Gender distinction in Canada's schools

JimiTime

Interesting issue raised in Canada. Thought it may be of interest to the forum.

From here

Article wrote:

On September 24th, the National Post, considered to be one of the most conservative mainstream media outlets in Canada, ran a compelling ad featuring the face of a little girl (perhaps four or five years old) with this caption: “Please! Don’t confuse me.” Beneath her photo the text continued: “I’m a girl. Don’t teach me to question if I’m a boy, transsexual, transgendered, intersexed or two spirited.”

As reported by Thaddeus Balklinski of LifesiteNews.com, the ad, which was sponsored by The Institute for Canadian Values, argued “that the Toronto District School Board’s pro-homosexual curriculum [was] corrupting and confusing children.”

Balklinski reported that the ad pointed to the school board’s “Equity curriculum, called ‘Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism,’ [which] instructs teachers to encourage boys and girls ‘to play opposite roles.’”

“‘At times boys may play girls and rely on sexist stereotypical behaviour with which they are familiar,’ states the curriculum.”

“The curriculum also encourages teachers to ‘search Images of Pride Week’ and to make posters for the school board float in the Pride Parade. ‘Additionally, students could have their own Pride Parade in their school,’ it says.” Yes, this is part of the Ontario school curriculum. Six days later, on September 30th, to the shock of many of its readers, the Post apologized “unreservedly” for running the ad. The Post noted that the ad, which had “caused some controversy . . . argued against aspects of the Ontario school curriculum . . . . Specifically, it objected to teaching young children — those between junior kindergarten and Grade 3 — about transsexual/transgender/intersexed/two-spirited issues.”

Are you rubbing your eyes? Checking your glasses? Well, your eyes did not deceive you. These subjects are being taught to kids as young as four, and yet it is the ad, not the curriculum, that is controversial. What planet are we living on? (For those unfamiliar with the “two-spirit” concept, it is found among the native populations of North America, where a person is believed to be both male and female and is often highly venerated rather than rejected.

Zombrex

Meh, nothing to see here, the ICV are a typical nut job right wing Christian group, trying to get homosexual relations made illegal, protesting museums housing Darwinian exhibits, complaining about various conspiracy theories (apparently Canadian mobile companies are selling your private data to North Korea).

This is the curriculum referenced in the ad

http://word.ca/TDSB%20Equity%20%20Inclusive%20Curriculum%20-%20See%20page%2010%20!.pdf

all pretty harmless stuff trying to teach empathy and understanding.

Keaton

That's a new form of child abuse. So cruel to play social experiments using innocent kids as material. I read a story earlier about the UK Passport Agency referring to Parent 1 and Parent 2 rather than father and mother. Here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15150526

Manach

On the other hand, (I was reading up on their legal system a few days ago - fun times), the Canadian legal system historically has been very even handed in terms of education and has allowed religious education to be state-funded. Their supreme court has upheld challenges to this topic on a number of occasions.

alex73

Trying to teach small children want Gay/Transsexuals are is confusing. The "normal" yes I used the word. The Normal path for a boy is to become a man, with male sexual drive and an girl to become a woman with woman's sexual drive.

I don't groom my kids for a possible future where the could be gay. I

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Interesting issue raised in Canada. Thought it may be of interest to the forum.

From here

Canada seems to be the leader in enforced acceptance that homosexuality is morally OK. The criminalization of the Bible and those who adhere to its teaching can't be far off.

************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

Meh, nothing to see here, the ICV are a typical nut job right wing Christian group, trying to get homosexual relations made illegal, protesting museums housing Darwinian exhibits, complaining about various conspiracy theories (apparently Canadian mobile companies are selling your private data to North Korea).

This is the curriculum referenced in the ad

http://word.ca/TDSB%20Equity%20%20Inclusive%20Curriculum%20-%20See%20page%2010%20!.pdf

all pretty harmless stuff trying to teach empathy and understanding.

Appreciate the digging up the curriculum doc. TBH, its far from harmless. It is a strategic framework for breaking down a childs natural insticts towards gender divide, family and sexuality. It also makes no apologies for the fact that it cares not a jot for the moral position of parents etc. I have no issue with an anti-homophobe part of a curriculum aimed at an age appropriate class. However, this framework sets out to quash the natural instincts of growing Children, and break up any traditional family values etc. From Kindergarten up.

Some may see it as encouraging inclusivity, but myself and many others see it as distorting gender, sexuality and family to very young children. As you know, I'm no trumpet bearer for Catholicism, but Its things like this that make me shudder at the prospect of secular education.

wonderfulname

Actually it's pretty well known now that you can't screw with someone's perception of their gender, it just is what it is, you aren't merely brought up and trained into your genitalia. We do enforce gender roles on kids, but that isn't actually a good thing, as any well meaning feminist will tell you, and stepping outside these roles is not harmful, in fact nearly everyone does it to a degree and preventing this would be likely to cause some level of internal strife, after all not all men are rugged lumberjacks and not all women are damsel housewives.

A bit of light reading for you guys to muse over. The introduction is especially relevant, quite a famous case study on nature vs. nurture.

All this thing in Canada will do is increase the likelihood of the vast majority of kids which grow up conforming to their assumed gender respecting those who don't, and also increase the likelihood of those that don't being able to confront the fact, hence reducing suicide and depression rates in those few.

Just an example from that curriculum document, an extract from what is being taught to the youngest of children on gender;

8. Identify, as a class, the discrimination that occurs due to gender stereotyping. Refer to the
following suggested questions: (Note: With younger students, this section is most appropriate
with the teacher facilitating a whole-class discussion. Older students may work in small
groups.)
• What kinds of name-calling do you hear when girls and boys don’t follow gender rules?
(e.g. sissy, fag, gaylord, batty man, poofta, tomboy, lezzy, lezbo, dyke, homo, queer, etc.)
• Who gets called these names? Which boys and which girls?
• How do these hurtful actions affect the boy or girl?
• Do you think children need to change their behaviour in order to not be bullied or harassed?
(e.g., boy may feel he needs to act more “macho” to prevent being targeted)
• Is this fair? Students can produce their own ideas of the reasons why stereotyping is
harmful. Although they may to some extent buy into these assumptions, children often have
a strong sense of justice and will see the unfairness in the ways people are treated.
9. Generate and record a list of reasons why stereotyping based on rules of gender is not a good
thing:
• It hurts people’s feelings.
• Girls and boys will stop doing what they really want to do.
• Everyone would be the same and that would be boring.
• Boys and girls should have the opportunity to make their own choices and not be afraid of
being ridiculed.

Now does anyone actually have a problem with this? It more counters bullying than anything, who here went to school where there were one or two lads who didn't like, or were bad at sports? Or where there were girls who were tomboys? Everyone I'd wager, do you not think it good that children are taught that this is no reason to bully someone?

lmaopml

wonderfulname wrote: »

Actually it's pretty well known now that you can't screw with someone's perception of their gender, it just is what it is, you aren't merely brought up and trained into your genitalia. We do enforce gender roles on kids, but that isn't actually a good thing, as any well meaning feminist will tell you, and stepping outside these roles is not harmful, in fact nearly everyone does it to a degree and preventing this would be likely to cause some level of internal strife, after all not all men are rugged lumberjacks and not all women are damsel housewives.

A bit of light reading for you guys to muse over. The introduction is especially relevant, quite a famous case study on nature vs. nurture.

All this thing in Canada will do is increase the likelihood of the vast majority of kids which grow up conforming to their assumed gender respecting those who don't, and also increase the likelihood of those that don't being able to confront the fact, hence reducing suicide and depression rates in those few.

Just an example from that curriculum document, an extract from what is being taught to the youngest of children on gender;Now does anyone actually have a problem with this? It more counters bullying than anything, who here went to school where there were one or two lads who didn't like, or were bad at sports? Or where there were girls who were tomboys? Everyone I'd wager, do you not think it good that children are taught that this is no reason to bully someone?

I would agree that calling anybody, no matter what - whether it is gender discrimination orientated, or whether it is 'class' discrimination or race, religion etc. should be taught..

That's a basic surely? ..and most schools and teachers are more than aware of these things - or at least should be.

However, I think it should be 'age' appropriate too - School is about learning in very many ways, and children are only on loan to their teachers, as much as they are to their own parents too - the very young should be concentrating on the very basics...language and reading, and numeracy....along with self worth and our value and opening the door to the world, - that doesn't necessitate an overload of how every body 'self identifies'...in my experience, mere 'kids' get along just fine, better than adults and 'that' doesn't need any adjustment or interferement, or even over anxious protection..

...but an 'ethos' is valuable too imo, like everything in life.

Let them find their way, whatever 'ethos' - but don't put too much on them while they are only five and six etc. Life is too long and too short. They will inevitably grow up and cut out a path.....no need to over do weeding the pitfalls of the journey...some things aren't taught, but learned by experience...let them learn and grow.

wonderfulname

I would agree that there is too much emphasis being put on this element of the curriculum, but I suppose getting the message across that kids can be themselves and that's okay is important enough at that age, then again is it really the schools job to instil that ethos?

In my opinion all this stuff is assimilated as you grow, not learned in a concrete fashion, I don't understand the necessity to teach it to the kids, at the same time it is not harmful to do so, as is being suggested, unless you count taking time away from learning the things you traditionally go to school for but that's a different matter and I have no idea of whether or not it would actually do harm there anyway.

Manach

So long as the Parents can get a preview of this type of orientation and choose to have their children either opt out or else provided with counter-balancing tradationist norms.

lmaopml

wonderfulname wrote: »

I would agree that there is too much emphasis being put on this element of the curriculum, but I suppose getting the message across that kids can be themselves and that's okay is important enough at that age, then again is it really the schools job to instil that ethos?[/qoute]

I think you are overestimating the ability of the school and it's teachers and ethos in crossing those bounds - 'kids' of a certain age seem to mostly get on just fine without any baggage...but they will pick up the baggage and be written on eventually - the school can only emphasise the value of the person, the student, the individual and nothing more.

[qoute]In my opinion all this stuff is assimilated as you grow, not learned in a concrete fashion, I don't understand the necessity to teach it to the kids, at the same time it is not harmful to do so, as is being suggested, unless you count taking time away from learning the things you traditionally go to school for but that's a different matter and I have no idea of whether or not it would actually do harm there anyway.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think it is a 'growing' thing....It's the same as people giving out about any 'ethos' or what particular subject they see as most valuable to their children - it's hard to strike a balance -

- but it is true, that even little ones learn more than literacy and numeracy in school, it's important as a parent to know that they are being given a sense of self worth too, and not self recrimination, that is a good teachers 'forte' - or an overload of gender roles or boxing in of same, no need to use a 5b pencil on a five year old- give them room, the basics, and hope it sticks with them into adulthood is the best a parent can hope for, or a teacher for that matter..

wonderfulname

What do you mean "traditionalist"? What do you think is being taught?

wonderfulname

lmaopml wrote: »

- but it is true, that even little ones learn more than literacy and numeracy in school, it's important as a parent to know that they are being given a sense of self worth too, and not self recrimination, that is a good teachers 'forte' - or an overload of gender roles or boxing in of same, no need to use a 5b pencil on a five year old.

