LGBT Inclusive Sex Education in Schools: Why the Dispute?

The National Union of Teachers announced on Sunday that pupils should be taught a "positive portrayal" of same sex relationships as a means of promoting LGBT equality in the classroom. Delegates at the National Union of Teachers conference in Harrogate overwhelmingly approved the motion on LGBT rights marking a huge step forward in the gay rights movement. The rights of young LGBT people who have often been made to feel marginalised and excluded from the mainstream sex education programme are finally being recognised. The conference noted that "homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are still strongly prevalent in our schools" and that a recent NUT survey of LGBT teachers revealed that "only 10% of LGBT teachers felt confident to be 'out' to students". The NUT Agenda thus calls upon present and future governments to appoint an education secretary that supports LGBT rights, to encourage the promotion of LGBT History Month in schools - rewarding the schools that do this, to train teachers on how to deal with homophobic incidents so that they know what to do when they arise and to encourage schools to develop a curriculum that is inclusive of LGBT issues.

However, amidst this positive step forward in equality there has been some resistance amongst faith communities who argue that teachers will be made to choose between their job and their faith. The Christian Institute have given voice to such concerns, stating that the positive promotion of same-sex relationships in schools "is itself an act of intolerance towards mainstream Christians and their beliefs". Simon Calvert, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, has professed that "Church schools already teach love and tolerance of others without having to explicitly approve of same sex relationships".




http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anna-tippett/lgbt-inclusive-sex-education-in-schools_b_7031982.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

This is great news. As to those who fear their faith will be compromised, well anyone who wants a job in teaching should be putting the needs of children ahead of their own personal beliefs anyway.

What exactly will they be teaching the children?

Eilzel wrote:This is great news. As to those who fear their faith will be compromised, well anyone who wants a job in teaching should be putting the needs of children ahead of their own personal beliefs anyway.

Couldn't have put it better.


Well actually I could, but I'll let you say it

yes make them choose between their job and their faith.
people who take fairy-tales literally should not work in education at all.
Religious Education is an Oxymoron, the system will be much improved if all teachers that feel the have to choose between their faith and job choose their faith and remove a whole lot a bad teachers that should never have been in the profession to begin with.

The reason I'm dubious about this is the lessons may well be taught by extreme lefties who will try & make out that all heterosexual people are bigots & that heterosexual people .....don't understand anything.

Will the lessons be taught in a balanced & impartial manner? No I doubt it.

And why does this subject need to be taught in school? Why can't the children's parents,whatever their sexual preferences are,be left to teach their kids this sensitive but necessary subject?

This has a whiff of gay mafia all over it as there is no need to teach this subject in school.

Shady wrote:The reason I'm dubious about this is the lessons may well be taught by extreme lefties who will try & make out that all heterosexual people are bigots & that heterosexual people .....don't understand anything.

Will the lessons be taught in a balanced & impartial manner? No I doubt it.

And why does this subject need to be taught in school? Why can't the children's parents,whatever their sexual preferences are,be left to teach their kids this sensitive but necessary subject?

This has a whiff of gay mafia all over it as there is no need to teach this subject in school.

Good Afternoon Shady

Where do you base any evidence to back up your claim?
There are people who are homosexual, thus to not teach about something natural is trying to deny homosexualty exists. The best way to have something be a part of life is to teach this in schools, as can you rely on parents to do this say if they are religious and hold literal beliefs?

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:The reason I'm dubious about this is the lessons may well be taught by extreme lefties who will try & make out that all heterosexual people are bigots & that heterosexual people .....don't understand anything.

Will the lessons be taught in a balanced & impartial manner? No I doubt it.

And why does this subject need to be taught in school? Why can't the children's parents,whatever their sexual preferences are,be left to teach their kids this sensitive but necessary subject?

This has a whiff of gay mafia all over it as there is no need to teach this subject in school.

Good Afternoon Shady

Where do you base any evidence to back up your claim?
There are people who are homosexual, thus to not teach about something natural is trying to deny homosexualty exists. The best way to have something be a part of life is to teach this in schools, as can you rely on parents to do this say if they are religious and hold literal beliefs?

