Should LGBT Relationships Be Taught in Primary School? | This Morning

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:36 pm

It’s been announced that primary school children as young as five will now be taught about LGBT families and transgender relationships, with the new curriculum ending parents’ rights to opt their children out of the classes in 2020. We’re joined by Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist who believes that it’s about time that this happened and that inclusivity should be promoted from as early an age as possible, and Caroline Farrow who feels that it takes away a parent’s right to teach their own child about relationships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rupJjIcxjc

Sorry, but that is the biggest load of claptrap ever proposed by Caroline Farrow.
Nobody is saying parents are not good enough at all and a parent has a continued right to coninue to teach children what ever belief they believe in. What is being taught is that children should come to understand that people are different in society within relationships. In that there is gay and transgender parents for example, as well as hetrosexal parents and people. To say this is about what is age appropiate, is based on what they think and not on thinking about how its going to make life less complicated for children. Growing up around other children, that have gay parents for example.

I mean we rightly teach evolution in school and there is many religious parents that disagree with this. Even though their view has no bases in science. Its allowing children to actually come to see scientifc theories on the origins of humanity. What parents may think they know what is best, for their children is based on their perceived perception based on their own beliefs and not as a society as a whole or any real science

So no power is being taken away from parents. As they have every right to disagree with what is being taught and daily fill their childrens heads, with example outdated and quite discrminating religious beliefs they may hold against homosexuals. Taking power away, would be denying the parent the right to teach their children their own views. That is not actually happenning. What is happenning is teaching children, that there is different parental groups and people, including children. What these parents are really saying, is they disagree with homosexuality etc. As why object for young children to come to understand adults have different relationships and that some children are different?

So its never imposing anything, if anything they are trying to censur the rights of children to actually learn, based on their beliefs. As that is what it boils down to. They want to censur a reality of the world today, based off what they disagree with. It shows the very exclusive view point they hold on what they want society to be like. When they should be welcoming children to learn about being inclusive to everyone.

So I am sorry, I know when I see bulllshit arguments and those opposing teaching these differences, are not based on age appopriation, but a prejudiced view they hold themselves.

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:09 pm

No... young children should not be getting taught any of this type of stuff... leave them alone... let them just be children!

by SEXY MAMA Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:20 pm

As young as 5?????

No I don’t agree at all. But I also don’t agree about teaching them about sex education at this age either.

by Original Quill Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:26 pm

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't think any family relationships should be taught to 5-year old children. When children are old enough to better understand, they should be taught LGBT relationships as a part of a complete package of all family relationships.

Why would anyone want to raise ill-informed children? They should be taught to appreciate and accept all variations of life...as long as it is not criminal.

by nicko Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:33 pm

At 5 years old ? sickening !

by Syl Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:11 pm

Way too young.
Young primary school kids should be taught to respect everyone, no matter what their differences are.
That should cover the topic till they are older and more specific subjects are brought in.

Ideally kids should be taught all this at home as and when, kids mature and understand at different levels, but not every parent is capable of approaching personal subjects.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:18 pm

Its not about teaching sex education but relationships

So how is it too young to learn when kids already live in families with different relationships?

Hence why its better that schools appraoch this when some parents cannot

by Original Quill Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:50 pm

Thor wrote:Its not about teaching sex education but relationships

So how is it too young to learn when kids already live in families with different relationships?

Hence why its better that schools appraoch this when some parents cannot

You are on the right track. The idea is to broaden the experience by expanding the child's understanding of family, and family relationships. But it needs to begin at a later age than 5. At five they are still learning manual skills, and cannot conceive of the idea of relationships.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:Its not about teaching sex education but relationships

So how is it too young to learn when kids already live in families with different relationships?

Hence why its better that schools appraoch this when some parents cannot

You are on the right track. The idea is to broaden the experience by expanding the child's understanding of family, and family relationships. But it needs to begin at a later age than 5. At five they are still learning manual skills, and cannot conceive of the idea of relationships.

Why later than 5, when kids from parents in different relationships are coming together in schools at this age?

They certainly understand the basics of having a mum and dad, so why not for example two dads?

The view to say this is too young, is simple based on peoples personal perception.

by Syl Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:09 pm

Why would primary schools have to point out different relationships? Surely it's a thing of the past where the ideal family is seen as mum, dad, and 2.2 children.

By all means teach love and respect to all....why the need to put people in boxes to teach?

by Original Quill Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:15 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are on the right track. The idea is to broaden the experience by expanding the child's understanding of family, and family relationships. But it needs to begin at a later age than 5. At five they are still learning manual skills, and cannot conceive of the idea of relationships.

