own personal favourite) it's fashionable.

2. What happens to homosexuals? They burn in hell of all eternity.

Now, I think I turned out ok, but I know that there are hundreds of gay men and woman in N Ireland, and around the UK and the world, who are pushed so far back into the closet, and forced to deny their feelings, because of issues such as this. Andrew, you're totally correct - until we stop labelling homosexuals, and with one breath teaching children it is natural and with another saying it is not, how can we expect acceptance?

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102636

[enola48]

I didn't go to a Catholic school and although the school was broadly speaking Christian it wasn't overtly religious. Despite this I remember at school being told that we weren't allowed to learn about contraception until we were 16. I found this completely ridiculous. If people are going to have sex under the legal age then surely they should be given the information to be able to have sex safely rather than being left open to pregnancy and STIs.

I don't even remember being told anything about gay relationships but then my school was a private all grils boarding school int he middle of Surrey.

Then my school was rather backwards in many ways - we weren't taught about periods until we were 15 - a little late for about 95% of us.

It is a miracle I made it through life really. If I had been relying solely on what school taught me maybe I wouldn't have got this far.

[Jubilee]

The sex education at my school was so-so. I think a lot of my education came from girls magazines. There's been a lot of criticism of certain magazines such as Sugar, Bliss and Mizz (I think) one of which gave out free condoms at some point. I'm not entirely sure I agree with going that far but I think that the information they provide is important to fill that gap that schools and parents leave in their sex education.

[David Bean]

Personally, I don't understand where this assumption comes from that it's any of a school's business to teach children anything to do with sex or sexuality outside a biology class. Surely schools are there to provide for the academic development of their pupils, and anything else should be left to the privacy of their homes.

Andrew, unless you're prepared to accept the radically statist view that the state should decide precisely what knowledge should be fed to all young citizens as they grow up, and in what way it should be presented, the argument that faith schools should be abolished can't stand. After all, what of a child who is home-schooled by devout Catholic parents - should the state insist that they promote a message concerning homosexuality to their children that they probably don't even understand, much less believe in? If you're going to argue that faith schools should be abolished because their doctrines impinge upon the prevailing worldview that the state should be providing to children, that - or the forbidding of home schooling - is a conclusion you'll have to accept. You would essentially be declaring the education of children to be primarily the concern of the state rather than the family, marking a dramatic and unprecedented societal shift in a direction I think most people would be unprepared to go. At the moment, state schools exist to provide families the option of delegating (certain aspects of) the responsibility to educate to the state, but no serious politician has ever advocated making the relationship coercive. No matter how important the equality agenda is, I can't believe it's worth that.

And I still don't think homophobia is based upon fear.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Midget]

I sort of agree with you theoretically David. You are right in some ways we have to be careful that it doesn't end up with the state using education to promote a particular view. And it should really be parents who tell their children about sex. I think there is responsibility here, if you have children you have to accept that they will have sex and that it would be best for them if you explained it to them first. You also really should accept even if you don't like the idea that your children may turn out not to just want to do the opposite sex.

Now I'm fine (well I'm not fine, but I can't blame my upbringing) my parents told me about sex well before I ever got any, they gave me a whole shiny modern book about it for godsake. Furthermore when I out of curiosity asked my Dad how gay men have sex he explained in some detail.

But clearly its going to vary tremendously, some parents are going to say lots which serves two purposes it means kids know about it and two it puts them off it, hearing your parents talk about sex is the one single most effective way to stop promiscuity etc, the religious right should try it their a) saying its perverted and b) just plain ignoring it have made sex all the more desirable.

Anyway what I meant to say was that on practical level if the child's parents don't tell them about sex the school is the next best place, they need to know, I think it would be far better for society that the kid was given proper sex ed inc gay sex etc than not. Its a bit intrusive statewise but if it stops babies being born and AIDs spreading then I'm not complaining.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg "Little!"
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100090

[Insight]

If, in the evntuality of faith schools being aboloished, people decided to withdraw their children from mainstream schooling, then that is their decision. I just don't see the point of government policy, supposedly natiowide, being halted or avoided in certain areas.

School are primarily responsible for academic education, but surely they're a cornerstone of social education too? Are you saying we shouldn't be teaching kids anything outside the bare-bones of what's in the textbook? Should we leave it to their parents and the media to let them develop worldview? Would it not, perhaps, be preferable for them to be taught the "standard school of thought" in the classroom, and let faith, parental or media influences help them build from that? Personally, I'm very glad I was given the oppurtunity to learn things different to the perspective my own parents taught me. This may not have extended to sex & sexuality (I received no sex ed except "it's bad before marriage" and "condoms don't really protect against STDs, so why bother?") - but had my parents been my only source of nationwide issues or opinions, I could have ended up with a very confused perception of the world we live in, and been totally unprepared to integrate into it after I flew the nest.



[hr]

SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378

[wribbit]

Hey,
I don't really disagree with anything people have posted on tis thread... just thought I'd give my own perspective on it...

If there's one thing you can never really emmulate it's the innocence of childhood. Before age 12/13, in my opinion sex and all the questions, concerns and feelings that come with it should be as undiscussed as possible.

I guess my real concern is more personal. At the moment, i guess i can label myself as 'gay' however, I am not so much of the belief that this is a product of nature as opposed to a product of my past. This includes (seriously overprotective) parental influences and friends during (admittedly v.right-wing) public secondary school (who unbeknown to me untill 5th year all turned out to be gay.) Guess i'm just glad that i don't have things primary school teachers said to add to that list!

Although I hold nothing against gay people, generally finding them to be caring, friendly people who have suffered at the hands of prejudice, it's not really the life i want for myself. I'm not sure i'm willing to sacrifice to a life of not having kids, suffering prejudice (both intentional and non-intentional) and turning a back on my faith.

I'm not pretending to have all the answers, indeed i'm still going through professional guidence to try and find them - nor am I unhappy, having fantastic friends and having had some great boy and to some degree girlfriends in the past. Guess the point I'm trying to make is if into my twenties i'm still discovering who I am, i don't reckon kids should start burning their bridges in primary school.

I do fully agree with a complete hetero and homo sex-ed, however uniforming and equaling sexualities by teachers is not necessarily painting a truthfull picture and it should be up to the individual to decide in they're own time.

[Guest]

Quite interesting that the gays are all riled over a schools-based scheme but that nobody's said a damned thing about the University giving honours to notorious homophobe Sir Tom Farmer.