Ah good,someone replied.

Good afternoon Brasidas........Have we met?

I'm basing my claim on the general poor reputation of looney left wingers,who unfortunately occupy the positions of teachers in some schools.

I don't agree with you when you say that to not teach about homosexuality is to deny that it exits.That's the same as saying that not teaching about chickens is trying to deny that they exist.

Myself & the good Mrs.Shady taught our kids about homosexuality etc in an open & easy going manner.We didn't turn it into a difficult or particularly special subject,that needed special representation in school.Therefore our kids treat LGBT people in the same way that they treat others........(like shit if they are Man City supporters,in my sons case).

And if we can do it then so can other parents.

Sorry must go.....dinner.
I don't understand why teachers should be teaching this subject & are they even qualified to teach it?

I think Shady actually has a good point here. Speaking as a heterosexual extreme lefty myself, I always try to make others believe that all heterosexual people are bigots who don't understand anything.

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Good Afternoon Shady

Where do you base any evidence to back up your claim?
There are people who are homosexual, thus to not teach about something natural is trying to deny homosexualty exists. The best way to have something be a part of life is to teach this in schools, as can you rely on parents to do this say if they are religious and hold literal beliefs?

Ah good,someone replied.

Good afternoon Brasidas........Have we met?

I'm basing my claim on the general poor reputation of looney left wingers,who unfortunately occupy the positions of teachers in some schools.

I don't agree with you when you say that to not teach about homosexuality is to deny that it exits.That's the same as saying that not teaching about chickens is trying to deny that they exist.

Myself & the good Mrs.Shady taught our kids about homosexuality etc in an open & easy going manner.We didn't turn it into a difficult or particularly special subject,that needed special representation in school.Therefore our kids treat LGBT people in the same way that they treat others........(like shit if they are Man City supporters,in my sons case).

And if we can do it then so can other parents.

Sorry must go.....dinner.
I don't understand why teachers should be teaching this subject & are they even qualified to teach it?

But that is making a perception that the vast majority of teachers would be lonney left wingers, do you have such evidence to back this view up?
The view around homosexuality is that there will be homosexuals within schools and this makes the process of understanding far easier being as people will come into conatct with each other. So the view on not teaching about this, is very much taking a view of not existing to a reality pupils will face whilst they are at school or outside school even. Your view to be reliant on parents is flawed, because you are being reliant they will provide a fair balanced view, or even to teach about this in the first place. There are thus many flaws, you cannot provide the evidence that they would teach this. Again you have the problem of those who hold literal religious beliefs, who would not teach such a view, so again by teaching this at school you will have an unbiased view with is neutrally taught to all children.
So you need to back up with evidence that parents would teach this and fairly without bias. You need to offer proof all teachers are lonney lefties. You need to provide evidence that this is in someway even bad to be taught.

I shall await your answers with interest.

Enjoy your dinner

I'm more concerned about why parents have to out source their responsibilities.

Only poor parents need a school to educate their children about sex.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm more concerned about why parents have to out source their responsibilities.

Only poor parents need a school to educate their children about sex.

So you would teach a view of equality in regards to homosexuality then?
So parents are the best teachers on sex education?
Really, based on what evidence?
The best parents would provide a view on sex but also welcome the teaching at school.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm more concerned about why parents have to out source their responsibilities.

Only poor parents need a school to educate their children about sex.

So you would teach a view of equality in regards to homosexuality then?
So parents are the best teachers on sex education?
Really, based on what evidence?
The best parents would provide a view on sex but also welcome the teaching at school.

I would teach them 'facts'.

Perhaps those parents need patenting lessons.

Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So you would teach a view of equality in regards to homosexuality then?
So parents are the best teachers on sex education?
Really, based on what evidence?
The best parents would provide a view on sex but also welcome the teaching at school.

I would teach them 'facts'.

Perhaps those parents need patenting lessons.

Lol!

What facts?

Again you fail to understand a school can teach a neutral view, where some parents will be biased and teach a negative view, where in this society, we teach an equality view in regards to homosexuality and as seen this simple view shows that at times the parents are simply not the best people to educate on this.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I would teach them 'facts'.

