UK Government: ‘Schools should not promote any sexual orientation’

The government has reiterated its warning against schools introducing Section 28-style policies targeting the “promotion” of homosexuality by saying they should not promote any type of sexual orientation in the classroom.

This week at the National Union of Teachers’ annual conference in Brighton delegates discussed last summer’s revelations that more than 45 schools had polices in place targeting the “promotion” of homosexuality.

The Independent reports Deborah Glynn, from St Helens, Lancashire, cited research by the British Humanist Association (BHA) to the conference on Tuesday which, she said, showed that there are many schools bringing this wording back into their policies.

“A lot are fundamentalist groups – mainly Christian,” she said.

Ms Glynn said she had worked in one academy which had previously featured language reminiscent of Section 28 in its guidelines.

However, the language was subsequently removed following the BHA’s revelations.

Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 previously stated that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” and that schools “could not promote of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.

It was later repealed under Tony Blair’s Labour government and the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, apologised for the policy in 2009.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Any suggestion of schools singling out homosexuality is unacceptable. Last summer the Department for Education launched an investigation into schools who were alleged to have this kind of policy. As a result, all schools with offending policies committed to withdraw or replace them.

“All schools can draw up their own sex education policy but they must ensure they do not discriminate unfairly on grounds of sexual orientation. Our sex and relationship education guidance makes it clear that schools should not promote any sexual orientation.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/23/uk-government-schools-should-not-promote-any-sexual-orientation/

No surprises there.   

The government needs to bring these schools to task though.
Thank gawd that next year we will have a Labour government to replace this awful Lib/Con coalition....Because they certainly will if this shower of shit don't.   

hmmm...lets look at this....


scenario

...teacher say (talking about relationships) "the normal relationship is man and wife"

result he is sacked, sent on a gay reorientation course and blacklisted for life.

Of course You and I (and any sensible person)(the reasonable man) knows what he meant was "the most common", but THAT wont stop thetype we have a prime example here of, from bringing down hell and high water, for their own self serving publicity..

everyone is going to end up afraid to open their mouth for fear of offending someone....lefty newspeak...

OR, of course, schools, being the risk averse group they are simply cease all sex education and relationship education...on the basis of THAT is most certainly NOT "promoting ANY orientation"

Lets face it....

catman the peurile and
didge the perfect

could have a lovely time of this

one unfortunate says gay is normal...and gets flogged for "promoting homosexuality"
another says hetero is normal ...and gets the same for "promoting heterosexuality"

or do we indeed go down the orwellian lefty route....and redefine "normal"


normal
ˈnɔːm(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"
synonyms: usual, standard, typical, stock, common, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted, everyday, regular, routine, day-to-day, daily, established, settled, set, fixed, traditional, quotidian, prevailing More
ordinary, average, run-of-the-mill, standard, typical, middle-of-the-road, common, conventional, mainstream, unremarkable, unexceptional, plain, simple, homely, homespun, workaday;
garden-variety;
informalbog-standard, vanilla, plain vanilla, a dime a dozen;
informalcommon or garden;
informalornery
antonyms: unusual, abnormal
(of a person) free from physical or mental disorders.
"until her accident Louise had been a perfectly normal little girl"
synonyms: sane, in one's right mind, right in the head, of sound mind, in possession of all one's faculties, able to think/reason clearly, lucid, rational, coherent, balanced, well balanced; More
antonyms: insane, irrational
2.
technical
(of a line, ray, or other linear feature) intersecting a given line or surface at right angles.
"a single plane of symmetry with a diad axis normal to it"
3.
MEDICINE
(of a salt solution) containing the same salt concentration as the blood.
"dilute the stock solution with sterile water or normal saline"
CHEMISTRYdated
(of a solution) containing one gram-equivalent of solute per litre.
4.
GEOLOGY
denoting a fault or faulting in which a relative downward movement occurred in the strata situated on the upper side of the fault plane.
noun
noun: normal; plural noun: normals
1.
the usual, typical, or expected state or condition.
"her temperature was above normal"


interesting............

Really Scatman do you think Millibabble is electable he hasn't got a thing right on the economy.

You will really sweat if Labour don't get in you may have to find work. Shock horror.