Indeed they do, and it is as important a skill to learn, to be confident and to communicate, to interact with society etc etc, what we are discussing here is even an element of that same branch of education, but what is the correct weighting of educational to social and personal? And how much of the social and personal should be in how we teach and interact rather than what we teach?

Do we really have to sit down and discuss how and why we shouldn't bully Paul because he has a thing for barbies or should we just imply that Paul should be treated decently by our interactions, if you get my drift?

lmaopml

wonderfulname wrote: »

Indeed they do, and it is as important a skill to learn, to be confident and to communicate, to interact with society etc etc, what we are discussing here is even an element of that same branch of education, but what is the correct weighting of educational to social and personal? And how much of the social and personal should be in how we teach and interact rather than what we teach?

Do we really have to sit down and discuss how and why we shouldn't bully Paul because he has a thing for barbies or should we just imply that Paul should be treated decently by our interactions, if you get my drift?

I would imagine that we should teach empathy and a sense of community among students. A small group of so many individual spirits is bound to throw up a few Pauls ( as you put it ) Paul is part of the group, he grows with everybody else, he is not 'special', he is treated the very same as every other student who learns literacy and numeracy - and he is not belittled, but protected like everybody else..

However, a good teacher knows their students and will 'guide' them, no matter whether they are Paul or Mary, but encourage them to learn.....and nothing more than that..... outside of the reality of an 'ethos' that says a prayer to God at beginning of school and at lunch....but those things are valued by some and not by others....and most likely will become a thing of the past in education.

I'll be sad! but I won't be disillusioned..

wonderfulname

But do we teach empathy and community or do we foster it?

As for the prayers in schools and similar, I believe it will remain a staple of schools with religious patronage if the church hands over enough schools so those who want a completely secular education can have it, if they remain patrons of the percentage of schools they currently oversee then the system as a whole will of course change in an effort to include those who aren't receiving their constitutional right to have their kids educated under the ethos they see fit, but that's for another thread.

lmaopml

wonderfulname wrote: »

But do we teach empathy and community or do we foster it?

As for the prayers in schools and similar, I believe it will remain a staple of schools with religious patronage if the church hands over enough schools so those who want a completely secular education can have it, if they remain patrons of the percentage of schools they currently oversee then the system as a whole will of course change in an effort to include those who aren't receiving their constitutional right to have their kids educated under the ethos they see fit, but that's for another thread.

A good teacher will do both. It's only another skill that we pass on - ultimately the child will grow and make choices - the only thing a teacher can hope for, or a parent is that it's 'informed' choices...and that the student or child has an 'identity'....a solid foundation..that encourages empathy and community and a sense of self worth and place...

Keaton

Gender identity is very much open to manipulation. Kids need to be guided and supported to develop a healthy gender identity which ought to match their biological sex! Messing around with it is wrong, as these programmes are. It's cruel.

wonderfulname

Keaton, do you have any proof to back this up? Did you read any of the links posted to this page? Including the actual curriculum?

Because you're just wrong keaton, think back to when you were a child, if someone had put you in a dress would you think you were a girl? Nope, the nurture theory on gender identity went out the window decades ago.

wolfsbane

wonderfulname wrote: »

Actually it's pretty well known now that you can't screw with someone's perception of their gender, it just is what it is, you aren't merely brought up and trained into your genitalia. We do enforce gender roles on kids, but that isn't actually a good thing, as any well meaning feminist will tell you, and stepping outside these roles is not harmful, in fact nearly everyone does it to a degree and preventing this would be likely to cause some level of internal strife, after all not all men are rugged lumberjacks and not all women are damsel housewives.

A bit of light reading for you guys to muse over. The introduction is especially relevant, quite a famous case study on nature vs. nurture.

All this thing in Canada will do is increase the likelihood of the vast majority of kids which grow up conforming to their assumed gender respecting those who don't, and also increase the likelihood of those that don't being able to confront the fact, hence reducing suicide and depression rates in those few.

Just an example from that curriculum document, an extract from what is being taught to the youngest of children on gender;Now does anyone actually have a problem with this? It more counters bullying than anything, who here went to school where there were one or two lads who didn't like, or were bad at sports? Or where there were girls who were tomboys? Everyone I'd wager, do you not think it good that children are taught that this is no reason to bully someone?

It's a good thing to teach kids not to bully others, even others who believe or act strangely. But it is evil to teach kids that deviant forms of sexuality are proper.

We can teach our kids that homosexuality is sinful; that heterosexual promiscuity is sinful - if we teach them also that people have a civil right to be sinful, as long as they do not harm the uninvolved by their practices.

How complicated is that for a democratic country? Why the resort to atheistic indoctrination?

****************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Manach

I don't personally think this is necessarily equated with atheistism as such. At best it is an honest intention to promote an inclusive civil society here, and would be backed by segments of the country's teaching unions and dept. of education. But even so, without counteracting voices such as Wolfbane's & Keaton's to present an alternative viewpoint it would create a distorted worldview.

wonderfulname

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's a good thing to teach kids not to bully others, even others who believe or act strangely. But it is evil to teach kids that deviant forms of sexuality are proper.

We can teach our kids that homosexuality is sinful; that heterosexual promiscuity is sinful - if we teach them also that people have a civil right to be sinful, as long as they do not harm the uninvolved by their practices.

How complicated is that for a democratic country? Why the resort to atheistic indoctrination?

****************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

You teach your young children about the morals of adult sexual relations? To each their own... You'll find their world view doesn't include that, and they won't be reading anything more than "boys and girls can do the same stuff" of what is in that curriculum.

JimiTime

wonderfulname wrote: »

You teach your young children about the morals of adult sexual relations? To each their own...

i don't think he was saying that, but ultimately (I'm using that word a hell of a lot lately), thats what this curriculum is grooming kids towards. It may have other things at its heart too, but it will ultimately lead to this inevitable topic.

You'll find their world view doesn't include that, and they won't be reading anything more than "boys and girls can do the same stuff" of what is in that curriculum.

But they can't. Boys can't have babies. Boys are physically stronger. There are certain things better suited to men, and others better suited to women. Men and women are different, mentally, emotionally, biologically and physically. Most of the time, these differences are complimentary. This curriculum wants kids to think things like, 'John has two daddies, thats perfectly normal'. This is absolutely NOT normal, but rather a very contrived situation which betrays the biological gender distinction, and the complimentary nature of having both a mother and a father to raise you. Now people may disagree with this, but it is abhorrent that parents are powerless to decide if this type of teaching is taught a) In schools in general, and b) If parents want it in schools, that certain parents can't request to have their child excluded from such a curriculum. Even in Irish Catholic schools, parents are usually accommodated in relation to religion class.

Wolfsbane's point about anti-bullying hits the nail on the head. Its wrong to bully, whatever its reasons, and teaching that is not an issue. This curriculum goes way beyond that and looks to cut natural instinct off at the pass.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's a good thing to teach kids not to bully others, even others who believe or act strangely. But it is evil to teach kids that deviant forms of sexuality are proper.

We can teach our kids that homosexuality is sinful; that heterosexual promiscuity is sinful - if we teach them also that people have a civil right to be sinful, as long as they do not harm the uninvolved by their practices.

How complicated is that for a democratic country? Why the resort to atheistic indoctrination?

The Canadian State is not a Christian theocracy, it shouldn't be teaching that anything is or isn't a Christian sin.

That is up to the person themselves to decide based on their own religious preferences.

The State education system should be teaching the current health and safety policy of the government, which at the moment sees a person engaging in homosexual relationships are perfectly legal and socially acceptable behavior.

What next, little Timmy the Mormon is going to hell and we should pray for him says the Minister for Education? :pac:

Monty Burnz

Keaton wrote: »

Gender identity is very much open to manipulation. Kids need to be guided and supported to develop a healthy gender identity which ought to match their biological sex! Messing around with it is wrong, as these programmes are. It's cruel.

Are you arguing that you could have been persuaded as a child that (assuming you are male) you were a girl and liked to play with dolls? Because I assure you that would not have worked on me.

Can you cite any scientific research that shows that boys or girls can be persuaded in a few classroom lessons about sensitivity to difference that they are of the other gender? (assuming, of course, that you accept the principle of science, I know some Christians don't )

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

The Canadian State is not a Christian theocracy, it shouldn't be teaching that anything is or isn't a Christian sin.

That is up to the person themselves to decide based on their own religious preferences.

The State education system should be teaching the current health and safety policy of the government, which at the moment sees a person engaging in homosexual relationships are perfectly legal and socially acceptable behavior.

What next, little Timmy the Mormon is going to hell and we should pray for him says the Minister for Education? :pac:

OK, let me put it this way: the State may properly teach our kids that A,B and C are legal. But it is the 'socially acceptable' but that brings trouble. What is meant by your use of it? For example, anything legal may be said to be socially acceptable in the sense that it is permitted. OR we may use the term to describe activities that society as a whole views as within the bounds of decency. Some things can be legal, but not generally considered decent. Getting drunk every night of the week. Having sex with every man and/or woman one meets. Asset-stripping companies. Paying minimum wages when one could afford to pay better.

Homosexuality is legal - but many, including me - do not view it as decent. And we do not want our kids being told that it is.

Seems to me the problem arises because all states have to hold/teach some sort of morality. It's fine when there is no dispute on the specifics - all agree that theft and murder is immoral, wrong, indecent or however one wants to express it. But as modern states move away from their founding beliefs and further into atheism, divergence arises on the issue of sexual morality especially.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you arguing that you could have been persuaded as a child that (assuming you are male) you were a girl and liked to play with dolls? Because I assure you that would not have worked on me.

Can you cite any scientific research that shows that boys or girls can be persuaded in a few classroom lessons about sensitivity to difference that they are of the other gender? (assuming, of course, that you accept the principle of science, I know some Christians don't )

It's not about persuading them they are of another gender. Just priming them with the idea that sexual thoughts of or approaches from one of their own sex is not wrong. That when they are of age, it will be good and proper for them to develop sexual relationships with either sex.

