Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender distinction in Canada's schools
Options
Comments
-
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.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?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.
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.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, 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.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 position0 -
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.0 -
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.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.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?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.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.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.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
********************************************************************
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.0 -
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)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.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.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.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 :PYes, 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?Christians are prosecuted for expressing dissent to the homosexual agenda. To say the Bible condemns homosexuality is taken as hate-speech.0 -
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)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.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 But that isn't how democracy works.
So the onus is on you to put forward the merit of your position.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?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.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 themselvesQuote:
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.
*******************************************************************
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.Hard to believe that. Even most of my non-Christian friends do not regard homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality.But if we are a substantial minority? Should our views be disregarded?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.
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 homosexualityDoes 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.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.0 -
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.
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.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.But you aren't a substantial minority, and this is reflected in the actions of States where homosexuality is socially acceptable.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.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 homosexualityQuote:
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.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.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.
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.0 -
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.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.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).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.Would it be OK to teach kids it is good to sleep around?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.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.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.0 -
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.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.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.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.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).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.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.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.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.
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/1980/71/8071806Quote:
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.
********************************************************************
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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 :PI'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.0 -
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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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 easyQuote:
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.
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.0 -
Zombrex said:Formally Wicknight
I knew boards.ie was a battleground but...0 -
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.0 -
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.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.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.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.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.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?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?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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.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.In reality the Canadian government isn't saying anything other than it is moral to live as you wish to live.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?Likewise it is some what nonsensical to say that Canada is telling people they should be gay.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).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.
*********************************************************************
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.0 -
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 immoralThis 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.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.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.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.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.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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why? Might turn them gay?
Actually, I remember Fanny Craddock posting a talk by a guy who got caught up in watching porn, and it certainly seemed to alter his sexual behaviour. I also remember seeing an article on how many porn stars go 'gay for pay' etc.
So rather than 'turning people gay', it may just confuse sexual and gender identity. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. Men and women are complimentary to each other in terms of relationship and child raring/baring, and this is even biologically identified in the complimentary nature of our sexual organs. Children shouldn't be strategically brainwashed into accepting all deviations of this as normal. They should be taught, in an age appropriate manner, that bullying is wrong WHATEVER THE CASE. That we don't always agree with people, but that we tolerate opposing views etc. That would be agreeable to all. Instead though, this is NOT about educating children, or teaching them that bullying is wrong, or that tolerance is right etc. It is about furthering an LGBT agenda, specifically to breakdown any notion children may have or develop as to what is normal in terms of gender and sexuality. It is the LGBT grooming of our future generations.0 -
Actually, I remember Fanny Craddock posting a talk by a guy who got caught up in watching porn, and it certainly seemed to alter his sexual behaviour. I also remember seeing an article on how many porn stars go 'gay for pay' etc.
So rather than 'turning people gay', it may just confuse sexual and gender identity.
What does watching explicate pornography have to do with children roll playing relationships?A man is a man, a woman is a woman. Men and women are complimentary to each other in terms of relationship and child raring/baring, and this is even biologically identified in the complimentary nature of our sexual organs. Children shouldn't be strategically brainwashed into accepting all deviations of this as normal.
Correct. They should be taught that 10% deviations of this is normal given that this is the consistent rate throughout countries and societies that homosexuality appears in the human species, which seems to be a good definition of normal.They should be taught, in an age appropriate manner, that bullying is wrong WHATEVER THE CASE. That we don't always agree with people, but that we tolerate opposing views etc.
As I explained to Wolfsbane homosexuality is not considered by Canadian State to be an opposing view to be tolerated.0 -
What does watching explicate pornography have to do with children roll playing relationships?
It was simply an example of how malleable we are when it comes to sexuality etc. And thats adults.Correct. They should be taught that 10% deviations of this is normal given that this is the consistent rate throughout countries and societies that homosexuality appears in the human species, which seems to be a good definition of normal.
Well I would certainly disagree with that, but therein lies the issue. When you have kids, you are free to imbue them with what you believe to be moral. Parents of Christians, Muslims etc, should not have to contend with new age views on sexuality and gender being pushed on their children without consent.As I explained to Wolfsbane homosexuality is not considered by Canadian State to be an opposing view to be tolerated.
But your argument was that the state was not teaching that homosexuality was moral. So do you see now that this is not the case? And btw, this curriculum is not just about homosexuality. Its about bisexuality, gender-bending etc.
Also, my point was not that children should be specifically taught that 'homosexuality should be tolerated', but rather be taught the general sense of anti-bullying and toleration.
What the LGBT agenda is looking to achieve, is to expand the pejorative 'homophobic', to include those who don't celebrate such behaviours etc.0 -
tenchi-fan wrote: »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.
So? I've been in the UK at Christmas time.
A friend invited me to dinner. His friend also went, a conservative catholic who was a major xenophobe.
She thought it was a form of child abuse to let her children go to school with children from different countries.