Perhaps those parents need patenting lessons.

Lol!

What facts?

Again you fail to understand a school can teach a neutral view, where some parents will be biased and teach a negative view, where in this society, we teach an equality view in regards to homosexuality and as seen this simple view shows that at times the parents are simply not the best people to educate on this.

Doesn't really work for racism, does it. So why should it work for anything else.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



What facts?

Again you fail to understand a school can teach a neutral view, where some parents will be biased and teach a negative view, where in this society, we teach an equality view in regards to homosexuality and as seen this simple view shows that at times the parents are simply not the best people to educate on this.

Doesn't really work for racism, does it. So why should it work for anything else.

You mean where you fucked up not knowing biologically we are all one race?
It does work in regards to racism, because children learn racist views in the main from family, friends, where as schools can dispel these myths and have done so in changing perceptions.
Which further places the evidence in my favour.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Doesn't really work for racism, does it. So why should it work for anything else.

You mean where you fucked up not knowing biologically we are all one race?
It does work in regards to racism, because children learn racist views in the main from family, friends, where as schools can dispel these myths and have done so in changing perceptions.
Which further places the evidence in my favour.

Oh dear Didge. You've lost your temper so much that you can't even debate like a decent human being anymore.

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:

Ah good,someone replied.

Good afternoon Brasidas........Have we met?

I'm basing my claim on the general poor reputation of looney left wingers,who unfortunately occupy the positions of teachers in some schools.

I don't agree with you when you say that to not teach about homosexuality is to deny that it exits.That's the same as saying that not teaching about chickens is trying to deny that they exist.

Myself & the good Mrs.Shady taught our kids about homosexuality etc in an open & easy going manner.We didn't turn it into a difficult or particularly special subject,that needed special representation in school.Therefore our kids treat LGBT people in the same way that they treat others........(like shit if they are Man City supporters,in my sons case).

And if we can do it then so can other parents.

Sorry must go.....dinner.
I don't understand why teachers should be teaching this subject & are they even qualified to teach it?

But that is making a perception that the vast majority of teachers would be lonney left wingers, do you have such evidence to back this view up?
The view around homosexuality is that there will be homosexuals within schools and this makes the process of understanding far easier being as people will come into conatct with each other. So the view on not teaching about this, is very much taking a view of not existing to a reality pupils will face whilst they are at school or outside school even. Your view to be reliant on parents is flawed, because you are being reliant they will provide a fair balanced view, or even to teach about this in the first place. There are thus many flaws, you cannot provide the evidence that they would teach this. Again you have the problem of those who hold literal religious beliefs, who would not teach such a view, so again by teaching this at school you will have an unbiased view with is neutrally taught to all children.
So you need to back up with evidence that parents would teach this and fairly without bias. You need to offer proof all teachers are lonney lefties. You need to provide evidence that this is in someway even bad to be taught.

I shall await your answers with interest.

Enjoy your dinner

Evidence,evidence,evidence.What's all this about evidence?

This isn't a court of law,it's a discussion so I don't have to provide evidence to support every point I put forward.

It's a discussion Brasidas.Not a trial.

And why should teachers be any better at teaching children about homosexuality than parents? What if a childs parents are far more intelligent than the teacher?

You're looking at the subject from a narrow point of view & you need to understand that other people have different points of view.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You mean where you fucked up not knowing biologically we are all one race?
It does work in regards to racism, because children learn racist views in the main from family, friends, where as schools can dispel these myths and have done so in changing perceptions.
Which further places the evidence in my favour.

Oh dear Didge. You've lost your temper so much that you can't even debate like a decent human being anymore.