Yes that really disgusting four letter word WORK!!!!!!!

Alright said Fred wrote:Really Scatman do you think Millibabble is electable he hasn't got a thing right on the economy.

You will really sweat if Labour don't get in you may have to find work. Shock horror.

Yes that really disgusting four letter word WORK!!!!!!!

Oh Dear.

The multi ID RW fucktard is back!   

Bring on one of your other ID's to back you up, or have you lost one or two?

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Homosexuality shouldn't be taught to children.

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality shouldn't be taught to children.

Why?

For the same reasons why other perverted and sexually deviant practices aren't taught.....

Tommy Monk wrote:For the same reasons why other perverted and sexually deviant practices aren't taught.....

Really?

So on that illogical view, you are happy for children to remain ignorant of the dangers of child offenders then?


Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, in this country, children grow up alongside homosexual children and also the fact homosexual children need to feel part of society and not shunned. If we teach sex education to children, then you have no reason to deny children about all sex education.

You cannot have it both ways, so are you against sex education to children, and by children, that is anyone under 16?

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality shouldn't be taught to children.

UKIP should not be promoted or mentioned in schools, that would be like promoting racism and homophobia.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:For the same reasons why other perverted and sexually deviant practices aren't taught.....

Really?
So on that illogical view, you are happy for children to remain ignorant of the dangers of child offenders then?
Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, in this country, children grow up alongside homosexual children and also the fact homosexual children need to feel part of society and not shunned. If we teach sex education to children, then you have no reason to deny children about all sex education.
You cannot have it both ways, so are you against sex education to children, and by children, that is anyone under 16?

You say my view is illogical, then come out with that!?



No perverted or sexually deviant practices should be taught in schools.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
Really?
So on that illogical view, you are happy for children to remain ignorant of the dangers of child offenders then?
Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, in this country, children grow up alongside homosexual children and also the fact homosexual children need to feel part of society and not shunned. If we teach sex education to children, then you have no reason to deny children about all sex education.
You cannot have it both ways, so are you against sex education to children, and by children, that is anyone under 16?

You say my view is illogical, then come out with that!?



No perverted or sexually deviant practices should be taught in schools.

So you thus agree not to warn children about child offenders then again with your logic.


Homosexuality is not seen as deviant or against the law and children as stated grow up with other children who are homosexual, hence why because of this now less and less people are so prejudiced against homosexuality, showing it has no ill affect to teach and it is reaping benefits to rid our nation of            anti-homosexuality prejudice.

I would call that a success story


Again are you either for or against sex education?

Simple question

Children are taught to be wary of strangers from an early age and a completely different subject.



Homosexuality is seen as deviant, abnormal and unnatural, although not against the law, neither are a wife range of other perverted and sexually deviant practices, but that doesn't mean they should be taught in schools either.


Children only need to be taught the basics of sexual organs and mechanics of reproduction, and obviously how to avoid reproduction and STD's.



Koreans eat dog, so does that mean that everyone has to be taught how to cook one in home economics?

Tommy Monk wrote:Children are taught to be wary of strangers from an early age and a completely different subject.



Homosexuality is seen as deviant, abnormal and unnatural, although not against the law, neither are a wife range of other perverted and sexually deviant practices, but that doesn't mean they should be taught in schools either.


Children only need to be taught the basics of sexual organs and mechanics of reproduction, and obviously how to avoid reproduction and STD's.



Koreans eat dog, so does that mean that everyone has to be taught how to cook one in home economics?

It is not a different subject, how does a child know sexually it is wrong with an older person when they do not understand sex?

Well it maybe seen as deviant in Saudi, but this is Britain where it is not deviant, so best you get used to that factor and as seen many people have grown up seeing homosexuality as it should be, normal and hence why like I said it has been a success story

Again you are either for or against sex education, and homosexuality is part of sex education, because children also are born homosexual.

So once again you want to deny children all aspects of understanding sexual education, I suggest you move to Saudi, as your views are more in line with them

Children are taught from an early age that nobody should be touching them.


Again a different subject.



Loads of sexually deviant and perverted things are part of sex for a range of different people. Doesn't mean they should be taught to children.