As to the power of enforced cross-gender dressing, I don't know the science, but I can see how it would mess with anyone's mind. And it has been told me by a man who experienced it as child - he gave it as a major factor in distorting his sexual development so that it expressed itself in later childhood and adulthood by attraction only to male children.

***********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

wonderfulname

JimiTime wrote: »

Boys are physically stronger. There are certain things better suited to men, and others better suited to women. Men and women are different, mentally, emotionally, biologically and physically. Most of the time, these differences are complimentary.

No. This is a generalisation, ON AVERAGE these things are true, but the vast majority of the time a man or woman will have one or some attributes more usually attributed to the opposite sex, think of your empathetic priest, empathy is ON AVERAGE a character trait reserved for women, think of female engineers, male nurses, just because the majority of the people who have the attributes suitable for these careers are of the opposite sex does not mean these people don't.

JimiTime wrote: »

This curriculum wants kids to think things like, 'John has two daddies, thats perfectly normal'.

No, more "John has two daddies, lets accept that and move on"

JimiTime wrote: »

This is absolutely NOT normal, but rather a very contrived situation which betrays the biological gender distinction, and the complimentary nature of having both a mother and a father to raise you.

This is a very false position, but there is another thread for that matter...

JimiTime wrote: »

Now people may disagree with this, but it is abhorrent that parents are powerless to decide if this type of teaching is taught a) In schools in general, and b) If parents want it in schools, that certain parents can't request to have their child excluded from such a curriculum. Even in Irish Catholic schools, parents are usually accommodated in relation to religion class.

But are the young earth creationists exempt from science? Or the children of anarchists exempt from CSPE? You may have your opinions, but teaching people to be accepting and respectful of other people regardless of their views on how those people live their lives is not a bad thing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's not about persuading them they are of another gender. Just priming them with the idea that sexual thoughts of or approaches from one of their own sex is not wrong. That when they are of age, it will be good and proper for them to develop sexual relationships with either sex.

But they cannot help who they will want to pursue relationships with in later life, it doesn't matter what they believe to be proper, it just happens, if you really must push your religion on them at least allow all this stuff out in the open so if the unlikely does occur they won't bottle it up, instead confide in you, then you can do the decent Christian think and not force them into a loveless relationship by inaction and destroy their mental health, I mean at the very least advocate celibacy and don't do your mental capacity the injustice of claiming anyone has a choice when it comes to sexuality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the power of enforced cross-gender dressing, I don't know the science...

You're right, you don't, and your anecdote holds zero weight, in fact, in real studies, one of which you'll find references to in a link I posted earlier, the exact opposite to your assumption has been found to be true.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, let me put it this way: the State may properly teach our kids that A,B and C are legal. But it is the 'socially acceptable' but that brings trouble. What is meant by your use of it?

It is socially acceptable, that is the position of the state. If you disagree you have the democratic route to lobby that this shouldn't be the position of the Canadian state.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OR we may use the term to describe activities that society as a whole views as within the bounds of decency. Some things can be legal, but not generally considered decent. Getting drunk every night of the week. Having sex with every man and/or woman one meets. Asset-stripping companies. Paying minimum wages when one could afford to pay better.

Homosexuality is legal - but many, including me - do not view it as decent.

And you are allowed to, but that isn't the position of the Canadian State.

The Canadian State is responsibly to the democratic will of its people, not the position of the Christian churches.

If you believe homosexuality is indecent and should not be considered socially acceptable then it is your responsibility to convince enough people of that so that it no longer becomes the position of the State.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And we do not want our kids being told that it is.

Well the debate over how much you can **** up your own kids is probably one for another time :P

I'm merely pointing out that just because Christians say this is not socially acceptable doesn't reflect the position of the State, the State's allegiance is to the people of the country, not the Christian churches.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to me the problem arises because all states have to hold/teach some sort of morality. It's fine when there is no dispute on the specifics - all agree that theft and murder is immoral, wrong, indecent or however one wants to express it. But as modern states move away from their founding beliefs and further into atheism, divergence arises on the issue of sexual morality especially.

Divergence has always existed, 50 years ago some people didn't want it taught that it is socially acceptable to associate with black people.

Progress in society cannot be held hostage to the views of conservative minority. It is the conservatives responsibility to demonstrate to the rest of us that their position is the just one.

As I mentioned on the Gay marriage thread, Christians groups have been doing a terrible job at this so far. Come up with better reasons these things shouldn't be taught, rather than just complaining they are

wolfsbane

wonderfulname said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It's not about persuading them they are of another gender. Just priming them with the idea that sexual thoughts of or approaches from one of their own sex is not wrong. That when they are of age, it will be good and proper for them to develop sexual relationships with either sex.
But they cannot help who they will want to pursue relationships with in later life, it doesn't matter what they believe to be proper, it just happens, if you really must push your religion on them at least allow all this stuff out in the open so if the unlikely does occur they won't bottle it up, instead confide in you, then you can do the decent Christian think and not force them into a loveless relationship by inaction and destroy their mental health, I mean at the very least advocate celibacy and don't do your mental capacity the injustice of claiming anyone has a choice when it comes to sexuality.

Whatever our inclinations, sexual or otherwise, if they are against God's law they ought to be fought against by the one who has them. We need to teach our kids not to do everything that they feel like doing. Some things are harmful/wicked. We can help what we do with evil desires.

But to teaching kids: if the State thinks homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality, they could put that to the kids - provided they acknowledge that this is not the view of most of the world's population, nor of the people who founded Canada/USA/UK, etc. Let the kids know this subject is strongly contested, instead of indoctrinating them with the homosexuality is OK view. That's being out in the open.

Yes, by all means deal with the problems sex produces. Advocate celibacy before marriage; faithfulness within it. Let them know help is there for any who seek it, no matter the nature of the sexual problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to the power of enforced cross-gender dressing, I don't know the science...
You're right, you don't, and your anecdote holds zero weight, in fact, in real studies, one of which you'll find references to in a link I posted earlier, the exact opposite to your assumption has been found to be true.

Really? I'm pretty sceptical of social science 'truths'. They seem to change with the needs of the elite. I rather listen to people I know who have the experiences - not that I trust them entirely either.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, let me put it this way: the State may properly teach our kids that A,B and C are legal. But it is the 'socially acceptable' but that brings trouble. What is meant by your use of it?
It is socially acceptable, that is the position of the state. If you disagree you have the democratic route to lobby that this shouldn't be the position of the Canadian state.

OK, you say anything the State says is socially acceptable is so. Racism in Nazi Germany; Apartheid in SA, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OR we may use the term to describe activities that society as a whole views as within the bounds of decency. Some things can be legal, but not generally considered decent. Getting drunk every night of the week. Having sex with every man and/or woman one meets. Asset-stripping companies. Paying minimum wages when one could afford to pay better.

Homosexuality is legal - but many, including me - do not view it as decent.
And you are allowed to, but that isn't the position of the Canadian State.

The Canadian State is responsibly to the democratic will of its people, not the position of the Christian churches.

If you believe homosexuality is indecent and should not be considered socially acceptable then it is your responsibility to convince enough people of that so that it no longer becomes the position of the State.

I quite agree that the State's morality may differ from mine. And I appreciate I'm free to campaign for the Sate's morality to be changed.

But that is not the point. The point is the State is not entitled to enforce all its moral views on me or my kids. It can present them, but not in the terms that this is the truth. Let them acknowledge the differing views, especially those that the State was founded on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And we do not want our kids being told that it is.
Well the debate over how much you can **** up your own kids is probably one for another time

I'm merely pointing out that just because Christians say this is not socially acceptable doesn't reflect the position of the State, the State's allegiance is to the people of the country, not the Christian churches.

I agree that the State is not bound to what Christians say. But it is bound to respect their difference on this moral matter, and not force their opinion on us. If they won't do that, then it is time for Christians to vote for those who will. If our morality is such a minority view, then we must endure evil teaching and re-educate our kids at home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Seems to me the problem arises because all states have to hold/teach some sort of morality. It's fine when there is no dispute on the specifics - all agree that theft and murder is immoral, wrong, indecent or however one wants to express it. But as modern states move away from their founding beliefs and further into atheism, divergence arises on the issue of sexual morality especially.
Divergence has always existed, 50 years ago some people didn't want it taught that it is socially acceptable to associate with black people.

Indeed. And Canada was quite famous for its support of eugenics. All socially acceptable at the time. Like homosexuality today.

Progress in society cannot be held hostage to the views of conservative minority. It is the conservatives responsibility to demonstrate to the rest of us that their position is the just one.

Yes, that is true. If society casts off Christian morality, society will have to face whatever replaces it. Christians will suffer in the process, but evil brings its own punishment.

As I mentioned on the Gay marriage thread, Christians groups have been doing a terrible job at this so far. Come up with better reasons these things shouldn't be taught, rather than just complaining they are

I think my reason is fine: The State should not teach kids that homosexuality is valid, because it is a perversion of nature and has bad mental and physical tendencies. Homosexuality is also a grave sin against God, and has temporal and eternal consequences - but it is not the place of the State to teach religion.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zombrex said:

OK, you say anything the State says is socially acceptable is so. Racism in Nazi Germany; Apartheid in SA, etc.

No, I'm saying anything the State says is socially acceptable according to the State which in Canada is responsible for education, and in a democracy if yo disagree with the current position of the State you are free to attempt democratic change of that position.

If you believe the State's position should be that it is not socially acceptable to be a homosexual or to carry out homosexual acts then the onus is on you and others who agree with you to convince, through democratic methods, the rest of the population.

It will then become the position of the State.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I quite agree that the State's morality may differ from mine. And I appreciate I'm free to campaign for the Sate's morality to be changed.

But that is not the point. The point is the State is not entitled to enforce all its moral views on me or my kids.

What, just some of its moral views? We want our kids learning there is nothing wrong with being black, but not learning there is nothing wrong with being homosexual?

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Who decides what areas of civics, health, etc we do teach our kids and what areas we don't if the democratic will of the people.

Should a parent be able to demand that a school stop teaching an anti-bullying class because they personally believe that bully is actually pretty good their kids?

wolfsbane wrote: »

It can present them, but not in the terms that this is the truth. Let them acknowledge the differing views, especially those that the State was founded on.

That is what this course does, it is designed around empathy and tolerance of those who are different to you.

The religious view point of the person as they grow old enough to have a religious view point is their own private matter. This course is to stop kids throwing stones at the boy who likes to play with dolls instead of action men.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed. And Canada was quite famous for its support of eugenics. All socially acceptable at the time. Like homosexuality today.