Why later than 5, when kids from parents in different relationships are coming together in schools at this age?

They certainly understand the basics of having a mum and dad, so why not for example two dads?

The view to say this is too young, is simple based on peoples personal perception.

Exactly. At age 7 or 8 they acquire a sense of a bigger world than just their own families. Then it is appropriate to introduce them to the idea of other kinds of families, with relationships different than their own. As I said above, broadening into wider understandings.

My only problem with 5-years old, is that they are not ready yet to grasp the ideas.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:17 pm

Syl wrote:Why would primary schools have to point out different relationships? Surely it's a thing of the past where the ideal family is seen as mum, dad, and 2.2 children.

By all means teach love and respect to all....why the need to put people in boxes to teach?

Why not teach that there is different parent units, when kids may only come across this for the first time, when they go to school?

Its not placing people in boxes, but showing that kids can and do have different families, from their own

The school is in the best place to know more than the parents, which other kids do have gay parents for example

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Why later than 5, when kids from parents in different relationships are coming together in schools at this age?

They certainly understand the basics of having a mum and dad, so why not for example two dads?

The view to say this is too young, is simple based on peoples personal perception.

Exactly. At age 7 or 8 they acquire a sense of a bigger world than just their own families. Then it is appropriate to introduce them to the idea of other kinds of families, with relationships different than their own. As I said above, broadening into wider understandings.

My only problem with 5-years old, is that they are not ready yet to grasp the ideas.

Subjective based on your own perception

So can a child of 5 understand they have a mother and father?

Yes or no?

by Original Quill Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:23 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Exactly. At age 7 or 8 they acquire a sense of a bigger world than just their own families. Then it is appropriate to introduce them to the idea of other kinds of families, with relationships different than their own. As I said above, broadening into wider understandings.

My only problem with 5-years old, is that they are not ready yet to grasp the ideas.

Subjective based on your own perception

So can a child of 5 understand they have a mother and father?

Yes or no?

Their own mother, yes. Someone else's mother, not necessarily.

Children need to learn that others are in the world first, then begin to dissect that world. At 5 they are just adjusting to others in their world. At 7, they might begin to understand and tolerate differences and similarities.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Subjective based on your own perception

So can a child of 5 understand they have a mother and father?

Yes or no?

Their own mother, yes. Someone else's mother, not necessarily.

Children need to learn that others are in the world first, then begin to dissect that world. At 5 they are just adjusting to others in their world. At 7, they might begin to understand and tolerate differences and similarities.

Never answered the quesion

Can a child understand they have a mother and father?

Yes or no?

Your view is not based on any psychological understanding

by Original Quill Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:32 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Their own mother, yes. Someone else's mother, not necessarily.

Children need to learn that others are in the world first, then begin to dissect that world. At 5 they are just adjusting to others in their world. At 7, they might begin to understand and tolerate differences and similarities.

Never answered the quesion

Can a child understand they have a mother and father?

Yes or no?

That's already been answered. Children understand their own parents, but have to grow to understand the parents of others.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Never answered the quesion

Can a child understand they have a mother and father?

Yes or no?

That's already been answered. Children understand their own parents, but have to grow to understand the parents of others.

So if a child of 5 has the cognitive ability to understand the family set up they come from

Then how is wrong to teach and show other family set ups?

They will be going to school , where other kids have different set=ups

To me, you are not making a view on the cognitive ability of 5 year olds

You aree simple interjecting your own personal opinion

by Syl Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:47 pm

Thor wrote:
Syl wrote:Why would primary schools have to point out different relationships? Surely it's a thing of the past where the ideal family is seen as mum, dad, and 2.2 children.

By all means teach love and respect to all....why the need to put people in boxes to teach?

Why not teach that there is different parent units, when kids may only come across this for the first time, when they go to school?

Its not placing people in boxes, but showing that kids can and do have different families, from their own

The school is in the best place to know more than the parents, which other kids do have gay parents for example

I doubt whether most 5 year old would give a thought to other childrens parentage unless an issue is made of it by adults..
Left in peace most children accept their small world without question.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:50 pm

Syl wrote:
Thor wrote:

Why not teach that there is different parent units, when kids may only come across this for the first time, when they go to school?

Its not placing people in boxes, but showing that kids can and do have different families, from their own

The school is in the best place to know more than the parents, which other kids do have gay parents for example

I doubt whether most 5 year old would give a thought to other childrens parentage unless an issue is made of it by adults..
Left in peace most children accept their small world without question.