My question stands.


Koreans fat dog, so does that mean everyone has to learn how to cook one in home economics?

Tommy Monk wrote:Children are taught from an early age that nobody should be touching them.


Again a different subject.



Loads of sexually deviant and perverted things are part of sex for a range of different people. Doesn't mean they should be taught to children.



My question stands.


Koreans fat dog, so does that mean everyone has to learn how to cook one in home economics?

Again the children still have to understand about sex, so again you are wrong

Your questions is irrelevant on dogs.

Again homosexuality is not illegal or seen as deviant and as seen you are trying to deny children growing up alongside other homosexual children understanding why they are born homosexual, that is not only ignorant, but also daft. It actually benefits children to understand each other and stops prejudice views that you hold so dearly. Again it has worked so well, less and less people are prejudiced against homosexuals, yet it seems you want this to go backwards.

Again you offer no valid reason not to teach them, except a prejudice view you have

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/consultations/reform-national-curriculum_wdf96475.pdf

Children from early age and taught to be wary of strangers and that nobody should be touching them differently or inappropriately.


Totally different subject.



Sex education should focus on the normal and natural biological mechanics and design, reproduction, contraceptives and protection from STDs.


Schools should not be teaching perverted or sexually deviant practices any more than cookery classes should be techimg dog recipies.

You can repeat yourself all you like, but again you offer no reason not to teach them, let me know when you do

It is not for schools to teach sexually deviant practices.


It is for schools to teach the biological and mechanical design and intended purpose of sex and sexual organs, and to warm of dangers of STDs and how to protect against those and contraception.


This should ideally be part of a biology lesson and as a follow on from teaching about other animals and how they reproduce.



But why stop there?


Have a lesson every week with a different position out the karma sutra, do a feature on butt plugs, nipple clamps, whips and chains,orgies, dogging, domination, felching, rimming etc.


And Why not show some video examples of hard core action?


And while your at it, why not get a couple in to do a few live action demonstrations?


And what about a bit of audience participation?


Or you could just get then all to sit there wanking so as to explore their sexuality further?



Why not?



Just because one kid our of 200 or so might go to France on holiday and eat horse, doesn't mean everyone in class has to learn how to cook it, and that it is right and normal to eat.

The above is still no reason to not teach children, I want a valid reason.


Try again

I have given my reasons, whether you accept them as valid or not is inconsequential as I find your opinion superfluous to debate.

No you have given no valid reason, just opinion, try an actual reason, I wait with anticipation.

Try again

It is not for schools to teach sexually deviant practices.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is not for schools to teach sexually deviant practices.

Again that is opinion that you feel homosexuality is deviant, the vast majority disagree with you and why, because it has been taught that it is very much acceptable, as it should be.

Thus you offer no valid reason, because it is only yours and a minority view in this country that thinks it is deviant.
You offer no scientific proof it is deviant, so again you offer no valid reason.

Try again

It is sexually deviant dodge. Look it up.


If you can't understand the basic premise of language then there is not much point continuing here.


Schools should only teach the basics of the biological mechanics and functionality of reproductive organs. Contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs.


Last time I checked, an arse hole wasn't a sexual reproductive organ.


All a homosexual would need to know would be the protection from STDs, and that would be covered already.


You can't get away from what the sexual organs are, how they are designed and how they are intended to work.


This is normal and natural.


Anything beyond this is not for schools to be teaching.

Still opinion, not a valid reason, no scientific evidence, try again.

By the way the mouth was not designed to engulf a cock also, but I am sure you have had no problem getting some head, enjoying it, not telling them it was not natural


DOH.

Please that view points is again as seen not a reason to bring up what body parts we use to engage in sex.


Night

What do we mean by promote? I don't think anything, sexual orientation, religion, favourite foods, film preferences.....anything!! should be "promoted"

Children find their own way. They don't need anything promoting.

Is this headline just using the wrong word?

Dodge, what I've said is completely scientific, both biologically and factually.


It is not a schools job to be teaching about sucking a cock or licking a quim either, so you are kind of proving my point somewhat.


Or where do you draw the line?


My earlier post would 'progressively' become the really I fear.


