Is this dad homophobic in your opinion?

Raggamuffin wrote:Maybe - according the latest knee-jerk definition of the word. However, he's entitled to his views, and I really don't see what it has to do with the police.

Syl wrote:I don't think primary schools are the place to make kids aware of homosexuality anyway.
When kids are young it's the parents job to educate them about sexual preferences when they see fit....not the schools.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Maybe - according the latest knee-jerk definition of the word. However, he's entitled to his views, and I really don't see what it has to do with the police.

I read somewhere today someone wrote....everyones rights but Christian rights are held up in the UK.
I agree when I read stories like this.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:I don't think primary schools are the place to make kids aware of homosexuality anyway.
When kids are young it's the parents job to educate them about sexual preferences when they see fit....not the schools.

Ideally, but a lot of parents have proved to be lousy teachers.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Maybe - according the latest knee-jerk definition of the word. However, he's entitled to his views, and I really don't see what it has to do with the police.

I read somewhere today someone wrote....everyones rights but Christian rights are held up in the UK.
I agree when I read stories like this.

Cass wrote:

Syl wrote:

I read somewhere today someone wrote....everyones rights but Christian rights are held up in the UK.
I agree when I read stories like this.

but then again what about the rights of children who may have a parental relationship like this?

It's a catch 22 situation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I read somewhere today someone wrote....everyones rights but Christian rights are held up in the UK.
I agree when I read stories like this.

I can see no reference to the man being a Christian Syl. I think that it's a mistake to assume that "homophobia" is confined to some of those with religious faith.

Of course he might be as it's a RC school. However, I do people who send their children to RC schools because they like the school.

Lord Foul wrote:fortunately stormee...we dont all float in the same boat as the  ISIS primitives

Syl wrote:The headteacher of Sacred heart RC primary Ms Morrow  said..."We are proud to be one of the first schools locally to stand up to homophobia"??

Sounds to me as if she is making an issue where none exists.

Unless the children aged 8 to 11 are saying homophobic things (which there has been no mention of) why even highlight and emphasize  the subject in the first place?

Syl wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:I don't think primary schools are the place to make kids aware of homosexuality anyway.
When kids are young it's the parents job to educate them about sexual preferences when they see fit....not the schools.

Ideally, but a lot of parents have proved to be lousy teachers.

That's true, but  secondary schools (aged 11 and upwards) could educate about sex and relationships...I personallty think kids aged 8 to 11 don't need to be taught in school.

Eilzel wrote:At the very least then, quite stupid. But yeah, probably homophobic too.

eddie wrote:Just because someone objects to something that is to do with their child,  it doesn't mean they against it.
I wouldn't want my 8 year old watching a play where two people shouted and swore, doesn't mean I'm against shouting and swearing.

Would it bother me regarding the gay marriage in a play? No.

He accused the school of social engineering and claimed: ‘I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.
‘It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent, a bit like finding the school had decided it has the right to vaccinate your kids for you and did it without your consent because it knows best.’

Now the headteacher of Sacred Heart RC Primary in Atherton, near Wigan, has vowed to stand up to homophobia. Carrie Morrow said she was shocked the workshop aimed at teaching children about diversity was criticised by a ‘small minority’ of parents on Facebook.

Didge wrote:Well he posted a homophobic rant, so that tends to give this away.

Also is he now saying a gay couple has to wait until the 9 o'clock watershed, before they can go out in public? As that is what the father is basically saying. That he wanted to be asked permission for his son to understand what he is going to see in everyday life. Couples of the same sex walking around. So clearly the parent had also some warped view that the school had taught gay sex, by his reactions. That is how it seems to me what kicked him off, based only on his son saying they were taught about gay relationships. It would also explain his really daft comments

“It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent.
In a public post, he wrote: “I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.


Clearly he jumped to the wrong conclusion. So his initial reaction clearly was based on the dad wrongly assuming they had talked about actual Gay sex. So basically he is saying he has to have permission for biology lessons. So I do not think his initial reaction was one of homophobia but based off wrongly assuming lessons were being given on sex, when it was on relationships. He then certainly descended very much to be homophobic when  he then makes poor comments like ‘social engineering”. in regards to homosexual relationships.. Which is him basically saying this will turn kids gay.