Epic fail, its not my fault you were ignorant about humans being one biological race.
Now either engage in the points, or pray to your make belief deity, its no concern to me either way with your infantile views

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

But that is making a perception that the vast majority of teachers would be lonney left wingers, do you have such evidence to back this view up?
The view around homosexuality is that there will be homosexuals within schools and this makes the process of understanding far easier being as people will come into conatct with each other. So the view on not teaching about this, is very much taking a view of not existing to a reality pupils will face whilst they are at school or outside school even. Your view to be reliant on parents is flawed, because you are being reliant they will provide a fair balanced view, or even to teach about this in the first place. There are thus many flaws, you cannot provide the evidence that they would teach this. Again you have the problem of those who hold literal religious beliefs, who would not teach such a view, so again by teaching this at school you will have an unbiased view with is neutrally taught to all children.
So you need to back up with evidence that parents would teach this and fairly without bias. You need to offer proof all teachers are lonney lefties. You need to provide evidence that this is in someway even bad to be taught.

I shall await your answers with interest.

Enjoy your dinner

Evidence,evidence,evidence.What's all this about evidence?

This isn't a court of law,it's a discussion so I don't have to provide evidence to support every point I put forward.

It's a discussion Brasidas.Not a trial.

And why should teachers be any better at teaching children about homosexuality than parents? What if a childs parents are far more intelligent than the teacher?

You're looking at the subject from a narrow point of view & you need to understand that other people have different points of view.

Its about having something to back up your views, of which you are offering nothing to substantiate them.
Teachers will offer the same lesson throughout the country based on the curriculum, where as parents can be and will be biased against such teachings, hence the major difference between the two..
I am looking at this rationally as who better placed to teach this.
So can you rule out bias by parents teaching this subject?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm more concerned about why parents have to out source their responsibilities.

Only poor parents need a school to educate their children about sex.

Good evening Zack.

I totally agree with you.

Incidentally,I'd prefer to see children taught subjects that will help them educationally.

A better subject to teach children would be basic first aid.And as they get older teach them up to paramedic level.

Only an example but far more productive than learning about homosexuality.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You mean where you fucked up not knowing biologically we are all one race?
It does work in regards to racism, because children learn racist views in the main from family, friends, where as schools can dispel these myths and have done so in changing perceptions.
Which further places the evidence in my favour.

Oh dear Didge. You've lost your temper so much that you can't even debate like a decent human being anymore.

I knew it wouldn't take him long Zack.

And it is such a good topic to discuss.

Oh well,I'll watch the news instead.

Shady wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm more concerned about why parents have to out source their responsibilities.

Only poor parents need a school to educate their children about sex.

Good evening Zack.

I totally agree with you.

Incidentally,I'd prefer to see children taught subjects that will help them educationally.

A better subject to teach children would be basic first aid.And as they get older teach them up to paramedic level.

Only an example but far more productive than learning about homosexuality.

So you do not believe we should have education that brings cohesion then?
Your views are also flawed, as I am sure we can all offer better views on things to be taught, which would be very subjective. You can teach people medical skills but not all are best placed or confident enough to enact them. It is a great idea to teach them, but does it mean it cannot be taught alongside sex education?
Or did this not cross your mind?

Shady wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Oh dear Didge. You've lost your temper so much that you can't even debate like a decent human being anymore.

I knew it wouldn't take him long Zack.

And it is such a good topic to discuss.

Oh well,I'll watch the news instead.

Is what you always do shady, when you have no real answer, offer a lame copout excuse and run away with your tail between your legs.

Buck Buck

Shady wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm more concerned about why parents have to out source their responsibilities.

Only poor parents need a school to educate their children about sex.

Good evening Zack.

I totally agree with you.

Incidentally,I'd prefer to see children taught subjects that will help them educationally.

A better subject to teach children would be basic first aid.And as they get older teach them up to paramedic level.

Only an example but far more productive than learning about homosexuality.

Exactly Shady.

Schools are meant to educate our children to give them skills. Not brainwash them towards an ideology, be it religious or any other personal ideology.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good evening Zack.

I totally agree with you.

Incidentally,I'd prefer to see children taught subjects that will help them educationally.

A better subject to teach children would be basic first aid.And as they get older teach them up to paramedic level.

Only an example but far more productive than learning about homosexuality.

Exactly Shady.

Schools are meant to educate our children to give them skills. Not brainwash them towards an ideology, be it religious or any other personal ideology.