Like I said if you have an argument why homosexuality shouldn't be considered socially acceptable you are free to present it. You will notice that eugenics isn't the States position these days.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that is true. If society casts off Christian morality, society will have to face whatever replaces it. Christians will suffer in the process, but evil brings its own punishment.

Christians seem to suffer only in the annoyance they feel that everyone isn't doing what they say. Everyone else finds their standards of living increasing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think my reason is fine: The State should not teach kids that homosexuality is valid, because it is a perversion of nature and has bad mental and physical tendencies.

Well I would say that is demonstratively false but given our history with you and science I don't think I'll bother

Needless to say if you think you can convince others of that position you are free to try. It doesn't seem to be going that well so far, but no doubt that is because of how evil we all are, not because of the weakness of your position

JimiTime

wonderfulname wrote: »

No. This is a generalisation, ON AVERAGE these things are true

Look at the examples given, I wasn't talking about employment. It is absolutely true in relation to child bearing, physical strength and how we are emotionally etc.

, but the vast majority of the time a man or woman will have one or some attributes more usually attributed to the opposite sex, think of your empathetic priest, empathy is ON AVERAGE a character trait reserved for women, think of female engineers, male nurses, just because the majority of the people who have the attributes suitable for these careers are of the opposite sex does not mean these people don't.

Teaching kids that a man can be a nurse and a woman an engineer is not even close to the point being made. That is not gender distinction. The issue lies in men identifying as women and vice versa. There are kids who receive hormone blockers to stop puberty, because they want to be a different gender etc. We have incidents of boys going to school in a dress and being called a female name etc. The gender distinctions being discussed is not in relation to career path, but rather in relation to actually breaking up gender distinction completely. There is one particular case I'm aware of in the US, where the kindergarten kids cannot be called 'girls and boys' but rather 'friends'. Its this type of breaking down that is of concern NOT the teaching that girls can be pilots, and men can be nurses etc of which I have absolutely no issue.

Rather than celebrate our complimentary differences, they want to pretend they don't exist. We live in a world where its offensive to point out the truth of a transgender operation being simply a cosmetic procedure. A biological man will never be a biological woman, and vice versa. So instead, we are encouraged to allow the pretence etc. Now, if an adult wishes to disagree with this, then fine. However, enforcing this notion through the education system on children is abominable. Even still, if the people say that they want this, I will concede that the battle is lost, HOWEVER, parents should still have the right to say no in relation to their own children.

No, more "John has two daddies, lets accept that and move on"

This curriculum is a lot more than a simple, 'these people exist, we accept that, move on'.

This is a very false position, but there is another thread for that matter...

And I accept that there is another opinion, though I vehemently disagree with it.

But are the young earth creationists exempt from science?

Science is academia, it is not in the same realm. Religion class is analogous to this, Science is not.

You may have your opinions, but teaching people to be accepting and respectful of other people regardless of their views on how those people live their lives is not a bad thing.

This curriculum is NOT designed for what you say here. It is seeking to do a lot more than have people respect others. It is a framework specifically aimed at desensitising children to gender distinction and matters of LGBT. The fact that it seeks to exclude parental consent, means that it knows its content is controversial, and that religious parents will have objection. It ironically does NOT respect these parents or THEIR views.

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, you say anything the State says is socially acceptable is so. Racism in Nazi Germany; Apartheid in SA, etc.
No, I'm saying anything the State says is socially acceptable according to the State which in Canada is responsible for education, and in a democracy if yo disagree with the current position of the State you are free to attempt democratic change of that position.

So you would hold racism to be socially acceptable if the Canadian State, under democratic mandate, taught it?

If you believe the State's position should be that it is not socially acceptable to be a homosexual or to carry out homosexual acts then the onus is on you and others who agree with you to convince, through democratic methods, the rest of the population.

It will then become the position of the State.

Quite so. I believe Christians should vote against those who indoctrinate the population - and especially children - with immoral ideology. Too often we let it go, so long as our financial lifestyle is maintained by our rulers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I quite agree that the State's morality may differ from mine. And I appreciate I'm free to campaign for the Sate's morality to be changed.

But that is not the point. The point is the State is not entitled to enforce all its moral views on me or my kids.
What, just some of its moral views? We want our kids learning there is nothing wrong with being black, but not learning there is nothing wrong with being homosexual?

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Who decides what areas of civics, health, etc we do teach our kids and what areas we don't if the democratic will of the people.

Should a parent be able to demand that a school stop teaching an anti-bullying class because they personally believe that bully is actually pretty good their kids?

This is the crux of the issue. We have shared morals, and conflicting morals. Should a majority of the elected (not the electorate even) enforce their contested morality on a substantial minority? We all agree on anti-bullying being taught, but not on homosexuality is a valid expression of sexuality. So let's argue for tolerance of those we believe to be morally wrong on sexuality, but not teach that their wrong is in fact right. It is wrong to bully fornicators or homosexuals - their actions are sinful, but that is between God and them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It can present them, but not in the terms that this is the truth. Let them acknowledge the differing views, especially those that the State was founded on.
That is what this course does, it is designed around empathy and tolerance of those who are different to you.

The religious view point of the person as they grow old enough to have a religious view point is their own private matter. This course is to stop kids throwing stones at the boy who likes to play with dolls instead of action men.

If the course did as you say, I'd have no problem. But are you sure? Seems to me it teaches that homosexuality is morally good, rather than that homosexuals have a right to practise it and should not be bullied for it. That's not toleration, but indoctrination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed. And Canada was quite famous for its support of eugenics. All socially acceptable at the time. Like homosexuality today.
Like I said if you have an argument why homosexuality shouldn't be considered socially acceptable you are free to present it. You will notice that eugenics isn't the States position these days.

Yes, Christians must work to overthrow homosexual indoctrination, so that it goes the way of eugenics. But I doubt if we will succeed, in this evil age. We just need to make sure it is not done in our name, and leave the rest to the Judgement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, that is true. If society casts off Christian morality, society will have to face whatever replaces it. Christians will suffer in the process, but evil brings its own punishment.
Christians seem to suffer only in the annoyance they feel that everyone isn't doing what they say. Everyone else finds their standards of living increasing.

Christians are prosecuted for expressing dissent to the homosexual agenda. To say the Bible condemns homosexuality is taken as hate-speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I think my reason is fine: The State should not teach kids that homosexuality is valid, because it is a perversion of nature and has bad mental and physical tendencies.
Well I would say that is demonstratively false but given our history with you and science I don't think I'll bother

Needless to say if you think you can convince others of that position you are free to try. It doesn't seem to be going that well so far, but no doubt that is because of how evil we all are, not because of the weakness of your position

We can only bear witness to the truth - each person will give account of their response to it, at the Judgement seat of Christ.

********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would hold racism to be socially acceptable if the Canadian State, under democratic mandate, taught it?

I'm not sure what you mean, I don't control what is or isn't socially acceptable in Canada. Something is or isn't socially acceptable in Canada if the Canadian society accepts it or not.

I don't think racism is acceptable, and if it became socially acceptable in Canada I would hope that people did their best to combat this.

Again you don't have to think homosexuality is ok just because Canadians do. But you don't get to control what Canadians do or don't think is acceptable. In a democracy you convince others of the correctness of your position and the State reflectes the wishes of the majority.

(or you reject democracy and take up armed struggle to impose your view point on the people, but I don't think anyone is thinking of this matter that way)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite so. I believe Christians should vote against those who indoctrinate the population - and especially children - with immoral ideology. Too often we let it go, so long as our financial lifestyle is maintained by our rulers.

Which is how a democracy is supposed to work, a market place of ideas.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue. We have shared morals, and conflicting morals. Should a majority of the elected (not the electorate even) enforce their contested morality on a substantial minority? We all agree on anti-bullying being taught, but not on homosexuality is a valid expression of sexuality.

But that is the thing, most of us believe in that too. You and others who believe that homosexual relationships are not socially acceptable are in the tiny minority here Wolfbane.

So it isn't a question that we "all" believe in anti-bullying. I would imagine as many people don't believe in anti-bullying as don't believing in homosexual being acceptable in society.

So the question is how much power should the tiny minority have?

Obviously being in the tiny minority you think they should have a lot :pac: But that isn't how democracy works.

So the onus is on you to put forward the merit of your position.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So let's argue for tolerance of those we believe to be morally wrong on sexuality, but not teach that their wrong is in fact right. It is wrong to bully fornicators or homosexuals - their actions are sinful, but that is between God and them.

It is wrong to bully people is the majority opinion of most people. It isn't though universal. Some people believe it is ok to bully people.

They are of course in the tiny minority, but using your logic because they exist the State, acting on behalf of society, shouldn't teach that bullying is wrong?

The reality is you are never going to find a position that is totally universally accepted, and thus the State will always have to go with the vast majority and ignore the small minority.

It is thus the job of the small minority to increase their numbers, be it them saying no bullying is good for kids (I actually know someone who thinks like this, and yes he is an idiot), or saying no homosexuality is not acceptable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the course did as you say, I'd have no problem. But are you sure? Seems to me it teaches that homosexuality is morally good, rather than that homosexuals have a right to practise it and should not be bullied for it. That's not toleration, but indoctrination.

I think the course teaches that there is nothing wrong with being gay and it is not something to be ashamed of. ie it teaches both gays and straight kids not to loath gays including themselves (self loathing is a major issue for homosexual kids, suicide rates are much higher in that group that heterosexual kids.

If that is what you mean by "morally good" then yes it teaches that. If you disagree then come up with a good argument why gay people should loath themselves :P

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, Christians must work to overthrow homosexual indoctrination, so that it goes the way of eugenics. But I doubt if we will succeed, in this evil age. We just need to make sure it is not done in our name, and leave the rest to the Judgement.

Fair enough.

You might though want to ask a gay man living in Canada whether now or 50 years ago which was the actual evil age?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christians are prosecuted for expressing dissent to the homosexual agenda. To say the Bible condemns homosexuality is taken as hate-speech.

Agreed but that comes from unreasonable hate speech laws (laws I've always opposed), not social acceptance of homosexuals.

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you would hold racism to be socially acceptable if the Canadian State, under democratic mandate, taught it?
I'm not sure what you mean, I don't control what is or isn't socially acceptable in Canada. Something is or isn't socially acceptable in Canada if the Canadian society accepts it or not.

I don't think racism is acceptable, and if it became socially acceptable in Canada I would hope that people did their best to combat this.

Again you don't have to think homosexuality is ok just because Canadians do. But you don't get to control what Canadians do or don't think is acceptable. In a democracy you convince others of the correctness of your position and the State reflectes the wishes of the majority.