You dont think kids of this age ask countless questions?

That they will see such parent set-ups, picking up their children from school?

So again what is wrong to teach children of this age, that have a cognitive ability to understand different parent set-ups?

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:22 pm

I don't think that kids of 5 give a toss who's picking who up from school.

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that kids of 5 give a toss who's picking who up from school.

That is just an example to show kids will see different family set ups

Kids ask questions all the time, espcially at that age

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:55 pm

This is why "section 28" needs to be reinacted...

Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.

Time and money needs to be spent on providing proper education... not promoting any agenda...!

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:59 pm

Some prominent MPs who supported the bill when it was first introduced have since either expressed regret over their support, changed their stance due to different circumstances which have evolved over time, or have argued that the legislation is no longer necessary.

In an interview with gay magazine Attitude at the time of the 2005 general election, Michael Howard, then-Leader of the Conservative Party, commented: "[Section 28] was brought in to deal with what was seen to be a specific problem at the time. The problem was the kind of literature that was being used in some schools and distributed to very young children that was seen to promote homosexuality... I thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was a problem in those days. That problem simply doesn't exist now. Nobody's fussed about those issues any more. It's not a problem, so the law shouldn't be hanging around on the statute book".[70]

In February 2006, then-Conservative Party Chairman Francis Maude told Pinknews.co.uk that the policy, which he had voted for, was wrong and a mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28#In_retrospect

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:55 pm

The problem clearly does exist... as the active promotion of homosexuality to children in schools is now happening...!

And it shouldn't be happening at all!!!

We need a reinstatement of a law like "section 28" to stop this happening!!!

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

The problem clearly does exist... as the active promotion of homosexuality to children in schools is now happening...!

And it shouldn't be happening at all!!!

We need a reinstatement of a law like "section 28" to stop this happening!!!

No we just need to laugh at people like you Tommy, that thinks teaching about family relationships is a danger to children

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:13 pm

My belief is it is never too late to begin your conversations with your child. But it can certainly be far better to start early. I advise parents that the age of 5 is a wonderful time to lay a foundation for what homosexuality is and to instill in your young child a sense of tolerance and acceptance for being lesbian or gay. "You know, just like a man and a woman can love each other so can a man and a man or a woman and a woman. A man that loves and is attracted to another man is called a gay man. A woman that loves and is attracted to another woman is called a lesbian woman. Gay men and lesbian women are also called homosexuals. It is very important that we respect people who are gay and lesbian". Your 5 year old will happily say, "Oh, okay" and be done with it. While this may not sound like much of a beginning, it is nevertheless a beautiful foundation for additional discussion and teaching as time goes along. Soon thereafter, you can begin to scaffold additional information as needed, always keeping a focus on building acceptance and tolerance. "Just like I think it is important to respect people of different colors and religions, it is very important to respect people who are homosexual. There are people who disapprove of persons that are gay and lesbian and sometimes they will actually try and hurt them. I think that is just so terrible and wrong". "You know, just like a man and woman can have children so can gay men and lesbian women". "While men and women can marry each other, there are many states that do not allow gay men and lesbian women to marry. I think it's only right that homosexuals be allowed to marry". These are just some of the directions that you can take your conversations with your young child.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/what-your-child-needs-know-about-sex-and-when/201112/teaching-your-young-child-about

Night everyone

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:25 pm

No problem with children being taught about normal and natural things...

And obviously only when they are at an appropriate enough age for certain things...

However... very young children from the ages of 5-10... need to be left alone and free from any agenda being imposed upon them... all they need to be taught is the fundamentals of reading/writing/arithmetic etc, and to let them play and explore their creative sides with painting and drawing and making stuff etc, and let them have a go at sports etc, teach them about plants and trees and animals and nature etc, plus time for reading/telling stories from books etc...

We need to laugh at people like didge who think that leaving children alone to just enjoy these simple childhood pursuits, and allowing them to be themselves, and free from politically motivated pro homosexual agenda driven indoctrination... will somehow make them a danger to society...!!!