She went on to say how the election system in the UK should not be reformed as it would mean the tories would poll worse, when I asked was this not merely a reflection of what the people wanted she insisted it didn't matter what anyone else wanted.
No-one at the table batted an eyelid.
So therefore all Christians are anti-democratic xenophobes? Yeah that's sound logic...0 -
Well I would certainly disagree with that, but therein lies the issue. When you have kids, you are free to imbue them with what you believe to be moral. Parents of Christians, Muslims etc, should not have to contend with new age views on sexuality and gender being pushed on their children without consent.But your argument was that the state was not teaching that homosexuality was moral. So do you see now that this is not the case? And btw, this curriculum is not just about homosexuality. Its about bisexuality, gender-bending etc.
Do you view teaching a student it is ok to be homosexual if you want to, it is ok to consider homosexuality moral if you want to, as teaching them that it is moral?
I make the distinction, as I explained to Wolfsbane, along the same lines as freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn't tell you what religion is the right religion to be, it tells you that that is up to you and what ever you pick is fine by the State.
The children are being taught two things as far as I can see, firstly that if they think homosexuality is ok then this is valid and supported by the rest of society, you are not wrong to believe this and you do not need to be ashamed of this, and secondly if you meet someone who thinks homosexuality is ok then you should be tolerant of them and treat them with respect.
The State cannot simply teach that toleration of homosexuals is what people should do because there is an implicate statement that homosexuality is wrong in that view, and ultimately that is not the position of the State to make.
Or to put it another way, if you say homosexuality is immoral the State isn't going to say you are wrong, they are going to say (or should say) that this is your right to hold that view. But equally if someone things that homosexuality is moral the State isn't going to say they are wrong, they are going to say you have the right to hold that view. This is what this curriculum seems to be about, teaching kids that it is up to them to decide what is right for them and that both choices are equally valid.
If you think the State should be saying that you can choose but one choice is the right one and one is the wrong one but will be tolerated by the rest of us, that is fine but that moves away from principles of modern democracies.Also, my point was not that children should be specifically taught that 'homosexuality should be tolerated', but rather be taught the general sense of anti-bullying and toleration.
That seems silly, we should teach them to be generally tolerant but we shouldn't mention homosexuals because that might give them the wrong idea that it is actually ok to be gay if you want to be?0 -
Should parents have to contend with anything schools want to teach them?
Do you mean should parents have the right to contend with anything in the curriculum? If thats what you are asking, then I'll answer as follows.
Firstly, I think Parents should be the authority figure of their children, and thus have the final say on what their children do/don't do etc. Now, such a stand operates in the realm of reasonableness. Not schooling ones children could be considered neglect for example etc, so I hope you understand that my comment above is not an absolute rule, but rather a reasonable guide.
In terms of school, I believe if the school invades the role of a parent, the parent at the very least has the right to be able to have their child sit out from such a lesson. Again, there is a level of reasonableness. A parent not liking a pro-irish tone in the history book is something that may be a mild irritation, a school demanding that your child be bombarded with a range of lessons and activities to make them view something as moral or immoral is something that would be a serious matter worthy of complaint. Just think of the outrage atheist parents have in relation to the schooling system being catholic. Now just imagine if those parents had no right to exclude their child from it. Many people want religion completely out of schools, but at least they still get to say if their child will be making their communion or not etc. Now I would be someone who would be looking for the state to p!ss off telling my children what the latest moral fad is. I'd want it nowhere near my kids. However, if it was there, I'd certainly want the right to say 'not with my kids'.Do you view teaching a student it is ok to be homosexual if you want to, it is ok to consider homosexuality moral if you want to, as teaching them that it is moral?
I make the distinction, as I explained to Wolfsbane, along the same lines as freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn't tell you what religion is the right religion to be, it tells you that that is up to you and what ever you pick is fine by the State.
The children are being taught two things as far as I can see, firstly that if they think homosexuality is ok then this is valid and supported by the rest of society, you are not wrong to believe this and you do not need to be ashamed of this, and secondly if you meet someone who thinks homosexuality is ok then you should be tolerant of them and treat them with respect.
And does it also teach that there is a large opposing view that regards homosexuality as immoral, and that this is ok to think too? Or that there are many homosexuals who have changed to being heterosexual due to them having moral objection with their sexual preference? No it doesn't, and this is where your religious toleration analogy breaks. Rather than this being about inclusivity etc, its objective is to instill in a child, from kindergarten onwards, that there is only one valid view, and that is that it is ok to be homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender, transvestite etc. Implying that any deviating view is wrong. There is no denying that this is what it is. Its agenda is to brainwash kids from an early age.The State cannot simply teach that toleration of homosexuals is what people should do because there is an implicate statement that homosexuality is wrong in that view, and ultimately that is not the position of the State to make.