How is teaching about homosexuality brainwashing them?
So do you not believe in teaching in regards to cohesion then?
Homosexuality is not an ideology or a religion, it is how some people are born to be.
The question here is being argued poorly off a view which is anti homosexuality, when all that should be debated here, is if sex education should be taught at school.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Exactly Shady.

Schools are meant to educate our children to give them skills. Not brainwash them towards an ideology, be it religious or any other personal ideology.

How is teaching about homosexuality brainwashing them?
So do you not believe in teaching in regards to cohesion then?
Homosexuality is not an ideology or a religion, it is how some people are born to be.
The question here is being argued poorly off a view which is anti homosexuality, when all that should be debated here, is if sex education should be taught at school.

Read the thread title again. That's why we are discussing homosexuality.

Sex education is not up-skilling children. So should not be taught at school.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



How is teaching about homosexuality brainwashing them?
So do you not believe in teaching in regards to cohesion then?
Homosexuality is not an ideology or a religion, it is how some people are born to be.
The question here is being argued poorly off a view which is anti homosexuality, when all that should be debated here, is if sex education should be taught at school.

Read the thread title  again. That's why we are discussing homosexuality.

Sex education is not up-skilling children. So should not be taught at school.

Really, so we should never warn children about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases?
Safe sex?
Pregnancy?
Love?
Relationships.
Marriage/
The problem with you Zack is your views are swayed by your religious beliefs, not any common sense on this matter.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Read the thread title  again. That's why we are discussing homosexuality.

Sex education is not up-skilling children. So should not be taught at school.

Really, so we should never warn children about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases?
Safe sex?
Pregnancy?
Love?
Relationships.
Marriage/
The problem with you Zack is your views are swayed by your religious beliefs, not any common sense on this matter.

Did you learn about love in school? That explains a lot. You do seem to be lacking parental love.

If my statement above sounds silly, blame your post. Becuase that's where the silliness came from.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Really, so we should never warn children about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases?
Safe sex?
Pregnancy?
Love?
Relationships.
Marriage/
The problem with you Zack is your views are swayed by your religious beliefs, not any common sense on this matter.

Did you learn about love in school? That explains a lot. You do seem to be lacking parental love.

If my statement above sounds silly, blame your post. Becuase that's where the silliness came from.

What is wrong about teaching about love, I am all ears as to what you think is wrong with that?
Does your own religion not teach about love?
Explain how a child learns love from loveless parents?

So you are saying you do not need to learn the verses on love, they are a given then?
So you avoided every other point, where I can add more, child sex abuse prevention.
Consent, I could go on the list is endless, but as seen you would rather we returned to the 1950's with education in regards to sex.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Did you learn about love in school? That explains a lot. You do seem to be lacking parental love.

If my statement above sounds silly, blame your post. Becuase that's where the silliness came from.

What is wrong about teaching about love, I am all ears as to what you think is wrong with that?
Does your own religion not teach about love?
So you are saying you do not need to learn the verses on love, they are a given then?
So you avoided every other point, where I can add more, child sex abuse prevention.
Consent, I could go on the list is endless, but as seen you would rather we returned to the 1950's with education in regardsto sex.

Love is a natural emotion, for most. Maybe not Sam Harris. Can't imagine his mother loved him much.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


What is wrong about teaching about love, I am all ears as to what you think is wrong with that?
Does your own religion not teach about love?
So you are saying you do not need to learn the verses on love, they are a given then?
So you avoided every other point, where I can add more, child sex abuse prevention.
Consent, I could go on the list is endless, but as seen you would rather we returned to the 1950's with education in regardsto sex.

Love is a natural emotion, for most. Maybe not Sam Harris. Can't imagine his mother loved him much.

So because his views differ to you, thus you make unfounded accusations against his mother, talk about a cheap shot, when who says you are the best person to get advice on love?
The funniest part is love is learnt and taught, I mean otherwise every verse on love in the Quran is redundant and not needed.
You know you are running out of valid replies and keep walking into traps.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Love is a natural emotion, for most. Maybe not Sam Harris. Can't imagine his mother loved him much.

