It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


They are bi-sexual enough to create children, and at some point decide to live a homosexual lifestyle...happens all the time.




posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


So your justifying destroying heterosexual culture to make a bunch of homosexuals feel better about themselves?
Do you have so little confidence in "heterosexual culture" that you think that it can be destroyed by treating a minority of homosexuals as if they were human. You realize that you perfectly fit the definition of homophobe, right?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


Its funny.

A Jewish Midrash states "before the end of days, homosexuality will be legalized", basing itself on the paradigmatic fall of Sodom and Gomorrah which had succumbed to brutish immorality.

Of course, the Germanic tribes disliked homosexuality for different reasons; however, anarchy - in the very negative sense - and homosexuality, are bed buddies.

It will not last, because such a society is a perversion of natural law.

Our social elites are the most daring example of hubris this world has ever seen, or probably will ever see. Homosexuality has always been practiced 'in the shadows' by unkempt philosophers. Now they want to bring it out into the open, probably make it more a norm than traditional heterosexuality.

They want to pretend that they can overturn spiritual, psychological and biological laws which hold to a natural pattern.
edit on 21-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


ohhhh.. but they don't "reproduce". They had a heterosexual relationship that led to reproduction.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by korathin
 


So your justifying destroying heterosexual culture to make a bunch of homosexuals feel better about themselves?
Do you have so little confidence in "heterosexual culture" that you think that it can be destroyed by treating a minority of homosexuals as if they were human. You realize that you perfectly fit the definition of homophobe, right?


Well put, Phage. And why should homosexuals not be treated as human? They are people just as anyone else. Treating them as everyone else does not diminish heterosexual culture in any regard.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So, treating a homosexual "as human" not only entails granting them basic political rights, and treating them as anyone else, but also, changing your own opinions about how they live to conform with their understanding of homosexuality?

No. Heterosexism is an obnoxious term that should be stricken from the dictionary.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


So, treating a homosexual "as human" not only entails granting them basic political rights, and treating them as anyone else, but also, changing your own opinions about how they live to conform with their understanding of homosexuality?
Clearly changing your opinion is out of the question so you can keep it and do whatever you wish with it, except use it to deny anyone else their rights.


Heterosexism is an obnoxious term that should be stricken from the dictionary.
Got any books you think should be burned too?

edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
What makes one person's sexual activity more normal than another persons? Between two consenting adults, sex is sex. On the flip side of what everybody is having conniptions about, do you think it would be good to instead teach that heterosexual relations are the only acceptable ones? Granted, a lot of narrow minded morons feels that way, but that doesn't make it true.

Gay sex isn't for me. It's not what gets me going, but I would never in a million years dream of telling young gay people that consenting relations between two men or two women is somehow abnormal or abhorrent. Because it's not. Humans are sexual creatures, and not everybody's sexual preferences tend toward the same things. The sooner we all realize that the sooner we can move past these silly issues.
edit on 21-10-2012 by Monger because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Well I'm glad some common sense came to this thread.

Been some great posts, I can't reply reply to them all but starred those I got through to reading.

The main points from my POV-

1- Children of 12 year of age should not be taught about sex, nevermind sexuality, that is just my opinion. When I was 12, I was out building dens with my friends and going on bike rides and knew nothing about sex. As you go through puberty, you feel a lot of things, and being told there is no difference between hetrosexual and being homosexual is a worrying prospect IMO.

2- Homosexuality, whilst a reality for many, is not normal for the vast majority of us, it never will be because we were naturally created to mate with the opposite sex. I can't people are actually debating this point from a technical view point.

3- Promote tolerance, but do not try and 'educate' children into thinking homosexuality is normal and the same as being hetrosexual, because it is not. Having tolerance does not mean you have to agree with something- which is what this education program is about- forcing people to grow up thinking being gay is normal when they make up their own minds as they experience life and grow up.

4- People are calling me a hater and bigot yet the vast majority of people would be outraged if they found out their twelve year old had just been told in school that being homosexual is 'normal'.