Once you expand teaching from The basics, organs, workings, reproduction, avoiding unwanted reproduction, protection from STDs etc, to sex for pleasure, then it's open season on anything or everything!


And I think that is wrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, what I've said is completely scientific, both biologically and factually.


It is not a schools job to be teaching about sucking a cock or licking a quim either, so you are kind of proving my point somewhat.


Or where do you draw the line?


My earlier post would 'progressively' become the really I fear.


Once you expand teaching from The basics, organs, workings, reproduction, avoiding unwanted reproduction, protection from STDs etc, to sex for pleasure, then it's open season on anything or everything!


And I think that is wrong.

I am afraid there is nothing scientific about what you said, because are you saying body parts used for sexual gratification are now wrong and no woman should receive oral pleasure and or her do the same??
I mean have you never kissed, was  your tongue designed to slobber another humans mouth?
Behave wally your arguments are embarrassing, how on earth can you state one sexual practice of anal sex is wrong claiming it is unnatural whist ignoring kissing and oral sex between a male and female?
Seriously, you say IQ of 140 and you cannot even figure that out how daft a view point that is ?
Now you know why I mock you, ignorance, worse that victor

I'm saying it is not up to schools to teach sex for pleasure and all the different ways people get off.

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm saying it is not up to schools to teach sex for pleasure and all the different ways people get off.

So you are saying they should not teach about protection now as well then?

Have you not read my previous posts?

Tommy Monk wrote:Have you not read my previous posts?

Yes, and it is clear you do not want to teach about protection.

You keep digging just a bigger hole for yourself

eddie wrote:What do we mean by promote? I don't think anything, sexual orientation, religion, favourite foods, film preferences.....anything!! should be "promoted"

Children find their own way. They don't need anything promoting.

Is this headline just using the wrong word?

Exactly Eds x

The problem was in how Section 28 used the word 'promote' to effectively censor the mere mention of gay or homosexuality completely in schools (except as a lazy insult but we still have problem there). Meaning teachers could not even mention homosexuality as ok. It was a bigoted law then, and young peoples attitudes to gay people have measurably improved since it was revoked- just look at how many young people feel confident and secure enough to come out today while still in schools (something I could never have done)   

Talking about sex all the time in these debates is utterly irrelevant; if one thinks all there is to a relationship, gay or straight, is sex, they obviously have problems in that department haha   

Read back dodge.......

Tommy Monk wrote:Read back dodge.......

I have thanks, you though still cannot grasp it which is amusing

Catman wrote:


The government has reiterated its warning against schools introducing Section 28-style policies targeting the “promotion” of homosexuality by saying they should not promote any type of sexual orientation in the classroom.

This week at the National Union of Teachers’ annual conference in Brighton delegates discussed last summer’s revelations that more than 45 schools had polices in place targeting the “promotion” of homosexuality.

The Independent reports Deborah Glynn, from St Helens, Lancashire, cited research by the British Humanist Association (BHA) to the conference on Tuesday which, she said, showed that there are many schools bringing this wording back into their policies.

“A lot are fundamentalist groups – mainly Christian,” she said.

Ms Glynn said she had worked in one academy which had previously featured language reminiscent of Section 28 in its guidelines.

However, the language was subsequently removed following the BHA’s revelations.

Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 previously stated that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” and that schools “could not promote of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.

It was later repealed under Tony Blair’s Labour government and the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, apologised for the policy in 2009.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Any suggestion of schools singling out homosexuality is unacceptable. Last summer the Department for Education launched an investigation into schools who were alleged to have this kind of policy. As a result, all schools with offending policies committed to withdraw or replace them.

“All schools can draw up their own sex education policy but they must ensure they do not discriminate unfairly on grounds of sexual orientation. Our sex and relationship education guidance makes it clear that schools should not promote any sexual orientation.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/23/uk-government-schools-should-not-promote-any-sexual-orientation/

No surprises there.   

The government needs to bring these schools to task though.
Thank gawd that next year we will have a Labour government to replace this awful Lib/Con coalition....Because they certainly will if this shower of shit don't.   

Maybe the schools should invite guest speakers to tell the children about the joys of paedophilia.