So because his views differ to you, thus you make unfounded accusations against his mother, talk about a cheap shot, when who says you are the best person to get advice on love?
The funniest part is love is learnt and taught, I mean otherwise every verse on love in the Quran is redundant and not needed.
You know you are running out of valid replies and keep walking into traps.

Note the word 'imagine'. You missed it. Lol!

The funniest part is that you defend Sam Harris like Muslims defend the Prophet Muhammed. I find that hilariously ironic coming from an Atheist. Even I don't quote the Quran as my signature. And you have the cheek to call me brainwashed? Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So because his views differ to you, thus you make unfounded accusations against his mother, talk about a cheap shot, when who says you are the best person to get advice on love?
The funniest part is love is learnt and taught, I mean otherwise every verse on love in the Quran is redundant and not needed.
You know you are running out of valid replies and keep walking into traps.

Note the word 'imagine'. You missed it. Lol!

The funniest part is that you defend Sam Harris like Muslims defend the Prophet Muhammed. I find that hilariously ironic coming from an Atheist. Even I don't quote the Quran as my signature. And you have the cheek to call me brainwashed? Lol!

There is a huge difference, I see Sam as a human being, not something claimed to have spoken to a deity.
So defending a person from defamation which from you is born from ignorance which is very much the case in your part. Where I can be defending with evidence, as it can be with Sam. With a historical character, where the evidence is very lacking, it is easier to dismiss views on Muhammad.
Or did you not know this difference?
I do not worship the man, I respect him, again a huge difference.
Notice how again you have deflected from the debate, because I keep educating you that you are so desperate to score any infantile point on?

I will add one more major point between myself and views on Sam Harris compared to Muslims on Muhammad.
Sam can be wrong on things and he actually welcomes critical thinking.
You do not get that with Muslims on Muhammad, they elevate him to near god like perfection, where they even go against the Quran and take Hadiths, basically Sura's of Muhammad as equal to the Sura's of Allah.

You do understand your view to compare is as idiotic as your belief in the hadiths.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Note the word 'imagine'. You missed it. Lol!

The funniest part is that you defend Sam Harris like Muslims defend the Prophet Muhammed. I find that hilariously ironic coming from an Atheist. Even I don't quote the Quran as my signature. And you have the cheek to call me brainwashed? Lol!

There is a huge difference, I see Sam as a human being, not something claimed to have spoken to a deity.
So defending a person from defamation which from you is born from ignorance which is very much the case in your part. Where I can be defending with evidence, as it can be with Sam. With a historical character, where the evidence is very lacking, it is easier to dismiss views on Muhammad.
Or did you not know this difference?
I do not worship the man, I respect him, again a huge difference.
Notice how again you have deflected from the debate, because I keep educating you that you are so desperate to score any infantile point on?

Lol! How did I defame your prophet? I dare you to give me an exact quote.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

There is a huge difference, I see Sam as a human being, not something claimed to have spoken to a deity.
So defending a person from defamation which from you is born from ignorance which is very much the case in your part. Where I can be defending with evidence, as it can be with Sam. With a historical character, where the evidence is very lacking, it is easier to dismiss views on Muhammad.
Or did you not know this difference?
I do not worship the man, I respect him, again a huge difference.
Notice how again you have deflected from the debate, because I keep educating you that you are so desperate to score any infantile point on?

Lol! How did I defame your prophet? I dare you to give me an exact quote.

He is not my prophet, as I do not elevate hi to any such level.

So funny, but you elevate your prophet to god like status:


by Brasidas on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:41 pm
I will add one more major point between myself and views on Sam Harris compared to Muslims on Muhammad.
Sam can be wrong on things and he actually welcomes critical thinking.
You do not get that with Muslims on Muhammad, they elevate him to near god like perfection, where they even go against the Quran and take Hadiths, basically Sura's of Muhammad as equal to the Sura's of Allah.

You do understand your view to compare is as idiotic as your belief in the hadiths.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! How did I defame your prophet? I dare you to give me an exact quote.