Syl wrote:I think the dad is getting a hard time here.

If the head had informed the parents and given them a choice of whether they agreed their child could be included in the lesson none of this would have happened.

Unless he has posted more on facebook what he actually said has been blown out of proportion....he simply did not agree to his child being taught this lesson......and to be fair, why should a primary school take it upon themselves to bring in a gay friendly (what the hell is that anyway? do we also have straight friendly?) workshop to educate their kids about sexual preferences...be them straight, gay, or anything else that's legal..

My own son was told early on (probably under eight) what the term 'gay' implied. It came up in conversation, his questions were asked and answered...by ME.
I would have been pissed off if someone else had decided the time was right for him to know....parents do have rights, on this occasion I think the dad was right.

Eilzel wrote:Sexuality, race, gender equality, religion etc. Being made aware All of these things SHOULD be part of a child's education.

Syl, I agree that parents SHOULD be the ones left to inform their children of these things in a way that is open and decent.

However, some parents either do not or will not. OR they do but only in ways that are sexist, racist or homophobic.

Not all parents; but a minority. As a result the education system has to do its part.

As to the play. Nothing in it is inappropriate for children. So at best the father's complaints were misplaced and ignorant and there is no need for teachers to have to go to the extra effort of informing all the kds parents.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:Well he posted a homophobic rant, so that tends to give this away.

Also is he now saying a gay couple has to wait until the 9 o'clock watershed, before they can go out in public? As that is what the father is basically saying. That he wanted to be asked permission for his son to understand what he is going to see in everyday life. Couples of the same sex walking around. So clearly the parent had also some warped view that the school had taught gay sex, by his reactions. That is how it seems to me what kicked him off, based only on his son saying they were taught about gay relationships. It would also explain his really daft comments

“It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent.
In a public post, he wrote: “I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.


Clearly he jumped to the wrong conclusion. So his initial reaction clearly was based on the dad wrongly assuming they had talked about actual Gay sex. So basically he is saying he has to have permission for biology lessons. So I do not think his initial reaction was one of homophobia but based off wrongly assuming lessons were being given on sex, when it was on relationships. He then certainly descended very much to be homophobic when  he then makes poor comments like ‘social engineering”. in regards to homosexual relationships.. Which is him basically saying this will turn kids gay.

What rubbish...you are putting your own personal interpretation of what he said and presenting it as fact.

As for your comment of what he meant by 'social engineering', you cannot possibly know he meant seeing a play would turn kids gay.
He could have just as easily  meant the social engineering of opening up a young childs mind about grown up relationships (of any kind)

Kids develop differently, some 5 year olds start to ask questions about relationships ...some 10 year olds are still very immature in their outlook.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:I think the dad is getting a hard time here.

If the head had informed the parents and given them a choice of whether they agreed their child could be included in the lesson none of this would have happened.

Unless he has posted more on facebook what he actually said has been blown out of proportion....he simply did not agree to his child being taught this lesson......and to be fair, why should a primary school take it upon themselves to bring in a gay friendly (what the hell is that anyway? do we also have straight friendly?) workshop to educate their kids about sexual preferences...be them straight, gay, or anything else that's legal..

My own son was told early on (probably under eight) what the term 'gay' implied. It came up in conversation, his questions were asked and answered...by ME.
I would have been pissed off if someone else had decided the time was right for him to know....parents do have rights, on this occasion I think the dad was right.

The school are under no obligation to tell parents about a play being performed within the school.
Nothing has happened other than some parents wrongly assuming that their kids were being taught actually about gay sex, which is backed up by the father's replies. He wrongly assumed they were being taught about sex when this was about relationships.

Why should the father have the right to take a child out of school over a children's play? That is no different to any other fairy tail children's play. Again the only way this is optional is for his child to basically change schools. Are you saying no gay couples should not venture out during the day, because you have decided to ostracize them from society, in case children might see two people happy in love together? This play had two Princes instead of a Prince and Princess, big deal. It helps children understand other children will be different to how they are.

