would you be ok if the same happened to a muslim teacher if he was teaching islam in class?
It wouldn't bother me if parents objected to their children being taught Islam. But that's not to say that I would think that those parents hated the teacher.
It wouldn't bother me if parents objected to their children being taught Islam. But that's not to say that I would think that those parents hated the teacher.
What is your opinion on this subject?
Do you think the parents are right to complain? Should the book have been removed? Should the teacher have resigned?
Well not only is it fully acceptable, it is now the bloody law of this country.
So any people who object for whatever reason should go boil their heads.
An if it's because of religion well just come up with supporting evidence for the utter nonsense you spout and then you will be taken seriously. No? Can't supply any? Well hardly surprising that no one takes you seriously then.
I'm really disappointed by this story. A man that has been working to stop discrimination in school towards LGBT people. A man who has done his bit to stop or at least reduce prejudice that is often spread by parents to their kids. What kind of way is this to treat someone who is doing good?
It's appalling. It really F's me off when you get people like this who (no doubt due to religion) try to stifle others. The fact is. Their kids will meet/know gay people as they grow up. That cannot be avoided. We are part of society. You can't wrap them up in a prejudice bubble forever. At some point they are going to have to experience the reality of the real world. Better to have a generation of well mannered, accepting kids than allowing the disease of intolerance to spread. Luckily this is only one school and I hope that parents come under a lot of scrutiny.
Pathetic bunch of adults
Well not only is it fully acceptable, it is now the bloody law of this country.
So any people who object for whatever reason should go boil their heads.
An if it's because of religion well just come up with supporting evidence for the utter nonsense you spout and then you will be taken seriously. No? Can't supply any? Well hardly surprising that no one takes you seriously then.
Would that it were so! That they can still cause an outcome like this, in this day and age, is just depressing.
Making it legal doesn't make it more acceptable to people.
People are scared of people talking about gays as normal human beings, because that puts the idea in their head, that they're normal human beings. That's challenging their desire to keep hating them, and their desire to have their children hate them too.
Having it be illegal, does the exact opposite. That says "of course they're bad, why else would it be illegal?". This is about ideas challenging each other, and with time, as the ideas are set against each other, it becomes increasingly difficult to support the ideas that are entirely without merit. But if we want those ideas gone, we need to keep challenging them, rejecting their influence, and not in any way, act as if they are reasonable or deserving of respect.
So, what is YOUR opinion then? That he SHOULD have resigned, or he SHOULDNT have, or he was wrong/right to teach what he did? If you are going to start a topic with a factual copy/paste, then at LEAST let us know what it is you want to discuss and what your opinion is.
Personally I strongly believe he should have stood his ground. If we are to become a society that accepts what is totally natural to some and legally accepted and allowed (hence the new marriage laws), then it should be gradually introduced at a young age that a man can love a man and a woman love a woman. This should help prevent prejudges later in life.
People are scared of people talking about gays as normal human beings, because that puts the idea in their head, that they're normal human beings. That's challenging their desire to keep hating them, and their desire to have their children hate them too.
Having it be illegal, does the exact opposite. That says "of course they're bad, why else would it be illegal?". This is about ideas challenging each other, and with time, as the ideas are set against each other, it becomes increasingly difficult to support the ideas that are entirely without merit. But if we want those ideas gone, we need to keep challenging them, rejecting their influence, and not in any way, act as if they are reasonable or deserving of respect.
Been gay is not a life choice ,but been bean religious is a lifestyle choice.
So, what is YOUR opinion then? That gay SHOULD have resigned, or he SHOULDNT have, or he was wrong/right to teach what he did? If you are going to start a topic with a factual copy/paste, then at LEAST let us know what it is you want to discuss and what your opinion is.
Personally I strongly believe he should have stood his ground. If we are to become a society that accepts what is totally natural to some and legally accepted and allowed (hence the new marriage laws), then it should be gradually introduced at a young age that a man can love a man and a woman love a woman. This should help prevent prejudges later in life.
And don't some people know they are gay from a very young age.So teaching it at a younger age will help the kids that are gay.