(or you reject democracy and take up armed struggle to impose your view point on the people, but I don't think anyone is thinking of this matter that way)

Thanks for the explanation of what you mean by socially acceptable. Yes, in that sense homosexuality is socially acceptable in Canada and much of the West. As is polygamy in Muslim and several other societies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
This is the crux of the issue. We have shared morals, and conflicting morals. Should a majority of the elected (not the electorate even) enforce their contested morality on a substantial minority? We all agree on anti-bullying being taught, but not on homosexuality is a valid expression of sexuality.
But that is the thing, most of us believe in that too. You and others who believe that homosexual relationships are not socially acceptable are in the tiny minority here Wolfbane.

I doubt it. I'm sure we are at least a substantial minority in the USA, the UK and Ireland.

So it isn't a question that we "all" believe in anti-bullying. I would imagine as many people don't believe in anti-bullying as don't believing in homosexual being acceptable in society.

Hard to believe that. Even most of my non-Christian friends do not regard homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality.

So the question is how much power should the tiny minority have?

Obviously being in the tiny minority you think they should have a lot But that isn't how democracy works.

So the onus is on you to put forward the merit of your position.

But if we are a substantial minority? Should our views be disregarded?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So let's argue for tolerance of those we believe to be morally wrong on sexuality, but not teach that their wrong is in fact right. It is wrong to bully fornicators or homosexuals - their actions are sinful, but that is between God and them.
It is wrong to bully people is the majority opinion of most people. It isn't though universal. Some people believe it is ok to bully people.

They are of course in the tiny minority, but using your logic because they exist the State, acting on behalf of society, shouldn't teach that bullying is wrong?

Being a tiny minority, the State cannot please everyone and must try for the broadest consent.

The reality is you are never going to find a position that is totally universally accepted, and thus the State will always have to go with the vast majority and ignore the small minority.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If the course did as you say, I'd have no problem. But are you sure? Seems to me it teaches that homosexuality is morally good, rather than that homosexuals have a right to practise it and should not be bullied for it. That's not toleration, but indoctrination.
I think the course teaches that there is nothing wrong with being gay and it is not something to be ashamed of. ie it teaches both gays and straight kids not to loath gays including themselves (self loathing is a major issue for homosexual kids, suicide rates are much higher in that group that heterosexual kids.

If that is what you mean by "morally good" then yes it teaches that. If you disagree then come up with a good argument why gay people should loath themselves

The same reason thieves and fornicators should be ashamed of themselves. They might argue their longing for property or sex is just how they are, but we expect people to deal with those urges and not give into them. Does that make children from a thieving or promiscuous culture loath themselves? Hopefully it makes them question their desires, reject them as harmful and adopt healthy practises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christians are prosecuted for expressing dissent to the homosexual agenda. To say the Bible condemns homosexuality is taken as hate-speech.
Agreed but that comes from unreasonable hate speech laws (laws I've always opposed), not social acceptance of homosexuals.

OK, I appreciate your tolerance of dissent. Would it extend to the right to withdraw one's kids from being taught that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, with them only being taught the anti-bullying principles?

*******************************************************************

Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I doubt it. I'm sure we are at least a substantial minority in the USA, the UK and Ireland.

I really don't see any evidence of that Wolfsbane, homosexuality seems socially acceptable by most people in all those countries.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hard to believe that. Even most of my non-Christian friends do not regard homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality.

Well I don't know what you mean by "on a par", but ask them do they think it is acceptable to be a gay and have gay relationships. I would be surprised if even 1 out of 10 said no this is not acceptable in society.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if we are a substantial minority? Should our views be disregarded?

No, the State has a responsibility to the substantial minority as well. But you aren't a substantial minority, and this is reflected in the actions of States where homosexuality is socially acceptable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The same reason thieves and fornicators should be ashamed of themselves. They might argue their longing for property or sex is just how they are, but we expect people to deal with those urges and not give into them.

The reason we tell thieves to be ashamed of themselves is not because they gave into an urge. It is because they stole something.

We don't with fornicators because non-marital sex between consenting adults is socially acceptable and common place even among most Christians.

Equating stealing with sex is really not the best argument I've ever heard against fornication, let alone homosexuality

wolfsbane wrote: »

Does that make children from a thieving or promiscuous culture loath themselves? Hopefully it makes them question their desires, reject them as harmful and adopt healthy practises.

Again we do not object to stealing because it is an unhealthy urge. That is missing the wood for the trees. We object to it because it is stealing, an act which harms another through involuntarily removing property without consent.

Talking about healthy and unhealthy practices might go down well against people who already think like and agree with you, but it means nothing to others because it is already based on axioms you have not yet established.

You might as well say the reason homosexuality is bad is because it is not good.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, I appreciate your tolerance of dissent. Would it extend to the right to withdraw one's kids from being taught that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, with them only being taught the anti-bullying principles?

That is a very interesting question. Personally I'm torn at the moment over where exactly the role of the parent is in their education and how much right they have to raise their kids even if their kids turn out to be intolerant bigoted nut jobs.

I imagine you think it would be perfectly fine for a parent to withdraw their kid from homosexuality tolerance class.

Would you think a parent has a right to withdraw the kid from anti-bullying class? Or racism awareness class? Or religious tolerance class?

It goes to the question must the State only teach things that are perfectly in line with the parents views or does the State have a responsibility to the child to educate them in social notions that may be contrary to the parents.

Either side of that question is a mind field as far as I can see.

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I doubt it. I'm sure we are at least a substantial minority in the USA, the UK and Ireland.
I really don't see any evidence of that Wolfsbane, homosexuality seems socially acceptable by most people in all those countries.

Here's a recent poll from the USA:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx

And this one covers Canada and GB as well:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16456/public-opinion-favors-gay-rights-britain-canada.aspx

All show substantial minorities who regard homosexuality as immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hard to believe that. Even most of my non-Christian friends do not regard homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality.
Well I don't know what you mean by "on a par", but ask them do they think it is acceptable to be a gay and have gay relationships. I would be surprised if even 1 out of 10 said no this is not acceptable in society.

By on a par I meant equally valid. If by acceptable you mean to be tolerated, then both they and I would agree it is acceptable. If you meant homosexuality is a morally valid lifestyle, then many/most of them would not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if we are a substantial minority? Should our views be disregarded?
No, the State has a responsibility to the substantial minority as well.

Glad we agree on that.

But you aren't a substantial minority, and this is reflected in the actions of States where homosexuality is socially acceptable.

See above polls. It is the liberal elite who control society that make the rules for the plebs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The same reason thieves and fornicators should be ashamed of themselves. They might argue their longing for property or sex is just how they are, but we expect people to deal with those urges and not give into them.
The reason we tell thieves to be ashamed of themselves is not because they gave into an urge. It is because they stole something.

But we do not tell kids it is good to want to steal.

We don't with fornicators because non-marital sex between consenting adults is socially acceptable and common place even among most Christians.

Would it be OK to teach kids it is good to sleep around?

Equating stealing with sex is really not the best argument I've ever heard against fornication, let alone homosexuality

The desire is the thing. If our desires are the defence, then all sorts of behaviour is justified. But we all agree that anything that harms another (without their consent) is bad. Thieving is obviously ruled out, even though the desire is there. Homosexuality, fornication, polygamy, incest and paedophilia where consent is possible are ruled in. Society is moving toward validating them all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Does that make children from a thieving or promiscuous culture loath themselves? Hopefully it makes them question their desires, reject them as harmful and adopt healthy practises.
Again we do not object to stealing because it is an unhealthy urge. That is missing the wood for the trees. We object to it because it is stealing, an act which harms another through involuntarily removing property without consent.

Talking about healthy and unhealthy practices might go down well against people who already think like and agree with you, but it means nothing to others because it is already based on axioms you have not yet established.

You might as well say the reason homosexuality is bad is because it is not good.

Yes, my concept of healthy will not be the same as many others - but that does not mean there is no objective healthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, I appreciate your tolerance of dissent. Would it extend to the right to withdraw one's kids from being taught that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, with them only being taught the anti-bullying principles?
That is a very interesting question. Personally I'm torn at the moment over where exactly the role of the parent is in their education and how much right they have to raise their kids even if their kids turn out to be intolerant bigoted nut jobs.

Yes, it is a difficult question.

I imagine you think it would be perfectly fine for a parent to withdraw their kid from homosexuality tolerance class.

Yes.

Would you think a parent has a right to withdraw the kid from anti-bullying class? Or racism awareness class? Or religious tolerance class?

It goes to the question must the State only teach things that are perfectly in line with the parents views or does the State have a responsibility to the child to educate them in social notions that may be contrary to the parents.

Either side of that question is a mind field as far as I can see.

Indeed. The best I can think of is to respect all substantial positions. We of course then have to decide what is substantial for the issue - 50%? 40%? 30%? Less?

Or maybe the answer is to leave it to the parents and deal with problems as they arise. Both positions are well mined, as you say.:(

*******************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zombrex said:

Here's a recent poll from the USA:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx

And this one covers Canada and GB as well:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16456/public-opinion-favors-gay-rights-britain-canada.aspx

All show substantial minorities who regard homosexuality as immoral.

That is significantly different to socially acceptable though, isn't it?

For example, if you asked is it socially acceptable to be a Catholic and is it moral to be a Catholic I think you would get widely different answers, particularly in America.

You have a point though about Americans considering homosexual relations immoral, I probably shouldn't have grouped them with Canada and Europe. Homosexuality is a lot less socially accepted in American than Canada.

wolfsbane wrote: »

By on a par I meant equally valid. If by acceptable you mean to be tolerated, then both they and I would agree it is acceptable. If you meant homosexuality is a morally valid lifestyle, then many/most of them would not.

By socially acceptable I mean basically tolerated as in it is up to the individual and what the individual chooses is his business, ie you might not want to be gay but you aren't going to stop anyone else from being gay and you are not going use the State to teach them that it is wrong or shameful to be gay.

Using the Catholic example again, you might think it is immoral to be Catholic (just guessing) but that should stop short of believing the State should teach this. The State should teach that if you want to be Catholic be Catholic, that is your religious freedom.

Or to put it another way, teaching religious freedom is takes precedence over teaching that a particular religion is immoral.

Likewise teaching sexual orientation freedom is takes precedence over teaching that any particular orientation is immoral.

wolfsbane wrote: »

See above polls. It is the liberal elite who control society that make the rules for the plebs.

Again I would dispute your interpretation of the polls.

For example, is it moral to be Catholic (you might say no). It is ok/socially acceptable to be Catholic (you might say yes). Should the State teach that you shouldn't be Catholic (you would definitely say no).