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
No problem with children being taught about normal and natural things...
thor wrote:Then why are you against teaching children about different families?
As its very normal today in British society
And obviously only when they are at an appropriate enough age for certain things...
thor wrote:This is an appropiate age to start helping children understand

However... very young children from the ages of 5-10... need to be left alone and free from any agenda being imposed upon them... all they need to be taught is the fundamentals of reading/writing/arithmetic etc, and to let them play and explore their creative sides with painting and drawing and making stuff etc, and let them have a go at sports etc, teach them about plants and trees and animals and nature etc, plus time for reading/telling stories from books etc...
thor wrote:What agenda?
So Tommy does not believe kids should be taught right from wrong
He thinks kids need only learn reading/writing/arithmetic and yet there is many other things we can teach children, including being inclusive and tolerant towards others

We need to laugh at people like didge who think that leaving children alone to just enjoy these simple childhood pursuits, and allowing them to be themselves, and free from politically motivated pro homosexual agenda driven indoctrination... will somehow make them a danger to society...!!!

So clearly the above contradicts, as children are not left alone, when being taught. In fact they come together to learn a great many things and can come to their own conclusions as they grow up. They also have time to play and be creative themselves. So the drivel to claim that they should be allowed to have simple child pursuits. Is not even being taken away from them by teaching them to be inclusive.

In other words, its a red herring formulated by Tommy, as his real reason here, is a dislike he has to homosexualty

Kids can still play and be creative and learn to be inclusive

That is obvious

So we certainly need to laugh at Tommy's fearful view that someone how telling children to be inclusive is somehow wrong to him

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:45 pm

We need to laugh at people like didge who think that leaving children alone to just enjoy these simple childhood pursuits, and allowing them to be themselves, and free from politically motivated pro homosexual agenda driven indoctrination... will somehow make them a danger to society...!!!

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:We need to laugh at people like didge who think that leaving children alone to just enjoy these simple childhood pursuits, and allowing them to be themselves, and free from politically motivated pro homosexual agenda driven indoctrination... will somehow make them a danger to society...!!!

Pro agenda?

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality

Homosexuality is not a crime in this country

So how is it wrong to teach inclusion?

So clearly the above contradicts, as children are not left alone, when being taught. In fact they come together to learn a great many things and can come to their own conclusions as they grow up. They also have time to play and be creative themselves. So the drivel to claim that they should be allowed to have simple child pursuits. Is not even being taken away from them by teaching them to be inclusive.

In other words, its a red herring formulated by Tommy, as his real reason here, is a dislike he has to homosexualty

Kids can still play and be creative and learn to be inclusive

That is obvious

So we certainly need to laugh at Tommy's fearful view that someone how telling children to be inclusive is somehow wrong to him

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:55 pm

Drinking and smoking are not crimes in this country... and you advocate the legalisation of drugs too...

Does that mean that children as young as 5 should be actively taught about such things, and told that it is normal and natural for these things to be done... just because a minority of children might come from families where these things are normal for them... and all in the name of educating children to the realities of different families and for the purpose of inclusion...!!!???

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:56 pm

Or...

We need to laugh at people like didge who think that leaving children alone to just enjoy these simple childhood pursuits, and allowing them to be themselves, and free from politically motivated pro homosexual agenda driven indoctrination... will somehow make them a danger to society...!!!

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Drinking and smoking are not crimes in this country... and you advocate the legalisation of drugs too...

Does that mean that children as young as 5 should be actively taught about such things, and told that it is normal and natural for these things to be done... just because a minority of children might come from families where these things are normal for them... and all in the name of educating children to the realities of different families and for the purpose of inclusion...!!!???

Absolutely they should be taught, about the dangers of smoking and drink and warn of the health dangers associated with them

Why would you think othewise?

In fact its very important to explain the health risks of second hand smoke

It can help also their parents to learn to go outside in the garden and smoke

These are social habbits of these parents

Homosexuality is something people are born as

Do you understand the difference?

by Guest Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Or...

We need to laugh at people like didge who think that leaving children alone to just enjoy these simple childhood pursuits, and allowing them to be themselves, and free from politically motivated pro homosexual agenda driven indoctrination... will somehow make them a danger to society...!!!

Pro agenda?

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality

Homosexuality is not a crime in this country

So how is it wrong to teach inclusion?

So clearly the above contradicts, as children are not left alone, when being taught. In fact they come together to learn a great many things and can come to their own conclusions as they grow up. They also have time to play and be creative themselves. So the drivel to claim that they should be allowed to have simple child pursuits. Is not even being taken away from them by teaching them to be inclusive.