So, what is YOUR opinion then? That he SHOULD have resigned, or he SHOULDNT have, or he was wrong/right to teach what he did? If you are going to start a topic with a factual copy/paste, then at LEAST let us know what it is you want to discuss and what your opinion is. Personally I strongly believe he should have stood his ground. If we are to become a society that accepts what is totally natural to some and legally accepted and allowed (hence the new marriage laws), then it should be gradually introduced at a young age that a man can love a man and a woman love a woman. This should help prevent prejudges later in life.
bib1 - I believe this too. Recent changes have come about due to many people not backing down, having a position and fighting for it no matter the adversity they face.
bib2 - again I agree, but then sex education in general in this country is sadly inadequate, we have a lot to learn in that area and seem not to be learning it.
Is it a school's place to teach that Gay sex is ok.
Especially a primary school?
Where did it say gay sex? I would imagine it was age appropriate material just like any other subject. Sex ed is lacking in our schools. You don't have to be graphic. You can teach the simplest of things to kids without getting full on about sex. You can quite easily explain how two people can love each other etc
Is it a school's place to teach that Gay sex is ok.
Especially a primary school?
I think it depends what is being taught.
I'm assuming he doesn't explain what words like rimming, active/passive mean whilst showing hardcore gay porn. I'm thinking this guy is mentioning it in a much more low-key way. The article is not really detailed enough to say whether or not he was right to do what he was doing.
Is it a school's place to teach that Gay sex is ok.
Especially a primary school?
They were teaching nothing about sex at all. They were teaching about relationships which is what they should be doing in primary school. Contrary to some people's beliefs, young children aren't particularly confused by homosexual relationships at all - prejudice is taught.
So, what is YOUR opinion then? That he SHOULD have resigned, or he SHOULDNT have, or he was wrong/right to teach what he did? If you are going to start a topic with a factual copy/paste, then at LEAST let us know what it is you want to discuss and what your opinion is.
Personally I strongly believe he should have stood his ground. If we are to become a society that accepts what is totally natural to some and legally accepted and allowed (hence the new marriage laws), then it should be gradually introduced at a young age that a man can love a man and a woman love a woman. This should help prevent prejudges later in life.
What is this nonsense with some DS posters, who feel that they can't have a discussion without first hearing what the op has to say? Others apparently have managed it. But if you're that interested to know my thoughts post 19 and other post more or less say what I think.
If I posted that micky Rooney had died and left it at that would you ask my opinion or would you just post your personal thoughts on him?
The fact that I may post something I find of interest does not mean I have an opinion on it.
What is this nonsense with some DS posters, who feel that they can't have a discussion without first hearing what the op has to say? Others apparently have managed it. But if you're that interested to know my thoughts post 19 and other post more or less say what I think.
If I posted that micky Rooney had died and left it at that would you ask my opinion or would you just post your personal thoughts on him?
The fact that I may post something I find of interest does not mean I have an opinion on it.
Many of us are familiar with your history of postings. Is it really that much of a shock that people are asking your views?
What is this nonsense with some DS posters, who feel that they can't have a discussion without first hearing what the op has to say? Others apparently have managed it. But if you're that interested to know my thoughts post 19 and other post more or less say what I think.
If I posted that micky Rooney had died and left it at that would you ask my opinion or would you just post your personal thoughts on him?
The fact that I may post something I find of interest does not mean I have an opinion on it.
No, but it makes sense that you should air your opinion before you deride others for theirs. ;-) It also makes a discussion flow more smoothly when others don't have to second guess your opinion, only to be told "I never said that" over and over. ;-)
The problems start when you single any group out and say 'treat them the same as everyone else'. By doing that you are contradicting your own point. We are all human and should all appreciate each other is the only line that needs to be taken. And if anyone questions it, the same line should be repeated.
Is it?
Where does it say this in official documents?
What documents are you on about? Of course equal rights should be taught from an early age. It's the only way to do it before ridiculous, ignorant, prehistoric prejudices start being formed.
Comments
It wouldn't bother me if parents objected to their children being taught Islam. But that's not to say that I would think that those parents hated the teacher.
What is your opinion on this subject?
Do you think the parents are right to complain? Should the book have been removed? Should the teacher have resigned?