If I'm wrong about your stance of Catholism being immoral just replace it with some other system that you think is immoral (eg being a Hindu).

wolfsbane wrote: »

But we do not tell kids it is good to want to steal.

Correct, but we don't tell them that because we don't want them giving into urges. We tell them that because we consider stealing other people's property to be harmful to the other person.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would it be OK to teach kids it is good to sleep around?

It is ok to teach kids it is neither good nor bad to sleep around, that it is your own private business how you conduct your sexual life and educate them of the potential risks of sexual intercourse.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The desire is the thing.

No its not, the harm to the other person is the thing. The vast majority of modern societal laws are based around the question of does your conduct harm other people.

If it doesn't then a huge number of justifications for making it illegal or simply socially unacceptable fall away.

Again the Catholic example. Does someone being a Catholic harm you? No, so even though you might not think it is a good thing for yourself to be a Catholic you aren't going to stop anyone else being a Catholic. If someone wants to condemn their own eternal soul by following the Pope that is their business not the States.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If our desires are the defence, then all sorts of behaviour is justified. But we all agree that anything that harms another (without their consent) is bad. Thieving is obviously ruled out, even though the desire is there. Homosexuality, fornication, polygamy, incest and paedophilia where consent is possible are ruled in. Society is moving toward validating them all.

No it isn't, precisely because with something like paedophilia (and to a lesser extent incest and polygamy) there is a party that its harmed through the actions of another.

This is why societies will happily legalize homosexual relations but not homosexual rape.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, my concept of healthy will not be the same as many others - but that does not mean there is no objective healthy.

It also doesn't mean that just because you believe your Christian faith is correct that the Christian notion is actually the objective notion of health.

You could simply be wrong in your assessment. It then comes down to you convincing others you aren't.

It is easy to say that you know what you believe is true. It is easy to say that you reject scientific evidence contrary to what you believe. It is easy to say you have all the evidence you need to believe you are right.

The hard part is convincing others that this is correct. But in a democracy that is what you have to do.

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Here's a recent poll from the USA:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/am...threshold.aspx

And this one covers Canada and GB as well:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16456/pub...in-canada.aspx

All show substantial minorities who regard homosexuality as immoral.
That is significantly different to socially acceptable though, isn't it?

For example, if you asked is it socially acceptable to be a Catholic and is it moral to be a Catholic I think you would get widely different answers, particularly in America.

My issue is not what is tolerated, but what is promoted as good.

You have a point though about Americans considering homosexual relations immoral, I probably shouldn't have grouped them with Canada and Europe. Homosexuality is a lot less socially accepted in American than Canada.

Again, most Christians in America and elsewhere are not asking for homosexuality to be banned - just that it not be promoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
By on a par I meant equally valid. If by acceptable you mean to be tolerated, then both they and I would agree it is acceptable. If you meant homosexuality is a morally valid lifestyle, then many/most of them would not.
By socially acceptable I mean basically tolerated as in it is up to the individual and what the individual chooses is his business, ie you might not want to be gay but you aren't going to stop anyone else from being gay and you are not going use the State to teach them that it is wrong or shameful to be gay.

But we agree on that! You want to take it further, however, and have kids taught homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality. We want the State to make no comment on the morality of sexual orientation - just that all should be tolerated.

Using the Catholic example again, you might think it is immoral to be Catholic (just guessing) but that should stop short of believing the State should teach this. The State should teach that if you want to be Catholic be Catholic, that is your religious freedom.

Agreed.

Or to put it another way, teaching religious freedom is takes precedence over teaching that a particular religion is immoral.

Correct.

Likewise teaching sexual orientation freedom is takes precedence over teaching that any particular orientation is immoral.

Correct. But why go further and teach that any/all are moral? Toleration, not indoctrination should be the goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
See above polls. It is the liberal elite who control society that make the rules for the plebs.
Again I would dispute your interpretation of the polls.

For example, is it moral to be Catholic (you might say no). It is ok/socially acceptable to be Catholic (you might say yes). Should the State teach that you shouldn't be Catholic (you would definitely say no).

If I'm wrong about your stance of Catholism being immoral just replace it with some other system that you think is immoral (eg being a Hindu).

Should the State teach Catholicism is as true as Protestantism or Hinduism or whatever? No. Whether it is or not is not the State's business. Same with sexual orientation. Just teach that people are free to believe what they like about God, be it wrong or right. Same for sexual orientation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But we do not tell kids it is good to want to steal.
Correct, but we don't tell them that because we don't want them giving into urges. We tell them that because we consider stealing other people's property to be harmful to the other person.

So anything that does not harm others is morally OK? Might it not be morally bad, but none of our concern?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Would it be OK to teach kids it is good to sleep around?
It is ok to teach kids it is neither good nor bad to sleep around, that it is your own private business how you conduct your sexual life and educate them of the potential risks of sexual intercourse.

OK, I don't have a problem with the State teaching that. I do if they say it is good to sleep around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The desire is the thing.
No its not, the harm to the other person is the thing. The vast majority of modern societal laws are based around the question of does your conduct harm other people.

If it doesn't then a huge number of justifications for making it illegal or simply socially unacceptable fall away.

Again the Catholic example. Does someone being a Catholic harm you? No, so even though you might not think it is a good thing for yourself to be a Catholic you aren't going to stop anyone else being a Catholic. If someone wants to condemn their own eternal soul by following the Pope that is their business not the States.

I said If our desires are the defence - that is, if homosexuality is validated because it is a basic desire, rather than it not doing any un-permitted harm to another. But if is the latter, that only means homosexuality should be tolerated, not endorsed as moral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If our desires are the defence, then all sorts of behaviour is justified. But we all agree that anything that harms another (without their consent) is bad. Thieving is obviously ruled out, even though the desire is there. Homosexuality, fornication, polygamy, incest and paedophilia where consent is possible are ruled in. Society is moving toward validating them all.
No it isn't, precisely because with something like paedophilia (and to a lesser extent incest and polygamy) there is a party that its harmed through the actions of another.

This is why societies will happily legalize homosexual relations but not homosexual rape.

The concept of consent is moving toward endorsing paedophilia and incest, let alone polygamy:
http://b4uact.org/principles.htm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-conference-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/MAAs/Pro

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1980/71/8071806

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, my concept of healthy will not be the same as many others - but that does not mean there is no objective healthy.
It also doesn't mean that just because you believe your Christian faith is correct that the Christian notion is actually the objective notion of health.

You could simply be wrong in your assessment. It then comes down to you convincing others you aren't.

It is easy to say that you know what you believe is true. It is easy to say that you reject scientific evidence contrary to what you believe. It is easy to say you have all the evidence you need to believe you are right.

The hard part is convincing others that this is correct. But in a democracy that is what you have to do.

I've no problem with that - just with having immoral positions taught as moral by the State.

********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Manach

The following case might clarify the position in Europe.
link:
It is also mentioned as a leading case in "Religion, Education and the Law" by Dr Dympna Glendenning.
As for as I can interpret it, the State has a right to impose a certain social curriculum to educate a child in a democratic state. In this specific case, it was sex education.
However, the court stated that the limits to this is that it cannot "indoctrinate" the child. But this term was not clarified.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zombrex said:

My issue is not what is tolerated, but what is promoted as good.

But that is the thing, I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the role a secular western government takes in society. What is a good way to live your life is largely irrelevant.

Religions promote what is good, normally based on ideas of how God or some other divine creator (or from my point of view, ancient middle eastern priests and kings) decided was the purpose of our existence.

It is good to marry for that is how God meant it to be.
It is bad to fornicate, for that goes against God's design for man and woman.
It is good to have children, for that is why God placed us on this Earth.

Etc etc.

Governments haven't be doing that for hundreds of years, since kings and theocracies went out of fashion.

The central idea of western governments since the Enlightenment is freedom to pursue the live you wish to lead, not telling you what is the life you should be leading.

When gays march down main street as part of the "homosexual agenda" as you call it they are not calling on governments to say it is good to be a homosexual. They are calling on governments for the freedom to carry out the life style they have already decided is good for them.

I think some religious people, including yourself, find this very difficult to understand because you are still viewing the role of government in this rather ancient notions of instructing people on how they should be living their lives as religions have done.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, most Christians in America and elsewhere are not asking for homosexuality to be banned - just that it not be promoted.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be promoted it already exists. It is the freedom to be homosexual, the acceptance of that freedom, which is being promoted.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But we agree on that! You want to take it further, however, and have kids taught homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality.

There is that above point again.

The government doesn't teach heterosexuality is a valid way to live your life, so why would it promote homosexuality as that?

The State does not tell you how to live your life, so why would that change for homosexuals? I have never being told by a government body that it is good that I'm a heterosexual, that is is good that have heterosexual relationships. I've never been told either that it is good that I become a computer scientist, that it is good that own property, that it is good that play video games.

These concepts are exclusive to religions, they don't exist in other areas such as modern democracies. If you view governments in these terms you are going to come away with a very skewed view of what is going on.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct. But why go further and teach that any/all are moral? Toleration, not indoctrination should be the goal.

They aren't. Again you think that because you view it as two competing notions of how best to live your life, the Christian one and the secular government one.

In reality the secular government one isn't telling you how to live your life, it is giving you the freedom to live it as you see fit.

That is what is being promoted to children in this school curriculum, not that you should be a homosexual but rather if you are a homosexual we are not going to tell you there is something with that and you are free to live your life as you see fit.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Should the State teach Catholicism is as true as Protestantism or Hinduism or whatever? No. Whether it is or not is not the State's business. Same with sexual orientation. Just teach that people are free to believe what they like about God, be it wrong or right. Same for sexual orientation.

Which is what they are doing, a homosexual kid is as free to live as they like as a heterosexual kids.

You seem to think that by saying this the Canadian government is saying it is moral to be homosexual. In reality the Canadian government isn't saying anything other than it is moral to live as you wish to live.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So anything that does not harm others is morally OK? Might it not be morally bad, but none of our concern?

Generally morality is centred around harm. Even Christian concepts of morality are centred around harm, since most Christians consider deviating from God's plan for humans leads to harm.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, I don't have a problem with the State teaching that. I do if they say it is good to sleep around.

Good in relation to what? The States plan of how you should live your life? Such a plan doesn't exist.

Again you seem to view this topic purely in religious terms, religions tell people how to live their lives so secular governments must also be doing this.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I said If our desires are the defence - that is, if homosexuality is validated because it is a basic desire, rather than it not doing any un-permitted harm to another. But if is the latter, that only means homosexuality should be tolerated, not endorsed as moral.