5- I do in fact know gay people, my uncle, whom I saw only yesterday, is homosexual and it never enters my mind when I see him. So I'm not a hater, and thanks to the posters who realised this. Two consenting adults are free to be gay if they like, I am fine with that. My ucle being gay does not affect how much I care for him or treat him whatsoever.

6- My overall point is, I appreciate teaching tolerance, but you cannot indoctrinate children into believing that hetrosexual behaviur is not the norm, which would be the outcome of teaching that homsexuality is as just as natural as being hetrosexual.

Those are my final points for this thread.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


My overall point is, I appreciate teaching tolerance, but you cannot indoctrinate children into believing that hetrosexual behaviur is not the norm, which would be the outcome of teaching that homsexuality is as just as natural as being hetrosexual.
Your overall point is moot because that is not what is being taught as has been pointed out.
edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubicant13
 





Well put, Phage. And why should homosexuals not be treated as human? They are people just as anyone else. Treating them as everyone else does not diminish heterosexual culture in any regard.


Of course they should be treated as humans, and so many contribute greatly to humanity in various fields.

But that does not mean that they have the right to demand others, and their children to agree with their sexual preferences.

You can still treat someone humanely and even admire and enjoy many of their personal characteristics, without fully agreeing with their sexual preferences. I think taking away the freedom of parents to teach this to their children is infringing deeply on their rights as parents.


edit on 21-10-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Okay...to those saying that homosexuality isn't normal...


No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphids. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.[20


Examples of animals are listed in the link.

Homosexuality in animals

Apparently we are the only animals who think having a sexual relationship with the same sex is unnatural.

And besides, the class is for discouraging homophobia.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
This is part of the Nanny Statism Progressive Marxist agenda. It appears to be in many countries, not just the US. The Nanny Staters feel they have an exlusive right to use social engineering and teach everyone how to behave.

Rotkin’s ideals are outlined in his 1991 PhD thesis (entitled Class, Populism, and Progressive Politics: Santa Cruz, California 1970 – 1982), which describes his stealth strategy to implement socialism in the United States. A chapter from this thesis, titled “A Three-Part Strategy for Democratic Socialism,” currently serves as an assigned reading for his “Introduction to Marxism” course. Part one of this strategy is Grassroots Organizing, which means finding groups with grievances against society and helping them to “wrest concessions,” as he phrased it in his thesis. Borrowing from Saul Alinsky’s tactics, Rotkin advocates hiding his true socialist agenda from the people he helps while “preparing the ground” for subsequent stages.



Rotkin has been successful in implementing his strategy. By 1982, the end of the period examined in his thesis, he described a progressive voting bloc which included Santa Cruz-area leftwing environmentalist groups, feminist and criminal-justice movements, gay and lesbian groups, African-American and other minority organizations, labor unions, arts and culture organizations, and alternative media. More recently this list has expanded to include also the homeless, low-cost housing advocates, and drug users. To curry favor with these coalitions, Rotkin and the progressives on the council have spent millions of taxpayer dollars on expanding the bloated, unionized city workforce; promoting a radical gay agenda in the public schools; financing services for a large homeless population; and attempting to implement rent control.


www.discoverthenetworks.org...




Where do you direct the blow so it will do the most damage? In his Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx provided the answer: destroy the traditional family.
True to the teachings of their prophet, socialist revolutionaries have placed the destruction of matrimony high on their list of priorities. Social upheavals have always opened the floodgates of debauchery and pornography. The socialist revolution brings about a breakdown of social conventions, with “sexual liberation” regarded as part of the overall drive for freedom. But while the rabble yearns to throw off the yoke of moral strictures to give vent to its animal passions, the revolutionary leaders see moral decay as a means of undermining the bulwark of the social structure — the family.



Radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy. They know not what they are doing. But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn’t be any illusions about their intentions: they want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, America. Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction.


www.kaufmancountytparty.org...



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I read the title 3 or 4 times, incorrectly.

I am conditioned to see knee jerk militance so often, that I could only interpret the title as saying 'homosexual', not 'heterosexual', as the keyword.