What this father is protesting is based off him wrongly assuming the lesson was about sex, to then in his anger then show he actually is very much homophobic, [b]comments like ‘social engineering”. in regards to homosexual relationships.. Which is him basically saying this will turn kids gay. Homosexuality is not a belief like religion is where you do have a choice. So every single child will be taught different genders.


So your issue is with knowing that some people are gay, as the only reason to deny teaching this to 8 year old's, even through they already know men and women live together? So prey tell, what is so wrong telling an 8 year old boy that two men love each other? As early as possible is the right time to know. Where even better you have some homosexual that children already know then that some people are gay.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


The school are under no obligation to tell parents about a play being performed within the school.
Nothing has happened other than some parents wrongly assuming that their kids were being taught actually about gay sex, which is backed up by the father's replies. He wrongly assumed they were being taught about sex when this was about relationships.

Why should the father have the right to take a child out of school over a children's play? That is no different to any other fairy tail children's play. Again the only way this is optional is for his child to basically change schools. Are you saying no gay couples should not venture out during the day, because you have decided to ostracize them from society, in case children might see two people happy in love together? This play had two Princes instead of a Prince and Princess, big deal. It helps children understand other children will be different to how they are.

What this father is protesting is based off him wrongly assuming the lesson was about sex, to then in his anger then show he actually is very much homophobic, [b]comments like ‘social engineering”. in regards to homosexual relationships.. Which is him basically saying this will turn kids gay. Homosexuality is not a belief like religion is where you do have a choice. So every single child will be taught different genders.


So your issue is with knowing that some people are gay, as the only reason to deny teaching this to 8 year old's, even through they already know men and women live together? So prey tell, what is so wrong telling an 8 year old boy that two men love each other? As early as possible is the right time to know. Where even better you have some homosexual that children already know then that some people are gay.

Knowing this lesson was out of the norm for primary schools I don't see why a letter could not have been written to inform the parents, for one thing it would have prevented the publicity, which no school wants in my experience.

I didn't say the father should have the right to take the child out of school, I said out of this particular lesson.
My local primary school have children whos parents object them attending assembly, they are catered for in a classroom till assembly has finished....same thing.

Syl wrote:I think the dad is getting a hard time here.

If the head had informed the parents and given them a choice of whether they agreed their child could be included in the lesson none of this would have happened.

Unless he has posted more on facebook what he actually said has been blown out of proportion....he simply did not agree to his child being taught this lesson......and to be fair, why should a primary school take it upon themselves to bring in a gay friendly (what the hell is that anyway? do we also have straight friendly?) workshop to educate their kids about sexual preferences...be them straight, gay, or anything else that's legal..

My own son was told early on (probably under eight) what the term 'gay' implied. It came up in conversation, his questions were asked and answered...by ME.
I would have been pissed off if someone else had decided the time was right for him to know....parents do have rights, on this occasion I think the dad was right.

‘I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.
‘It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent, a bit like finding the school had decided it has the right to vaccinate your kids for you and did it without your consent because it knows best.’

Eilzel wrote:Syl- then you are a good parent. But for many out there that just isn't the case- what about those kids? We just condemn to them to growing up ignorant or worse?

Ultimately no harm can come from a play about gay married- so why the fuss?

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Syl- then you are a good parent. But for many out there that just isn't the case- what about those kids? We just condemn to them to growing up ignorant or worse?

Ultimately no harm can come from a play about gay married- so why the fuss?

No I don't think any child should grow up ignorant, I said if a child shows tendencies to be so early on, the primary school should intervene then.

For parents (the vast majority) who do want their kids to be taught the right way, childrens development vary in age a lot...when they are ready to know they ask questions about everything. Being lumped altogether in a classroom is not imo the ideal way for kids to learn.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

What rubbish...you are putting your own personal interpretation of what he said and presenting it as fact.