It is up to the homosexual to determine if it is moral or not. The State endorses the freedom to be homosexual if you want.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The concept of consent is moving toward endorsing paedophilia and incest, let alone polygamy

Not in any legal documentation I've ever seen. Paedophile lobbying groups are hardly the best place to get unbiased assessment current consent laws. In other news the KKK thinks blacks have it too easy :P

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've no problem with that - just with having immoral positions taught as moral by the State.

Well luckily for you western governments haven't been concerning themselves with things like that since the American revolution.

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My issue is not what is tolerated, but what is promoted as good.
But that is the thing, I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the role a secular western government takes in society. What is a good way to live your life is largely irrelevant.

Religions promote what is good, normally based on ideas of how God or some other divine creator (or from my point of view, ancient middle eastern priests and kings) decided was the purpose of our existence.

It is good to marry for that is how God meant it to be.
It is bad to fornicate, for that goes against God's design for man and woman.
It is good to have children, for that is why God placed us on this Earth.

Etc etc.

Governments haven't be doing that for hundreds of years, since kings and theocracies went out of fashion.

The central idea of western governments since the Enlightenment is freedom to pursue the live you wish to lead, not telling you what is the life you should be leading.

OK, I've no trouble with that. Your morals are up to you, if you do no (unwanted) harm to others.

When gays march down main street as part of the "homosexual agenda" as you call it they are not calling on governments to say it is good to be a homosexual. They are calling on governments for the freedom to carry out the life style they have already decided is good for them.

No problem with this either.

I think some religious people, including yourself, find this very difficult to understand because you are still viewing the role of government in this rather ancient notions of instructing people on how they should be living their lives as religions have done.

Not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, most Christians in America and elsewhere are not asking for homosexuality to be banned - just that it not be promoted.
Homosexuality doesn't need to be promoted it already exists. It is the freedom to be homosexual, the acceptance of that freedom, which is being promoted.

No problem with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But we agree on that! You want to take it further, however, and have kids taught homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality.
There is that above point again.

The government doesn't teach heterosexuality is a valid way to live your life, so why would it promote homosexuality as that?

The State does not tell you how to live your life, so why would that change for homosexuals? I have never being told by a government body that it is good that I'm a heterosexual, that is is good that have heterosexual relationships. I've never been told either that it is good that I become a computer scientist, that it is good that own property, that it is good that play video games.

These concepts are exclusive to religions, they don't exist in other areas such as modern democracies. If you view governments in these terms you are going to come away with a very skewed view of what is going on.

This is the issue - if governments are not promoting homosexuality as good, I've no argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Correct. But why go further and teach that any/all are moral? Toleration, not indoctrination should be the goal.
They aren't. Again you think that because you view it as two competing notions of how best to live your life, the Christian one and the secular government one.

In reality the secular government one isn't telling you how to live your life, it is giving you the freedom to live it as you see fit.

That is what is being promoted to children in this school curriculum, not that you should be a homosexual but rather if you are a homosexual we are not going to tell you there is something with that and you are free to live your life as you see fit.

Great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Should the State teach Catholicism is as true as Protestantism or Hinduism or whatever? No. Whether it is or not is not the State's business. Same with sexual orientation. Just teach that people are free to believe what they like about God, be it wrong or right. Same for sexual orientation.
Which is what they are doing, a homosexual kid is as free to live as they like as a heterosexual kids.

Fine.

You seem to think that by saying this the Canadian government is saying it is moral to be homosexual.

Yes, that is my claim.

In reality the Canadian government isn't saying anything other than it is moral to live as you wish to live.

Bingo! You admit the Canadian government is saying homosexuality is moral. In fact, you are saying they teach all sorts of living are moral. Not merely up to you, but moral! My argument has been vindicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So anything that does not harm others is morally OK? Might it not be morally bad, but none of our concern?
Generally morality is centred around harm. Even Christian concepts of morality are centred around harm, since most Christians consider deviating from God's plan for humans leads to harm.

But we're using harm in the solely secular sense. I'm not arguing for the prevention of heresy. So I'm saying things can be un-harmful but still immoral. Morality embraces all of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, I don't have a problem with the State teaching that. I do if they say it is good to sleep around.
Good in relation to what? The States plan of how you should live your life? Such a plan doesn't exist.

Good in relation to moral good and evil. If the State does not have a moral standard, it should not promote one. If it does, and it differs from a substantial section of its citizens, it should acknowledge that and try to accommodate those citizens.

Again you seem to view this topic purely in religious terms, religions tell people how to live their lives so secular governments must also be doing this.

Not at all. I'm saying the State is telling people that homosexuality must be regarded as moral, not merely tolerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I said If our desires are the defence - that is, if homosexuality is validated because it is a basic desire, rather than it not doing any un-permitted harm to another. But if is the latter, that only means homosexuality should be tolerated, not endorsed as moral.
It is up to the homosexual to determine if it is moral or not. The State endorses the freedom to be homosexual if you want.

That's fine with me. But it is not what the State is doing - it is promoting homosexuality as moral, not just promoting its toleration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The concept of consent is moving toward endorsing paedophilia and incest, let alone polygamy
Not in any legal documentation I've ever seen. Paedophile lobbying groups are hardly the best place to get unbiased assessment current consent laws. In other news the KKK thinks blacks have it too easy

It hasn't reached the statute books yet, but the pioneer work is being done by the same type of people who promote homosexuality as moral by the force of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I've no problem with that - just with having immoral positions taught as moral by the State.
Well luckily for you western governments haven't been concerning themselves with things like that since the American revolution.

You've already admitted above that they are doing so right now.



Let's spell out what the Canadian promotion of homosexuality means for kids practically:
For example, in the younger grades, when students are discussing or reading about different kinds
of family arrangements, a storybook that portrays same-sex families may be included. P3
Schools must address this invisibility by cultivating positive spaces and messages about LGBTQ communities and about sexual diversity more broadly.
...

Both in its content and methodology, inclusive curriculum seeks to recognize and affirm the life
experiences of all students and their families, regardless of age, ancestry, citizenship, colour,
creed (faith), disability, ethnic origin, family status, gender, gender identity, marital status, place of
origin, race, same-sex partnership status, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status.
The goal of an inclusive curriculum and equitable learning is to create a school environment that
reflects, affirms, and validates the diversity and complexity of human experiences.
...

Anti-Homophobia Education Display
In a prominent place in the school, such as a hallway or library, prepare a table or bulletin board to
acknowledge the contributions of LGBTQ individuals. Arrange pictures, posters, photographs, magazines, newsletters, books, videos, artefacts, or students’ projects to highlight their lives,
history, culture, and achievements.
...

Every morning, on the announcements throughout the school year, ask students to organize and
provide information related to past and present contributions of LGBTQ individuals. The
information could take the form of a short biography of a significant LGBTQ person (see the
Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives at <www.clga.ca>); a poem or an excerpt from a novel; or a
brief description of an important moment in history that reflects the struggles and victories of
LGBTQ people in Canada.

...

Community Visitors
Invite people from LGBTQ communities to talk to students about their experiences.

...

Researching Significant LGBTQ Individuals
Have students research significant LGBTQ individuals. Encourage them to consider people from all
walks of life (education, entertainment, history, politics, professions, science, or sports) in choosing
a subject. Ask students to share their information through written reports, dramatic role-playing, or
portraits.
...

Storytellers and Artists
Arrange for LGBTQ storytellers or artists to visit the school and make presentations about their
experiences. For storytelling, encourage staff and students to share their own stories.

That's from just the first section of the document.

A bit further on their definition of homophobia is given:
Homophobia
The social, systemic, and personal assumptions, practices, and behaviours that impose negative
value on and discriminate against homosexual women and men. Homophobic acts can range from
name-calling to violence targeting lesbian or gay people to eliminating them from curriculum, or not
providing legal and social supports.

Does impose negative value on include the holding and teaching that homosexuality is sinful? If so, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are being condemned. Is that the position of the Canadian State?

Under Ideas/Beliefs Stereotypes and
Prejudices we have: Sexual Orientation: being LGBTQ is a
sickness which can be treated. Christianity says it is a sin that can be treated, and some others may class it as a mental sickness, as was the consensus medical view through most of the 20th C. So those who hold such views are condemned by the Canadian State.

And here's a great idea to show homosexuality is good:
Love is for Everyone: Valentine’s Day – February 14th
Reclaim Valentine’s Day and celebrate sexual diversity. Challenge your school to create an
inclusive Valentine’s Day.
• Kissing Booth
Set up a tent or other structure, in a central place, that students and staff can enter. Decorate
with cherubs and hearts. Put together a slide show of anti-homophobic messages and have it
run on a continuous loop on a wall nearby.
Before entering the Kissing Booth students and staff must complete a short 10-15 question
school climate survey. In the booth, students and staff are greeted by students who place a
stamp of a kiss on their cheek and a few chocolate kisses in their hand. Extend the Kissing
Booth activity by informing all home form teachers of the event, ask them to announce it and
provide discussion questions for the day after. Publicize the results of the climate survey that
kissing booth participants filled out.
See Appendix 7.2 for a story about the Kissing Booth at Victoria Park Collegiate.
• LGBTQ-Positive Pink Hearts Day
A less time-consuming alternative to the Kissing Booth. Students cut out pink hearts and write
LGBTQ-positive messages on them, such as: That’s So Gay is SO Yesterday, I Support
LGBTQ Students, Love Knows No Boundaries. Students and staff sign the hearts and the
hearts are then displayed in a central gathering place and/or display case in the school. In
exchange for the support, cinnamon hearts and chocolate are provided

Instead of teaching toleration of other's positions and behaviours, this Canadian program promotes homosexuality as morally good, on a par with heterosexuality. That is contrary to Christian belief. The State is teaching anti-Christian morality. And using the law against any who refuse to have their children taught such immorality.

********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Formally Wicknight

What?! My old friend Wicknight bitten by a Zombie!

I knew boards.ie was a battleground but...

tenchi-fan

I've been to Toronto at Christmas time.

A friend invited me to dinner. Her friend also went, as well as a middle-aged Lesbian who was a friend of the friend.

She was horrendous. She said it's a form of child abuse encouraging children to believe in santa claus.

Then she went on to say how she was going to the gay venues giving out Condoms and gloves to young people..

"Gloves?"

"Oh yes, for fisting. The queer community are very sex positive", she said with pride.

No one at the table batted an eyelid.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Bingo! You admit the Canadian government is saying homosexuality is moral.

No, the Canadian government is saying the freedom to consider homosexuality moral if you want to is moral.

The same way freedom of religion is moral even if you don't consider a particular religion moral (or any religion other than Christianity), freedom of sexuality can be considered moral without having to say any particular sexuality is or isn't moral.