He is not my prophet, as I do not elevate hi to any such level.

So funny, but you elevate your prophet to god like status:


by Brasidas on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:41 pm
I will add one more major point between myself and views on Sam Harris compared to Muslims on Muhammad.
Sam can be wrong on things and he actually welcomes critical thinking.
You do not get that with Muslims on Muhammad, they elevate him to near god like perfection, where they even go against the Quran and take Hadiths, basically Sura's of Muhammad as equal to the Sura's of Allah.

You do understand your view to compare is as idiotic as your belief in the hadiths.

I note you were too cowardly to answer my question. Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


He is not my prophet, as I do not elevate hi to any such level.

So funny, but you elevate your prophet to god like status:


by Brasidas on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:41 pm
I will add one more major point between myself and views on Sam Harris compared to Muslims on Muhammad.
Sam can be wrong on things and he actually welcomes critical thinking.
You do not get that with Muslims on Muhammad, they elevate him to near god like perfection, where they even go against the Quran and take Hadiths, basically Sura's of Muhammad as equal to the Sura's of Allah.

You do understand your view to compare is as idiotic as your belief in the hadiths.

I note you were too cowardly to answer my question. Lol!

This coming from the little runt, who avoided all my points on teaching around sex education, love etc?

Ha Ha, run along little boy, I a not going to go through pages of old posts where you have made accusations on Sam. You even here wrongly claim him as a prophet, showing your desperation and your view to imagine his love regarding his mother, that just shows how infantile you are.

Now unless you have anything intelligent to add, go and run along and stop wasting my time with your ignorance.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I note you were too cowardly to answer my question. Lol!

This coming from the little runt, who avoided all my points on teaching around sex education, love etc?

Ha Ha, run along little boy, I a not going to go through pages of old posts where you have made accusations on Sam. You even here wrongly claim him as a prophet, showing your desperation and your view to imagine his love regarding his mother, that just shows how infantile you are.

Now unless you have anything intelligent to add, go and run along and stop wasting my time with your ignorance.

Wind your neck in. Don't take this so personally.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



This coming from the little runt, who avoided all my points on teaching around sex education, love etc?

Ha Ha, run along little boy, I a not going to go through pages of old posts where you have made accusations on Sam. You even here wrongly claim him as a prophet, showing your desperation and your view to imagine his love regarding his mother, that just shows how infantile you are.

Now unless you have anything intelligent to add, go and run along and stop wasting my time with your ignorance.

Wind your neck in. Don't take this so personally.

I am just responding in kind and at your level of maturity and intellect, which seems to bother you.
Maybe you need to understand further what kind a person you are and then you might find a more pleasant debate to be had.

How many subjects are children expected to learn? Surely there must be time restraints & the emphasis should be placed on subjects that will enable the children to earn a good living when adults.

And how often will these LGBT lessons be taught? Daily? Weekly? Throughout the childs entire time within the education system?

If the lessons are say,3 times per week for 1 hour per lesson,what will they be taught? Will the subject be progressive? Will there be exams?

What if the children do not want to learn about the LGBT world? What if their parents do not want this subject taught to their children?

Loads of questions,I know but they need consideration & answering.

Children do not need gimmicks in school.They need education.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Wind your neck in. Don't take this so personally.

I am just responding in kind and at your level of maturity and intellect, which seems to bother you.
Maybe you need to understand further what kind a person you are and then you might find a more pleasant debate to be had.

I'm not the one making sexually perversed jokes buddy. You have no class.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


I am just responding in kind and at your level of maturity and intellect, which seems to bother you.
Maybe you need to understand further what kind a person you are and then you might find a more pleasant debate to be had.

I'm not the one making sexually perversed jokes buddy. You have no class.

Perverse?
Getting laid is perverse? Ha Ha.

Thank you, that just made my day.

Shady wrote:How many subjects are children expected to learn? Surely there must be time restraints & the emphasis should be placed on subjects that will enable the children to earn a good living when adults.

And how often will these LGBT lessons be taught? Daily? Weekly? Throughout the childs entire time within the education system?