So any people who object for whatever reason should go boil their heads.
An if it's because of religion well just come up with supporting evidence for the utter nonsense you spout and then you will be taken seriously. No? Can't supply any? Well hardly surprising that no one takes you seriously then.
It's appalling. It really F's me off when you get people like this who (no doubt due to religion) try to stifle others. The fact is. Their kids will meet/know gay people as they grow up. That cannot be avoided. We are part of society. You can't wrap them up in a prejudice bubble forever. At some point they are going to have to experience the reality of the real world. Better to have a generation of well mannered, accepting kids than allowing the disease of intolerance to spread. Luckily this is only one school and I hope that parents come under a lot of scrutiny.
Pathetic bunch of adults
People are scared of people talking about gays as normal human beings, because that puts the idea in their head, that they're normal human beings. That's challenging their desire to keep hating them, and their desire to have their children hate them too.
Having it be illegal, does the exact opposite. That says "of course they're bad, why else would it be illegal?". This is about ideas challenging each other, and with time, as the ideas are set against each other, it becomes increasingly difficult to support the ideas that are entirely without merit. But if we want those ideas gone, we need to keep challenging them, rejecting their influence, and not in any way, act as if they are reasonable or deserving of respect.
As with any form of bullying, it only has effect and the bully win if you allow it.
(Hence the go tell them to boil their heads and back up their nonsense first.)
So, what is YOUR opinion then? That he SHOULD have resigned, or he SHOULDNT have, or he was wrong/right to teach what he did? If you are going to start a topic with a factual copy/paste, then at LEAST let us know what it is you want to discuss and what your opinion is.
Personally I strongly believe he should have stood his ground. If we are to become a society that accepts what is totally natural to some and legally accepted and allowed (hence the new marriage laws), then it should be gradually introduced at a young age that a man can love a man and a woman love a woman. This should help prevent prejudges later in life.
Been gay is not a life choice ,but been bean religious is a lifestyle choice.
And don't some people know they are gay from a very young age.So teaching it at a younger age will help the kids that are gay.
bib2 - again I agree, but then sex education in general in this country is sadly inadequate, we have a lot to learn in that area and seem not to be learning it.
Especially a primary school?
It wasn't teaching that though. it was teaching not to single someone out for being gay.
Is it?
Where does it say this in official documents?
Where did it say gay sex? I would imagine it was age appropriate material just like any other subject. Sex ed is lacking in our schools. You don't have to be graphic. You can teach the simplest of things to kids without getting full on about sex. You can quite easily explain how two people can love each other etc
I think it depends what is being taught.
I'm assuming he doesn't explain what words like rimming, active/passive mean whilst showing hardcore gay porn. I'm thinking this guy is mentioning it in a much more low-key way. The article is not really detailed enough to say whether or not he was right to do what he was doing.
Don't let that stop the outrage though ;-)
They were teaching nothing about sex at all. They were teaching about relationships which is what they should be doing in primary school. Contrary to some people's beliefs, young children aren't particularly confused by homosexual relationships at all - prejudice is taught.
Why is it some people's minds immediately head for sex when the word gay is mentioned?
And I thought it was those who wouldn't teach about same sex marriage whose jobs were under threat, not those who would.
What is this nonsense with some DS posters, who feel that they can't have a discussion without first hearing what the op has to say? Others apparently have managed it. But if you're that interested to know my thoughts post 19 and other post more or less say what I think.
If I posted that micky Rooney had died and left it at that would you ask my opinion or would you just post your personal thoughts on him?
The fact that I may post something I find of interest does not mean I have an opinion on it.
EDIT: was he asked to resign?
Many of us are familiar with your history of postings. Is it really that much of a shock that people are asking your views?
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You really should read that again. Are you trying to put your own agenda in that statement?
No, but it makes sense that you should air your opinion before you deride others for theirs. ;-) It also makes a discussion flow more smoothly when others don't have to second guess your opinion, only to be told "I never said that" over and over. ;-)
Or maybe it's that you have no opinion.
Who said rote learning was outdated?
What documents are you on about? Of course equal rights should be taught from an early age. It's the only way to do it before ridiculous, ignorant, prehistoric prejudices start being formed.