As for your comment of what he meant by 'social engineering', you cannot possibly know he meant seeing a play would turn kids gay.
He could have just as easily  meant the social engineering of opening up a young childs mind about grown up relationships (of any kind)

Kids develop differently, some 5 year olds start to ask questions about relationships ...some 10 year olds are still very immature in their outlook.

Its as plain as day, I suggest you read his words again


"It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent."


It never had anything ever to do with gay sex, but gender differences, hence his wrong and false assumption, as why even mention gay sex?

Again you fail to read his next ppoint:


In a public post, he wrote: “I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.


Promote?
Homosexuality is not a crime
So how is there any PC sex being promoted to then equate this to pedophilia?

As to social engineering, that is exactly what he meant, when he meant turning people Gay

I was once homophobic and a catholic and have heard these same things many times

Eilzel wrote:It isn't just about helping gay children directly though, Syl. Its about making all children aware of all races, sexualities, religions etc. This play is just something else that would contribute to that.

aspca4ever wrote:

Syl wrote:I think the dad is getting a hard time here.

If the head had informed the parents and given them a choice of whether they agreed their child could be included in the lesson none of this would have happened.

Unless he has posted more on facebook what he actually said has been blown out of proportion....he simply did not agree to his child being taught this lesson......and to be fair, why should a primary school take it upon themselves to bring in a gay friendly (what the hell is that anyway? do we also have straight friendly?) workshop to educate their kids about sexual preferences...be them straight, gay, or anything else that's legal..

My own son was told early on (probably under eight) what the term 'gay' implied. It came up in conversation, his questions were asked and answered...by ME.
I would have been pissed off if someone else had decided the time was right for him to know....parents do have rights, on this occasion I think the dad was right.

1.) why didn't he first contact the school and find out what EXACTLY had been shown to his son
2.) I can't even begin to tell you how many 'Parental Forms' go home in a back-pack and just disappear and so --- should that child be removed from a school program and set outside in the hallway because he/she didn't return that single 1 piece of paper?
3.) it's a play; someone higher up - that's paid to judge/make those appropriate decisions --- made that decision
4.) Dad - blew this into a MOUNTAIN from a mole hill by this:

‘I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.
‘It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent, a bit like finding the school had decided it has the right to vaccinate your kids for you and did it without your consent because it knows best.’

5.) to whom is he referring to as the 'US' --- once his hysteria and bounce back from his media page --- he became a GROUP
6.) comparing that play to a medical injectable vaccine hardly constitutes equal/valid reason for a parental consent --- NOOOO WAY  

I'll go out on a limb and tell you; all of those little kids - fidget/horse play/whisper/poke/and barely pay attention to each and every finite detail that they are giving as the play's genre --- those littles are just happy to be out of the class room with all of those other warm little bodies!

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its as plain as day, I suggest you read his words again


"It has nothing to do with gay sex that upset us but the lack of parental consent."


It never had anything ever to do with gay sex, but gender differences, hence his wrong and false assumption, as why even mention gay sex?

Again you fail to read his next ppoint:


In a public post, he wrote: “I think people who promote PC sex to kids below 11 border on paedophilia and are depraved.


Promote?
Homosexuality is not a crime
So how is there any PC sex being promoted to then equate this to pedophilia?

As to social engineering, that is exactly what he meant, when he meant turning people Gay

I was once homophobic and a catholic and have heard these same things many times

I have read his words...I think he should have directed them at the school rather than on social media but I don't see anything homophobic in what he said.
He (dad) says "gay sex" ..."gay relationships" would have been a better way to describe it....but I have no knowledge of the plays content (do you?) so he has obviously reacted to what his son has told him.
He emphasises there  that it's the lack of parental consent that he is bothered about.

The next point...I have no idea what PC sex is, I have never heard the term used before. Your interpretation is he means gay sex, my interpretation in the way he said  it was teaching kids under 11.....that's why he likens it to depravity and paedophilia.