There should not be anything about homosexuality etc in the curriculum, and if there is, it should be simply informative. Not making moral pronouncements about it. Also, it should be age appropriate, and be nowhere near children. And again, I didn't say 'toleration of homosexuality' should be taught. I said that anti-bullying and toleration should cover everything. Be tolerant to people you don't agree with, and don't bully. That message deals with everything from people with ginger hair, to communists, to Fianna Failers to nerds, to people that are camp. People with different sexual preferences will be in there too. That is not the objective though. The objective is not about inclusivity, tolerance etc. The objective is specifically to make sure our future generations have no objections, and actually celebrate 'sexual diversity', and vilify those who do not hold this view.Or to put it another way, if you say homosexuality is immoral the State isn't going to say you are wrong, they are going to say (or should say) that this is your right to hold that view. But equally if someone things that homosexuality is moral the State isn't going to say they are wrong, they are going to say you have the right to hold that view. This is what this curriculum seems to be about, teaching kids that it is up to them to decide what is right for them and that both choices are equally valid.
That is clearly not the case at all. It is clearly the instilling, from kindergarten up, that homosexuality, bi-sexuality, transgenderism, transvestitism etc are perfectly acceptable moral things. Nowhere is it implied that there is a valid opposing view. Nor will there be, for this agenda is looking to rid our future generations of such 'prejudice'.If you think the State should be saying that you can choose but one choice is the right one and one is the wrong one but will be tolerated by the rest of us, that is fine but that moves away from principles of modern democracies.
It should NOT be dealing with the topic until students are teenagers first of all, and second of all it doesn't need to make moral pronouncements either way.That seems silly, we should teach them to be generally tolerant but we shouldn't mention homosexuals because that might give them the wrong idea that it is actually ok to be gay if you want to be?
Thats not what I said. I'm not saying it should be forbidden to mention homosexuality, but rather that we do not need to have a 14 year indoctrination campaign specifically dedicated to celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, transvestitism etc in order to promote anti-bullying and toleration.
I don't mind a teacher in a secondary school saying that being bisexual is a ok etc. i prefer teachers having a bit of personality, and feeling that they can express themselves age appropriately. Its also good to have ones views challenged etc. Having a curriculum, which is nothing short of a brainwashing campaign, for the 14 years of my childs life though, no way!0 -
It should NOT be dealing with the topic until students are teenagers first of all, and second of all it doesn't need to make moral pronouncements either way.
Yes, that's really it in a nutshell for me. Parents generally sign a form from the schools in Ireland to give permission before a student is considered old enough to learn sex ed. ( Although very many already know a lot, and sometimes they 'think' they do...lol.. I think 12 is the age - 6th Class in Primary.)
....don't mind, extra sex ed from the early years, or playschool on... Seems a bit on the bizarre side to be honest. I hate the term 'PC gone mad' - but this is a perfect example of it.
They have plenty of time to learn about sex when they are more sexualy aware imo - they are only children. Surely teaching inclusion and having a really good anti bullying policy etc. is enough at this stage? ...alluding to sexual orientation is outside the States remit imo at such a young age - this is for the parents to approach with their little ones, because they know their own children best.0 -
Yes, that's really it in a nutshell for me. Parents generally sign a form from the schools in Ireland to give permission before a student is considered old enough to learn sex ed. ( Although very many already know a lot, and sometimes they 'think' they do...lol.. I think 12 is the age - 6th Class in Primary.).
I do voluntary adult literacy work, and its frightening what people leave school in this with. Maybe our education system should focus in giving people basic literacy? I mean lets face the Irish managed to happily reproduce through the years of so-called "Jansenism"?0 -
Yes, literacy and numeracy are among the most important things to learn in school. Students learn a lot by who they surround themselves with also, and at a tender age influenced for good or bad by an 'ethos' whether it's Religious, or not ( and thrashing out the 'not' seems to be the 'hot' topic)...which it should be in fairness.
Irish schools used to have a very good name for teaching both, and turning out excellent students, however, we seem to have lagged behind the likes of Sweden, Japan et al - it's certainly something that should be looked at, and reviewed, the old way is letting students down - I think the current minister is trying his best to look at other models, and will listen too..It's not a case of implementing a system that works, but taking the positives from it.
My little guy goes to a lovely school. It means a LOT that his teacher is interested in him and really wants him to do well - I hope he always has good teachers - that's where it starts and ends.0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish schools used to have a very good name for teaching both, and turning out excellent students, however, we seem to have lagged behind the likes of Sweden, Japan et al - it's certainly something that should be looked at, and reviewed, the old way is letting students down - I think the current minister is trying his best to look at other models, and will listen too..It's not a case of implementing a system that works, but taking the positives from it. .
Are you serious? Check up on illiteracy in Ireland, its frightening.
The Nuns that thought me were pretty vicious, but without that viciousness on their part I would never have gotten the marks to get a scholarship abroad, so its something Im relucantly very grateful to them for.
I think its important that childern have a chance to master the basics because it really does open up the possibility of seeing into such a wider world.0
Advertisement