Unreal. No wonder I veer from the media, and lies. Even so, apparently I'm still under the influence of conditioned responses.

meh, the powers play the Aussies like their some kind of petri dish. Like some big, easily contained island that they can just tow away:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No nasty borders to demolish, no sovereign snags. Not a good place to settle, despite the wilderness. Remember, the elevation is way flat. When there's a water disaster, it takes half the continent. Crown rule and all that. Come on, this is what infested governments do. Assimilation. Always an expected play.

Not a lot to say about groups who love being registered, labelled, lumped together, and then made special. It's even less interesting when they base their essence, to a man~and you will not find an exception to this~on something as trivial as an urge. Is that really the best one has to offer of one's self?

edit on 21-10-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by Rubicant13
 





Well put, Phage. And why should homosexuals not be treated as human? They are people just as anyone else. Treating them as everyone else does not diminish heterosexual culture in any regard.


Of course they should be treated as humans, and so many contribute greatly to humanity in various fields.

But that does not mean that they have the right to demand others, and their children to agree with their sexual preferences.

You can still treat someone humanely and even admire and enjoy many of their personal characteristics, without fully agreeing with their sexual preferences. I think taking away the freedom of parents to teach this to their children is infringing deeply on their rights as parents.


edit on 21-10-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)


Agreed. They shouldn't force others or their own children to agree. But it wouldn't be bad if they could learn to tolerate their views, not be forced to agree.
edit on 21-10-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Clearly changing your opinion is out of the question so you can keep it and do whatever you wish with it, except use it to deny anyone else their rights.


But isn't that what a pluralistic society is about? Fostering many different views'?

Using the schools to perpetuate a 'new perspective', so contrary to historical viewpoints, and passing moral judgement on others who think differently from yourself by labeling them "heterosexists" (you know this is a systematic process: it began with homophobia, which was disliking and in some case, mistreating homosexuals; now its 'heterosexism', which draws us further into the fold; not only are we to be made 'tolerant' but we must be made to ideologically agree) is very different from what was originally meant by the term liberal. Nor does my or any other disagreement with homosexual activity mean 'denying' homosexual individual political rights.

To stick to the status quo, merely entails acknowledging what is blatant in nature. To enforce a change of opinion, entails a complete abstraction away from what is apparent, towards the post-modern golden calf of moral relativism.

Forgive me, and others, for hurting your feelings on this matter.




Got any books you think should be burned too?


Every book on heterosexism.

edit on 21-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I think it's crazy, a waste of time, pure indoctrination and trying to twist nature. They should spend less time on acceptance and indoctrination, and a lot more time on critical thinking skills. And FFS's, let kids be kids, they'll discover their sexuality when they are ready.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 


But that does not mean that they have the right to demand others, and their children to agree with their sexual preferences.
Where did that come from? It sounds like you're saying they want us to turn gay. "Agree with their sexual preferences"? All they want is to not be treated differently because of their sexual preferences.


I think taking away the freedom of parents to teach this to their children is infringing deeply on their rights as parents.
Parents are free to teach their children what ever the wish. They can teach them that gays are the devil's own spawn if they wish. They can even teach them that Jews eat babies if they wish. It seems that many do just that.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 





Gay sex isn't for me. It's not what gets me going,


How do you know?

Any person with self-understanding knows how malleable and plastic consciousness is. How do you know 'its not for you'? That's a heterocentric attitude. You need to start imagining, creating the inner tension, before you embark on any homosexual experience. It begins first within.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Not sure if its been mentioned, but I would prefer my children to be taught about safe sex no matter what "type of sex" your going to have. If any, to follow up what I educate them on at home. Love, acceptance regardless of you sexuality. Really , to discriminate against either or all will be flawed. I honestly don't see why "who" you have sex would be a huge problem. I believe Australians youth " in a majority sense" would already be fairly liberal in their way of thinking about sexuality . Many young people I know just don't think it's an issue if their friends are straight, gay or bi !!! I'm sure there is exemptions, but IMO most would not get what all the hoo ha is about and what the oldies are on about.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join