Syl wrote:

aspca4ever wrote:

1.) why didn't he first contact the school and find out what EXACTLY had been shown to his son
2.) I can't even begin to tell you how many 'Parental Forms' go home in a back-pack and just disappear and so --- should that child be removed from a school program and set outside in the hallway because he/she didn't return that single 1 piece of paper?
3.) it's a play; someone higher up - that's paid to judge/make those appropriate decisions --- made that decision
4.) Dad - blew this into a MOUNTAIN from a mole hill by this:


5.) to whom is he referring to as the 'US' --- once his hysteria and bounce back from his media page --- he became a GROUP
6.) comparing that play to a medical injectable vaccine hardly constitutes equal/valid reason for a parental consent --- NOOOO WAY  

I'll go out on a limb and tell you; all of those little kids - fidget/horse play/whisper/poke/and barely pay attention to each and every finite detail that they are giving as the play's genre --- those littles are just happy to be out of the class room with all of those other warm little bodies!

Didge wrote:Well how he felt at the time has made him come out nationwide looking very poorly, of which he himself created Syl and only he himself to blame.
As stated there is not even a need for a consent form for a children'sa play when its a fairy tale. Unless again people would view there being something wrong with children seeing two people in love.
So it would only cause controversy if parents viewed homosexuality as wrong.

So again why on earth would you need a consent form to get permission off parents to watch a fairy tale where two people are in love?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:Well how he felt at the time has made him come out nationwide looking very poorly, of which he himself created Syl and only he himself to blame.
As stated there is not even a need for a consent form for a children'sa play when its a fairy tale. Unless again people would view there being something wrong with children seeing two people in love.
So it would only cause controversy if parents viewed homosexuality as wrong.

So again why on earth would you need a consent form to get permission off parents to watch a fairy tale where two people are in love?

Because this father (and he had some support from other parents) thought the play unsuitable for younger children.

The headmistress has made the statement "We have been quite bold" so perhaps she should have anticipated a reaction then?...she added that the school is proud to have stood up against homophobia. But who is homophobic here?
The police said no crime has been commited.

1..He should have addressed the school first I agree, but it's a sign of the times that grievances are now played out on social media so everyone can get involved.
2..There was no parental form to sign on this occasion.
3...I know it was a play 4ever, but surely the people who booked it would have known that it could cause controversy and misunderstanding to some.
4...Dad may have over reacted, and I think his wording was a bit strong, but the part you highlight in red has no homophobic connotation to it.....he objected to the lesson because the kids are under 11....that's why he refers to depravity and paedophilia.
5....the US is him and a couple more parents initially , who quickly became a support group when it became public.
6...His point there was a tad excitable....but it's how he felt at the time.

Your last point....no doubt.

It would be a frigid day in hell if any Catholic School in America even allowed the 'PC' topic to be discussed let alone be portrayed as a 'Fairy Tale Skit' for a school assembly!    Parents would be showing up the next morning for a public dose of 'beat the teachers & hang the principal' --- absolutely shocked that this Catholic School in England was soooo forward thinking! 

I'd doubt that anything near a PC stick figure projected movie would be allowed to be shown to our Catholic schools --- the earth would open up and swallow the building!

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Because this father (and he had some support from other parents) thought the play unsuitable for younger children.

The headmistress has made the statement "We have been quite bold" so perhaps she should have anticipated a reaction then?...she added that the school is proud to have stood up against homophobia. But who is homophobic here?
The police said no crime has been commited.

Yes they thought it was unsuitable because of their views on homosexuality.
I have posted numerous points which clearly indicate there can only be two reasons here for some of the parents being in my view silly.
As again what could have happened in the play that would be so wrong?
The only thing would be if they had sex on stage, which would be the same if it was a Prince and Princess.
This is the point you are missing rags, its not sexually acts but attraction, whether people are either heterosexual or homosexual.
So if no sexual acts were being taught in the play, then there is no reason for a parent to be up in arms. It would have to be a distinct hostility towards homosexuality attraction. As again, all this play showed was a fairy with two people in love.
Never claimed any crime had been committed but its evident the reason stems from homophobia, as again:

Why be up in arms over a kids play that has two people in love?