Homosexuality Should Not Be Promoted - Uk Academies

[manxman1980]

And worst, says it will not permit promotion of homosexuality. Not heterosexuality and homosexuality, but just homosexuality. It's a ridiculous notion to talk of promoting a sexuality in a sense of advocating it (so that others will be 'turned'), but it also comes from homophobic thinking that again sets homosexuality apart as something Other and marks it out in a negative way. It seems similar to the 80s policy of Thatcher's government when it brought in Section 28 (and on the Island, Section 38)

 

After this discussion, are you implying that you think I want homosexuality promoted, after everything I have said that there shouldn't be mention of promotion in this document?

 

As you are leaving this discussion I doubt there is much point in asking you to explain those two apparantly conflicting statements?

 

If you do return to the discussion I will gladly answer your other questions.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My problem with this matter is because there is mention of 'promotion' in the policy. There shouldn't be any mention of 'promotion' at all. You can't promote it or heterosexuality. I want it removed.

 

It implies that kids can be encouraged into it.

 

It shows how homosexuality is being considered differently to heterosexuality, because there is no mention of promotion for that sexuality, but there are equally as valid as sexualities.

 

Do you understand now?

 

(And there are other problems with the document too, such as mention of only teaching it objectively and necessity of talking about gay and lesbians because of AIDs(whatever that means), but I am not going into those why.)

[manxman1980]

What you are really saying then is that if sexuality is to be "promoted" then all forms of sexuality should be promoted equally? I can understand that, however, children do need to understand the reproductive cycle (not just of humans but that is what we are talking about now). That is simply good biology and can lead onto learning about genetics once the basic concepts are understood. This is simply learning about science. In this area I do not believe that we are promoting heterosexuality we are simply talking about the reproductive cycle in humans. As a contrast you could look at sea horses where the make carry the offspring.

 

Now if we are going to teach children about safe sex and STD's etc then I agree that there should also be a discussion about safe sex in same sex relationships. That should also include the other acts that occur in a sexual relationship that carry a risk of infection. The big question with this is at what age do you tell children? Afterall we do not want to encourage underage sex but equally we have to realise that many adoloscents experiment sexually earlier than the legal age of consent.

 

Information about STD's and AIDS/HIV should be given to everyone regardless of sexuality.

[manxman1980]

Do you mean equality under the law. Or that there should be equality before legal changes are made?

 

I mean equality under the law. Legal changes are sometimes required to enforce the change and get the message out to those who are hard of thinking.

 

 

 

That's seems great. But the problem is that you and others may recognise diversity but still hold values and have ways of thought that are prejudiced or fundamentally unequal.

For instance, I may know that society is diverse, I may know that people of other colour or of the other sex deserve not to be discriminated and that they should be treated equal. But it doesn't mean that when I think, speak and act that I am not operating from a perspective and value-set that is fair and equal. All I have is awareness of what I should be like.

 

I take your point, however, that is part of "society" learning to accept the differences. I need to be aware of what would be discriminatory or offensive in order that I do not engage in it. Once the dust settles it will just have become the norm and should not need the boundaries, however, it is always good to challenge perceptions.

 

 

This is complex. But yes, they are under attack. What is being attacked isn't so much straight, white males but their ability to keep that privileged position through their specific language and worldview in society. And sexism, heterosexual superiority and racial superiority are exist to help create a distorted view that maintains power.

 

So if gay people, women, and people of other coloured skin challenge these views then straight, white males naturally feel challenged.

 

But it isn't just men who feel challenged by it. These are still almost universal 'worldviews' that have been taught, defended and maintained by most of society for the betterment of the privileging straights, whites, and men. They're not just the values of straight, white men because everyone lives them, but they are values that only exist to maintain power in specific areas.

 

Indeed it is complex and that means that the solution must be complex especially if we are now going to open it out to a 'worldview'. As I said if you constantly attack something do not be surprised if it bears it's teeth and attacks back. There is no point trying to corner people and beat them until they accept equality you need to show them the value in being equal and that it is not a threat.