In other words, its a red herring formulated by Tommy, as his real reason here, is a dislike he has to homosexualty

Kids can still play and be creative and learn to be inclusive

That is obvious

So we certainly need to laugh at Tommy's fearful view that someone how telling children to be inclusive is somehow wrong to him

by Eilzel Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:04 am

Tommy Monk wrote:This is why "section 28" needs to be reinacted...

Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.

Time and money needs to be spent on providing proper education... not promoting any agenda...!

How is being gay 'promoted' in schools?

You can never answer this. It's why you just end up coming across as a vindictive little gob shite.

by Eilzel Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:07 am

For the record 'sex ed' of any kind should not happen until high school.

But children's books can include gay characters for any age group (young kids who read about Cindrella, for instance, would not suffer from similar fairy tales where Cinder's equivalent is a guy).

This is not dangerous and passively lets kids know there are different kinds of relationships.

by Syl Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:09 am

Thor wrote:
Syl wrote:

I doubt whether most 5 year old would give a thought to other childrens parentage unless an issue is made of it by adults..
Left in peace most children accept their small world without question.

You dont think kids of this age ask countless questions?

That they will see such parent set-ups, picking up their children from school?

So again what is wrong to teach children of this age, that have a cognitive ability to understand different parent set-ups?

Of course kids of that age ask questions, and you answer them in simple terms.

All kids see is mummy or daddy picking their friends up......what sort of questions do you imagine a 5 year old would ask?

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:16 am

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:This is why "section 28" needs to be reinacted...

Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.

Time and money needs to be spent on providing proper education... not promoting any agenda...!

How is being gay 'promoted' in schools?

You can never answer this. It's why you just end up coming across as a vindictive little gob shite.

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

by Eilzel Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:18 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:This is why "section 28" needs to be reinacted...

Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibited local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality or gay "pretended family relationships", and prevented councils spending money on educational materials and projects perceived to promote a gay lifestyle.

Time and money needs to be spent on providing proper education... not promoting any agenda...!

How is being gay 'promoted' in schools?

You can never answer this. It's why you just end up coming across as a vindictive little gob shite.

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Because as you know, Section 28 was used to forbid any mention of gay relationships in schools. Which is disgusting and destructive for gay and bi teens who often isolated as it is, and also for straights kids who are not as informed as they should be.

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:25 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Drinking and smoking are not crimes in this country... and you advocate the legalisation of drugs too...

Does that mean that children as young as 5 should be actively taught about such things, and told that it is normal and natural for these things to be done... just because a minority of children might come from families where these things are normal for them... and all in the name of educating children to the realities of different families and for the purpose of inclusion...!!!???

but tommy, being gay isn't likely to cause liver failure, nor lung cancer,,,,,i mean it's not exactly dangerous is it

Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:25 am

Eilzel wrote:For the record 'sex ed' of any kind should not happen until high school.

But children's books can include gay characters for any age group (young kids who read about Cindrella, for instance, would not suffer from similar fairy tales where Cinder's equivalent is a guy).

This is not dangerous and passively lets kids know there are different kinds of relationships.

I disagree... a fairy tale where there is a normal and natural love story being that of a male and female, is the right sort of message to be promoted to children...

Anything else is not the normal and natural way of things... and should definitely not be promoted as such in schools, to serve some twisted political agenda...!

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:27 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

How is being gay 'promoted' in schools?

You can never answer this. It's why you just end up coming across as a vindictive little gob shite.

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

tommy is wasn't a law that prohibited ''promotion'' of homosexuality. it was a law that prohibited any mention of it. it meant a complete taboo on the subject. is that what you would want?

by Eilzel Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:28 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:For the record 'sex ed' of any kind should not happen until high school.

But children's books can include gay characters for any age group (young kids who read about Cindrella, for instance, would not suffer from similar fairy tales where Cinder's equivalent is a guy).

This is not dangerous and passively lets kids know there are different kinds of relationships.

I disagree... a fairy tale where there is a normal and natural love story being that of a male and female, is the right sort of message to be promoted to children...

Anything else is not the normal and natural way of things... and should definitely not be promoted as such in schools, to serve some twisted political agenda...!

Tommybot Repeat Programme ACTIVATED

Jesus man, you lost this argument in 2003. Drop your boring adjectives and get a life.

I'm not interested in it, see yah Wink

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:32 am

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

Because as you know, Section 28 was used to forbid any mention of gay relationships in schools. Which is disgusting and destructive for gay and bi teens who often isolated as it is, and also for straights kids who are not as informed as they should be.

No... it was there to stop the active promotion of homosexuality to children in schools... the overwhelming vast majority (99% or so) who are normal and natural heterosexuals...!