What the Canadian government is not saying is that homosexuality is wrong and you shouldn't carry out homosexual acts. They are saying if you want to go ahead you have the freedom to make up your own mind.

You seem to see that as stating it is moral, but if you think about it when has the Canadian government ever said heterosexuality was moral. Heterosexuals don't need to be told it is moral they simply need to be told they can do it, and if they want to do and think it is moral themselves they will. Same with homosexuals.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But we're using harm in the solely secular sense. I'm not arguing for the prevention of heresy. So I'm saying things can be un-harmful but still immoral. Morality embraces all of life.

Yes but even in the theological arena morality is based around harm. Christians don't believe God randomly picked homosexuality as something to make a sin, it is a sin because it goes against God's design for humans and thus is harmful for them, even if just in a spiritual sense.

There are very few things, secular or non-secular, that are considered immoral but which have no negative consequences.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good in relation to moral good and evil. If the State does not have a moral standard, it should not promote one. If it does, and it differs from a substantial section of its citizens, it should acknowledge that and try to accommodate those citizens.

The State's moral position is that if you aren't harming anyone you are free to live your life as you see fit.

Saying it is good to be a homosexual and bad to be a heterosexual would in fact be contrary to this, since heterosexuals don't want to be homosexuals.

Again freedom of religion is the easiest comparison. A country with freedom of religion will say to a citizen it is ok that you choose your religion and it is ok that you worship it.

You seem to think that is the same as saying it is good to be a Catholic, or it is moral to be a Jew. It isn't really. After it has established freedom of religion the State doesn't care what religion you pick, so long as you are not harming others.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It hasn't reached the statute books yet, but the pioneer work is being done by the same type of people who promote homosexuality as moral by the force of the law.

The same type of people? You are going to have to be a bit more specific than that.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example, in the younger grades, when students are discussing or reading about different kinds
of family arrangements, a storybook that portrays same-sex families may be included. P3
Schools must address this invisibility by cultivating positive spaces and messages about LGBTQ communities and about sexual diversity more broadly.
...

Which is the same as saying that school story books have to stop only including Christians, but must also include people of other religions, such as Jews and Hindus, because hiding non-Christians away gives a false impression of the religious diversity of Canada.

Would that be the State making a claim about the morality of Judaism? Or is it the State making a claim about religious freedom and diversity.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Both in its content and methodology, inclusive curriculum seeks to recognize and affirm the life
experiences of all students and their families, regardless of age, ancestry, citizenship, colour,
creed (faith), disability, ethnic origin, family status, gender, gender identity, marital status, place of
origin, race, same-sex partnership status, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status.
The goal of an inclusive curriculum and equitable learning is to create a school environment that
reflects, affirms, and validates the diversity and complexity of human experiences.
...

Another pretty clear cut example, where sexual orientation is placed in with religion. Is Canada saying that all religions are moral, or are they saying that it is moral to have freedom of religion and tolerance for those of other religions?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anti-Homophobia Education Display
In a prominent place in the school, such as a hallway or library, prepare a table or bulletin board to
acknowledge the contributions of LGBTQ individuals. Arrange pictures, posters, photographs, magazines, newsletters, books, videos, artefacts, or students’ projects to highlight their lives,
history, culture, and achievements.

If the school had a bulletin board with the achievements of Jewish scientists to contrast anti-semetic sentiment, is this the school telling people you should be Jewish?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Every morning, on the announcements throughout the school year, ask students to organize and
provide information related to past and present contributions of LGBTQ individuals. The
information could take the form of a short biography of a significant LGBTQ person (see the
Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives at <www.clga.ca>); a poem or an excerpt from a novel; or a
brief description of an important moment in history that reflects the struggles and victories of
LGBTQ people in Canada.

Same as above. If they did this for Hindus or Muslims is it the State saying that all the children should be Hindus? Or is it saying that Hindus have contributed to society?

I'm not going to do this for every single one (if you think I'm missing a difficult one let me know and I'll do it for that one), the point should be clear.

Believing in religious freedom and religious tolerance is not promoting a particular religion as the right one to follow.

Likewise it is some what nonsensical to say that Canada is telling people they should be gay.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Instead of teaching toleration of other's positions and behaviours, this Canadian program promotes homosexuality as morally good, on a par with heterosexuality. That is contrary to Christian belief. The State is teaching anti-Christian morality.

It is contrary to Christian belief that any religion that doesn't worship God is moral (worshipping of any other god is a sin).

Does that mean you oppose religious freedom and the promotion of religious freedom in schools?

If you do at least that is consistent, but I suspect you think religious freedom is great and should be promoted.

Does that mean States which promote religious freedom are saying Judaism is moral or Islam is moral. Or are they saying it is moral to pick your own religion.

Atomicjuicer

Pretty messed up to be honest.

It's one thing to be accepting of homosexuality. It's another to ask children to role play it.

Zombrex

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Pretty messed up to be honest.

It's one thing to be accepting of homosexuality. It's another to ask children to role play it.

Why? Might turn them gay?

wolfsbane

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
For example, in the younger grades, when students are discussing or reading about different kinds
of family arrangements, a storybook that portrays same-sex families may be included. P3
Schools must address this invisibility by cultivating positive spaces and messages about LGBTQ communities and about sexual diversity more broadly.
...
Which is the same as saying that school story books have to stop only including Christians, but must also include people of other religions, such as Jews and Hindus, because hiding non-Christians away gives a false impression of the religious diversity of Canada.

Would that be the State making a claim about the morality of Judaism? Or is it the State making a claim about religious freedom and diversity.

Should it high-light any religion in its pictures of family? Janet & John get baptised? Mrs. Smith knees to pray in Mass? I don't think so. But even if it did, it should not be making claims that all religions are good/valid - only that they should be tolerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Bingo! You admit the Canadian government is saying homosexuality is moral.
No, the Canadian government is saying the freedom to consider homosexuality moral if you want to is moral.

This is what you said:

In reality the Canadian government isn't saying anything other than it is moral to live as you wish to live.

Not it is moral to let you live as you wish, but it is moral to live as you wish. Big difference.

If the school had a bulletin board with the achievements of Jewish scientists to contrast anti-semetic sentiment, is this the school telling people you should be Jewish?

No group should be held up for such commendation, even if it suffers discrimination. The discriminators should be held up for ridicule for denying any group their civil & religious liberty.

Likewise it is some what nonsensical to say that Canada is telling people they should be gay.

I never said it did - only that it said it is morally good to be gay, as much as it is morally good to be straight. It should not be making moral judgements on sexual orientation, just affirming one's right to be so without harassment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Instead of teaching toleration of other's positions and behaviours, this Canadian program promotes homosexuality as morally good, on a par with heterosexuality. That is contrary to Christian belief. The State is teaching anti-Christian morality.
It is contrary to Christian belief that any religion that doesn't worship God is moral (worshipping of any other god is a sin).

Correct.

Does that mean you oppose religious freedom and the promotion of religious freedom in schools?

No. It is not the State's duty to enforce true religion.

If you do at least that is consistent, but I suspect you think religious freedom is great and should be promoted.

I don't see how it is consistent to equate God's business with the State's. His is all-encompassing, their's very limited.

Does that mean States which promote religious freedom are saying Judaism is moral or Islam is moral. Or are they saying it is moral to pick your own religion.

The latter. But that is not what cultivating positive spaces and messages about means. Doing that is saying Judaism or Islam is good, not that people are free to hold either.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zombrex said:

Should it high-light any religion in its pictures of family? Janet & John get baptised? Mrs. Smith knees to pray in Mass? I don't think so. But even if it did, it should not be making claims that all religions are good/valid - only that they should be tolerated.

It should high light that many different religions exist and reflect that in the pictures. It shouldn't be making any claim that one religion is better than any other religion. It can't say Christianity is good and all these other religions are immoral

wolfsbane wrote: »

This is what you said:

Not it is moral to let you live as you wish, but it is moral to live as you wish. Big difference.

Yes, but the first is again not what secular western governments are about.

The State does not simply let you live as you wish to live. It does not say well how you live is immoral but we tolerate it.

For example Jewish people are not tolerated by a Christian state. That is not the principle of religious freedom.

It is not that you have the right to pick the wrong religion, the wrong religion being defined by the State.

It is that you have the right to decide for yourself what is the right or wrong religion. Big difference.

It is not that you have the right to be an immoral homosexual. It is that you have the right to decide for yourself is homosexuality is immoral or not. You have that right, a gay person has that right etc etc.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No group should be held up for such commendation, even if it suffers discrimination. The discriminators should be held up for ridicule for denying any group their civil & religious liberty.

That is missing the point. The purpose of these signs is not to allow enlightened people to laugh at the ignorant. It is educate the ignorant that in fact their pre-conceived notions of a particular group different to them are wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I never said it did - only that it said it is morally good to be gay, as much as it is morally good to be straight. It should not be making moral judgements on sexual orientation, just affirming one's right to be so without harassment.

It is not making moral judgements of sexual orientation, it is making moral judgements on who gets to make moral judgements on sexual orientation.

It is saying you decide if it is good or bad, either is valid.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. It is not the State's duty to enforce true religion.

Which means they cannot say they simply tolerate non-Christian religions, which is saying Christianity is the correct religion and we will allow you to choose the incorrect religion, such as Judaism.

Same with sexual orientation. The State says you decide if it is good or bad, and what ever you decide is valid as far as the State is concerned.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't see how it is consistent to equate God's business with the State's. His is all-encompassing, their's very limited.

Both allowing for religious freedom (which again I stress is different to tolerating non-Christian religions) and allowing for sexual orientation freedom (which is different to tolerating gay people) are both remits of the state.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The latter. But that is not what cultivating positive spaces and messages about means. Doing that is saying Judaism or Islam is good, not that people are free to hold either.

Yes but again State freedom is not about toleration of the wrong thing. It is about freedom to determine yourself if it is right or wrong.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but again State freedom is not about toleration of the wrong thing. It is about freedom to determine yourself if it is right or wrong.

The state in question is NOT just saying you have the freedom to choose what is right or wrong. It is actively encouraging you to believe something is right. I really can't see how that can be denied. Apart from the actual facts of the document, one simply needs to think of the agenda in order to realise that this is what it is seeking. The agenda is about making the coming generations have absolutely no objections to homosexuality, while at the same time making those who do have objections into some kind of bigot. The fact that its getting its teeth into kindergarten kids, shows that it is looking to breakdown any natural instinct the child may have/develop in relation to sexuality and gender.

It is by no means harmless, neither to children now, or what it opens the door to in years to come.