 

No-one is going to change the world overnight and the Isle of Man and the UK are not doing bad at equality when you compare them to many other countries. Take for example Russia, China, South Africa, Nigeria etc etc.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What you are really saying then is that if sexuality is to be "promoted" then all forms of sexuality should be promoted equally?

There's a difference between education and promotion. You can education by providing knowledge on something. But promotion implies advocation or encouragement.

You can educate someone on reproduction but promotion is a different thing altogether.

[Albert Tatlock]

You can education by providing knowledge on something.

Clearly this is not always the case.

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

The whole point of "sex education" classes in the mass education system is to characterise pregnancy as shameful and a burden; it's all about promoting abortion, contraception and transhumanism --- population control. LDV, gay people just aren't the target audience of this particular propaganda programme. However, given their aims, I think the promotion of homosexuality in sex education classes is an inevitable next step. I suppose they're waiting until their other agenda, the demonisation of religion and traditional values, is further down the road. You'll have your Brave New World, one small step at a time.

Where are you getting this from?

 

It is just my analysis of attending sex education classes in high school. Why do you assume I got it from anywhere else?

[Albert Tatlock]

 

 

The whole point of "sex education" classes in the mass education system is to characterise pregnancy as shameful and a burden; it's all about promoting abortion, contraception and transhumanism --- population control. LDV, gay people just aren't the target audience of this particular propaganda programme. However, given their aims, I think the promotion of homosexuality in sex education classes is an inevitable next step. I suppose they're waiting until their other agenda, the demonisation of religion and traditional values, is further down the road. You'll have your Brave New World, one small step at a time.

Where are you getting this from?

 

It is just my analysis of attending sex education classes in high school.

Let's hope you failed and will never reproduce. Any more of you and the internet will be full by xmas.

[Republican]

Religion and god have been a part of societies for a very long time. If you take space flight, most people don't care for it. And that can bring a better chance for peace, it opens up horizons. The beginning of the end was probably 1972 with the last mission to the moon. If you think about the social issues of that era, they were bad. As Bill Anders said in the past, we went to the moon and discovered the Earth.

 

Bill Anders would drop religion and god after his orbital trip to the moon some years later.

[Cliff]

Why should homosexuality be promoted if others like bisexuality, Asexuality, Polysexuality, Pansexuality and Transexualism are not covered either?

[quilp]

 

And worst, says it will not permit promotion of homosexuality. Not heterosexuality and homosexuality, but just homosexuality. It's a ridiculous notion to talk of promoting a sexuality in a sense of advocating it (so that others will be 'turned'), but it also comes from homophobic thinking that again sets homosexuality apart as something Other and marks it out in a negative way. It seems similar to the 80s policy of Thatcher's government when it brought in Section 28 (and on the Island, Section 38)

 

>>After this discussion, are you implying that you think I want homosexuality promoted, after everything I have said that there shouldn't be mention of promotion in this document?

 

As you are leaving this discussion I doubt there is much point in asking you to explain those two apparantly conflicting statements?

 

If you do return to the discussion I will gladly answer your other questions.

 

 

 

Well spotted, that man!

 

I did bring up the subject of RAJ's inconsistencies in an earlier thread, that may've been about sexuality too?

 

The top and the bottom is, you can't have it both ways.

[manxman1980]

Well spotted, that man!

 

I did bring up the subject of RAJ's inconsistencies in an earlier thread, that may've been about sexuality too?

 

The top and the bottom is, you can't have it both ways.

 

Unless you are bi-sexual!

[Thomas Jefferson]

Why did LDV randomly elect to "leave" the "conversation"?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Because the level of comprehension of the subject and my posts is...too low

[Lonan3]

LDV, I think the comprehension of the subject is pretty average but - and please don't think I'm having a go at you, because I'm not - there are times when, if you feel particularly passionate about a subject, you tend to get carried away. I don't mean with your views but, in your haste to make your point, it often appears that your thoughts and your typing speed are a long way from being synchronised. The result can be confusing to many readers and, in all honesty, visitors to this site don't always have either the time or the patience to pick their way through them.

This is not intended as a criticism. I simply feel that there are times - particularly when the subject under discussion means a lot to you - when you would benefit from taking a deep breath and carefully ordering your thoughts before rushing to post.