philologos wrote: » Disagreement isn't a red herring. Its obvious that if I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that I disagree with you. 28064212: show me in the legislation where protection exists for teachers, chaplains, foster carers, adoptive parents, or parents who disagree with redefining marriage. Even excluding the legal opinion which still stands, unless you show me where clear protections exist my position stands on this bill.
JimiTime wrote: » The fact will be, that a homosexual union will not be distinguished in law from an actual marriage.
lazygal wrote: » How is a book featuring a gay couple propaganda?
I feel sorry for you,
you can't formulate an argument other than 'scripture says so'. That's not legally logical argument, by the by.
28064212 wrote: » I don't have the right to teach children in a school my personal beliefs, but that's not a protection I or anybody else should have
JimiTime wrote: » Its aim is to get kids used to the idea of having two 'daddies' etc. It is looking at ridding the child of any instinct they may have. Normalising something that is not normal. Just because you agree with the propaganda, does not mean its not propaganda.
JimiTime wrote: » A more appropriate comparison, would be you, as someone who is against marriage, being forced to teach chldren that its ok.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You think children are born with the prejudices you hold so dear?
No Jimi - they learn them. They learn them from people like you.
Now, you are just annoyed that people like you are no longer allowed to spread your hate message so you are moaning.
Is teaching Children the Bible not religious propaganda? You don't seem to have an issue with that.
JimiTime wrote: » Not prejudice, but a natural instinct. I gurantee you, that if children are not inculcated with LGBT propaganda, or indeed any religious view, they would see the issue in terms of two 'daddies' etc. I received no instruction in terms of morality, or lessons in how homosexuality was wrong etc. I remember however, my natural instinct of disgust, at about 12 years old, when I first became aware that there were men who 'liked' other men.
JimiTime wrote: » Not prejudice, but a natural instinct. I gurantee you, that if children are not inculcated with LGBT propaganda, or indeed any religious view, they would see the issue in terms of two 'daddies' etc. I received no instruction in terms of morality, or lessons in how homosexuality was wrong etc. I remember however, my natural instinct of disgust, at about 12 years old, when I first became aware that there were men who 'liked' other men. My 2 nephews are being raised by atheists who are very much pro-LGBT. One of them is 13, the other 8. The parents were watching Eastenders one night, and there was a gay kissing scene. Both of the boys shouted, YUCH! with contorted faces. They then got a lecture from mommy about homosexuality being ok etc. I still remember their look of perplexion and confusion.
You may want to believe that, but I really don't think the reality is so. You'll see no hate here, but you will find objection and no fear in expressing it, whatever names I'm met with.
Depends what the motive is. If its done for political means, then yes it is propaganda.
JimiTime wrote: » My 2 nephews are being raised by atheists who are very much pro-LGBT. One of them is 13, the other 8. The parents were watching Eastenders one night, and there was a gay kissing scene. Both of the boys shouted, YUCH! with contorted faces. They then got a lecture from mommy about homosexuality being ok etc. I still remember their look of perplexion and confusion.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You think children are born with the prejudices you hold so dear? No Jimi - they learn them. They learn them from people like you. Now, you are just annoyed that people like you are no longer allowed to spread your hate message so you are moaning. Is teaching Children the Bible not religious propaganda? You don't seem to have an issue with that.
philologos wrote: » What hate message? Nowhere in the Gospel does it give me or any Christian justification to hate you or anyone else. What it may do is cause me to disagree with you on marriage. That isn't homophobic it's a genuine disagreement about the nature of marriage. There is no hate by me.
28064212 wrote: » That's exactly the same thing.
JimiTime wrote: » There IS a HUGE difference between being silent on what you believe, therefore not influencing your pupils, and teaching something. I can't believe you'd see them as the same
koth wrote: » Not a natural instinct as many kids grow up without experiencing the feeling of disgust you describe.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I was responding to Jimi. As for you - oh you don't 'hate' homosexuals, you just don't want them to have the same legal rights as you. Same meat different gravy Phil.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Find me a 12 year old who doesn't go 'yuch' at the sight of 2 adults -of any gender - kissing.
Yes, I do see hate.
I see you write about how we must stop the attempt to 'normalize' homosexuality, complain that any not negative message is 'propaganda'.
You mean like using passages from the Bible to justify lobbying the civil State to try force it to deny equal rights to all it's citizens?
JimiTime wrote: » Well, Bannisidhe asserted that its learned. I didn't learn it, nor did anyone I've asked or in the case of my nephews and my friends kids seen.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I lecture in history. At no point are my students aware of what I do and do not believe. My personal beliefs are simply not relevant to the subject. In all my years studying/lecturing only twice has a lecturer made reference to their personal beliefs, and each time it was outside the classroom environment. One joking about the fact that he was a philosophy professor and a Calvinist and how he had to constantly question if he was allowing his religious beliefs to impact on his teaching of philosophy. The other joking that she was considered a world authority on Catholic iconography while also being a devout Lutheran, but she reckoned her religion allowed her to step back from the images and consider them objectively and her Bible reading gave her a solid foundation for determining which parts of scripture various images were referring to. Any teacher/lecturer who cannot teach their subject without interjecting their personal beliefs shouldn't be teaching. It is as simple as that.
Crouch it in any terms you want Jimi, but it boils down to the fact that you do not think homosexuality is 'normal'
and that homosexuals should not be treated equally and that is what you want children taught.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You think children are born hating?? Of course it is learned - they learn what is 'normal' from those around them. Just like they learn religion.
efb wrote: » Jimi it is a learned behaviour from the influences in their lives. It doesn't require textbooks to be learned
JimiTime wrote: » the issue here is not the matter of fact teaching that homosexuals can 'marry' each other. If it comes to pass, then that would simply be a fact. No problem. Like your history class. You may not like that certain parts of history happened, but you teach that they did. No problem.
Have I hid that? I don't think its normal. Just like I don't thing that a man wanting to be a woman is normal, or BID is normal, or being sexually attracted to all manner of things is normal. It doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, any more than I'd hate someone with Bodily Integrity Disorder.
Not at all. I believe schools should leave the topic alone. Neither positive nor negative. By all means, if it comes to pass, discuss the topic of marriage and all its forms in secondary school, but don't inculcate them either way on the subject.
JimiTime wrote: » Hating? Certainly Not! Being disgusted by certain things as they get older? Yes.
JimiTime wrote: » Nor had my Nephews etc.
Peregrinus wrote: » Well, we're going round in circles here - nothing new for this thread, alas - but I think there's a legitimate question to be asked when an employer changes the nature of the job after the employee is in post. Obviously employers have to have the flexibility to do this but, equally obviously, it's not unreasonable to suggest that they pay some regard to the effects on employees in post. An employer should try to avoid making a change in the job, the result of which will be that existing employees must either resign, face disciplinary proceedings, or do violence to their consciences. I think it's legitimate to expect employers to accommodate the consciences of their employees where this is feasible, and if (as I suspect) only a minority of employees have a problem with the new requirements, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of humanity to devise an arrangement which assures gay people of the right to marry, while affording existing registrars the option of not celebrating those particular marriages, if they really don't want to. Just to be clear, I'm not personally sympathetic to the registrars who might have such an objection. But we all have an interest in defending freedom of conscience, and my commitment to freedom of conscience doesn't mean very much if it only extends to people whose consciences happen to be aligned with mine.
philologos wrote: » Even excluding the legal opinion which still stands, unless you show me where clear protections exist my position stands on this bill.
JimiTime wrote: » No protection can exist in reality. The fact will be, that a homosexual union will not be distinguished in law from an actual marriage.