If the lessons are say,3 times per week for 1 hour per lesson,what will they be taught? Will the subject be progressive? Will there be exams?

What if the children do not want to learn about the LGBT world? What if their parents do not want this subject taught to their children?

Loads of questions,I know but they need consideration & answering.

Children do not need gimmicks in school.They need education.

So then, we should scrap religious education then Shady, what use is it going to be?
I disagree of course as children will meet others of different faiths, hence why it is important for them to understand different faiths.
Do you not think people should understand homosexuality, if they could well have people that they are at school with, or later at work with?
Where next on your views on what parents want.
Racial equality to be denied teaching them?
Sexual equality to be denied teaching them?

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:How many subjects are children expected to learn? Surely there must be time restraints & the emphasis should be placed on subjects that will enable the children to earn a good living when adults.

And how often will these LGBT lessons be taught? Daily? Weekly? Throughout the childs entire time within the education system?

If the lessons are say,3 times per week for 1 hour per lesson,what will they be taught? Will the subject be progressive? Will there be exams?

What if the children do not want to learn about the LGBT world? What if their parents do not want this subject taught to their children?

Loads of questions,I know but they need consideration & answering.

Children do not need gimmicks in school.They need education.

So then, we should scrap religious education then Shady, what use is it going to be?
I disagree of course as children will meet others of different faiths, hence why it is important for them to understand different faiths.
Do you not think people should understand homosexuality, if they could well have people that they are at school with, or later at work with?
Where next on your views on what parents want.
Racial equality to be denied teaching them?
Sexual equality to be denied teaching them?

I'm not interested in your input on this thread & I'll wait for other posters points of view.

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



So then, we should scrap religious education then Shady, what use is it going to be?
I disagree of course as children will meet others of different faiths, hence why it is important for them to understand different faiths.
Do you not think people should understand homosexuality, if they could well have people that they are at school with, or later at work with?
Where next on your views on what parents want.
Racial equality to be denied teaching them?
Sexual equality to be denied teaching them?

I'm not interested in your input on this thread & I'll wait for other posters points of view.

Fine by me that you wish to wimp out.
Mainly I guess because you are such an intolerant individual and have just proved this by your last view point. That is all people need to go off to work out the real reason behind your stance here.

Sex education is part of education for a variety of reasons and it is right that being taught about homosexuality is part of that. One main reason is that some parents do shirk responsibility on the matter, Zack here elusively says he would 'teach the facts' to his kids- well we can imagine what his 'facts' might consist of.

Generally speaking, sex education is not as massive a part of the curriculum as subjects like Maths or History- nor should it be, nor does it need to be. But children do need to be aware of certain aspects of life and it is a schools duty to ensure pupils become well rounded and knowledgeable citizens. We have schools provide a hot meal for children to ensure they get at least one proper meal a day in spite of this being a parents duty- since some parents certainly wont support gay children the best way it is therefore a positive step to make sure schools do.

Of course religious zealots wont agree- but they have no problem teaching kids about other cultures/faiths, which is also partly done to support multicultural cohesion.

Eilzel wrote:Sex education is part of education for a variety of reasons and it is right that being taught about homosexuality is part of that. One main reason is that some parents do shirk responsibility on the matter, Zack here elusively says he would 'teach the facts' to his kids- well we can imagine what his 'facts' might consist of.

Generally speaking, sex education is not as massive a part of the curriculum as subjects like Maths or History- nor should it be, nor does it need to be. But children do need to be aware of certain aspects of life and it is a schools duty to ensure pupils become well rounded and knowledgeable citizens. We have schools provide a hot meal for children to ensure they get at least one proper meal a day in spite of this being a parents duty- since some parents certainly wont support gay children the best way it is therefore a positive step to make sure schools do.

Of course religious zealots wont agree- but they have no problem teaching kids about other cultures/faiths, which is also partly done to support multicultural cohesion.

Spot on Les - informative and too the point as usual.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I'm not the one making sexually perversed jokes buddy. You have no class.

Perverse?
Getting laid is perverse? Ha Ha.

Thank you, that just made my day.

Such playground banter shows your insecurity.