So... I ask again...

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:34 am

Syl wrote:
Thor wrote:

You dont think kids of this age ask countless questions?

That they will see such parent set-ups, picking up their children from school?

So again what is wrong to teach children of this age, that have a cognitive ability to understand different parent set-ups?
Of course kids of that age ask questions, and you answer them in simple terms.

All kids see is mummy or daddy picking their friends up......what sort of questions do you imagine a 5 year old would ask?

Plenty of questions

Like where is your mummy. To a child with two dads lets say?

This is why the school is best placed to teach inclusion and start this at an early age for children

They do this in a way that children of this age understand

Hence all the views in fear of this being taught are baseless.

A child of a cognitive age of child, can learn the basic understanding of such relationships

So there is no harm here, its also backed by psychology to start teaching this at young ages of 5

by Syl Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:36 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:For the record 'sex ed' of any kind should not happen until high school.

But children's books can include gay characters for any age group (young kids who read about Cindrella, for instance, would not suffer from similar fairy tales where Cinder's equivalent is a guy).

This is not dangerous and passively lets kids know there are different kinds of relationships.

I disagree... a fairy tale where there is a normal and natural love story being that of a male and female, is the right sort of message to be promoted to children...

Anything else is not the normal and natural way of things... and should definitely not be promoted as such in schools, to serve some twisted political agenda...!

Fairy tales where the girl meets the prince and falls in love will never go out of fashion, but why not show other stories, that can include other relationships and alternative ways to live.

David Walliams book 'The boy in a dress' is a gentle tale that kids of say 10 and up could read.

Promoting any sexuality in a school is wrong, but discussing different sexualities cant hurt any child, unless they are being confused by others who tell them that homosexuality is in some way abnormal.

by Syl Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:41 am

Thor wrote:
Syl wrote:
Of course kids of that age ask questions, and you answer them in simple terms.

All kids see is mummy or daddy picking their friends up......what sort of questions do you imagine a 5 year old would ask?

Plenty of questions

Like where is your mummy. To a child with two dads lets say?

This is why the school is best placed to teach inclusion and start this at an early age for children

They do this in a way that children of this age understand

Hence all the views in fear of this being taught are baseless.

A child of a cognitive age of child, can learn the basic understanding of such relationships

So there is no harm here, its also backed by psychology to start teaching this at young ages of 5

So if a child asks 'where is your mummy', the answer would be I dont have a mummy I have a daddy, or daddies.....question answered, and I doubt most 5 year olds would bat an eye.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:45 am

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I disagree... a fairy tale where there is a normal and natural love story being that of a male and female, is the right sort of message to be promoted to children...

Anything else is not the normal and natural way of things... and should definitely not be promoted as such in schools, to serve some twisted political agenda...!

Tommybot Repeat Programme ACTIVATED

Jesus man, you lost this argument in 2003. Drop your boring adjectives and get a life.

I'm not interested in it, see yah

Well... there will be general elections in a couple of years... and the brexit denying PC numpties in parliament are due to get a solid kicking into touch... making way for a new govt of politicians who are actually representing what the vast majority of the British people actually want...!

And... I predict that there are going to be some changes going on...!

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:45 am

Syl wrote:
Thor wrote:

Plenty of questions

Like where is your mummy. To a child with two dads lets say?

This is why the school is best placed to teach inclusion and start this at an early age for children

They do this in a way that children of this age understand

Hence all the views in fear of this being taught are baseless.

A child of a cognitive age of child, can learn the basic understanding of such relationships

So there is no harm here, its also backed by psychology to start teaching this at young ages of 5
So if a child asks 'where is your mummy', the answer would be I dont have a mummy I have a daddy, or daddies.....question answered, and I doubt most 5 year olds would bat an eye.

Then the kid ask, "why dont you have a mummy and have two daddies"?

I can do counter replies all day long if you like of what a kid asks

The facts are this

There is no danger or harm teaching children the basic understanding of different family set ups

Many children will have no idea about this and by starting early helps children have a basic understanding

This is always done in an age appropiate way

So people are simple making a fuss over something that is never going to damage the mind of the child but instead open the doors to understanding inclusion

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:50 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

How is being gay 'promoted' in schools?

You can never answer this. It's why you just end up coming across as a vindictive little gob shite.

If you believe that pro homosexual propaganda is not ever being promoted in schools, and shouldn't ever be happening in schools... then why is it a problem to have a law that prohibits it ever happening...!?

by Sponsored content