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: 15
22
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Originally posted by dontreally



If you have a homosexual child, surely, schools can be set up to accommodate them.


In what terms are you saying this in? That current schools should be structured to handle them in an adequate manner free of prejudice, or that they should be segregated from heterosexual children in different schools?


edit on 22-10-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds

And what about the bullying of so called "sluts" for their sexual behavior ?

What about the kids who bully other kids because they believe in fairy tales and go to church on Sunday.

What if these kids that go to church don't bully others, but do make it known that they think some sexual preferences are not in line with what they believe God wants ? Do they get protection from being bullied for their personal beliefs ?

If you are trying to discourage bullying in school, better make it all across the board, because I see a lot of bullying going on towards children who's families are religious.



Yes, and the converse happens just as frequently. I had a Catholic education, primary and secondary. We had a couple gay kids in our year, and funny enough, we knew it before they did! In Year 7! You can guess that most of us, going to a single-sex school, didn't give them an easy time about it. Not physically bullied, but they couldn't move for someone calling them a f*****.

Atheists, believe it or not, got quite a bit of heat for speaking up about their beliefs. Either they were devil worshippers or arrogant nerds. Yes, we went to a faith school, but your head can change when you get older. Our teachers, knowing it was our parents' decisions to send us there, were accepting of everyone - gay or straight, believer or no. Same with the clergy. But the students... well, I've explained that already.

Heterosexism is rampant. You only have to hear someone call this or that 'gay' or 'f***y' to realise this. Denying its existence is like denying that we live in a predominantly patriarchal society, where you have to comply with this and that to live up to what makes a real 'man' or 'woman'.

We're breaking down some of the more visible barriers of those traditional gender roles, but many more lie in the subconscious, determined by external influences that exist in our society. That is why women are called 'loose' for simply doing what men usually get away with, and why men are called 'gay' for wanting to be nurses, for example. Heterosexism isn't just about hurting gay people. It hurts people of all sexual orientations, because it typifies heterosexuality as not the norm, but the ideal, and a very narrow one at that in the end.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubicant13
 





In what terms are you saying this in? That current schools should be structured to handle them in an adequate manner free of prejudice, or that they should be segregated from heterosexual children in different schools?


I gave the example of two boys 'dating' at recess. This tends to happen with children once they reach the age of 9 or 10. If they are being bullied, it's because other kids find something wrong, or condemnable in it.

Kids at that age merely imbibe the beliefs of their parents. If a kid was raised believing in there being 'no difference' or preference in nature of heterosexuality over homosexuality, than they are likely to see nothing wrong with this image. Conversely, if a child was raised Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, they would find something wrong with this image.

Now, to prevent bullying in this situation would require two possible amendments: you change the 97% of society - heterosexuals - to see things in a "tolerant" way, or you can set up schools specifically for homosexual kids, as has recently been suggested in Toronto.

The notion of 'segregation' as if it were bad, is misleading. Earlier segregation was patently unconscionable as it had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the individual, or of his character, or of his behavior: it was a simple, bigoted, and prejudiced nonsense. On the other hand, there is a perfectly valid and understandable basis for why a very large segment of the population - conservatives, mostly - would find something inherently reproachable in homosexuality.

Therefore, one solution requires CHANGING, and ENFORCING a systematic reshaping of human belief to fit only one way at looking at things, while the other admits, in humility, that both sides have a 'point' in why they believe what they do. Creating another school which could accommodate the needs of such kids, and they needn't all be 'gay'; it may just be a school for a type of person that a liberal parent would want to enroll their kids in, would certainly be more democratic, than forcibly molding peoples beliefs to what the social elect find 'acceptable'.

Both schools, the normative schools, which service 97% of the population, and "gay" schools, which service 3%, would still fall under the umbrella of a tolerant society. Tolerant, not in forcibly changing other peoples views, as the heterosexist moniker implies, but tolerant, in that it is a pluralistic society ruled by just laws, which treats all citizens equally.
edit on 22-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
What do I think? I think it's sick, and that some schools are more concerned with programming the kids than teaching them anything useful. Since when should that topic be in schools at all?? How about basic biology, lessons on puberty, and leave the rest to the parents? The more they teach kids about sex ed, the more kids are having sex, and the higher the teen pregnancy rates. When I was in school, we didn't have all that, and pregnancies were something you never really saw. Most were not promiscuous, either. Sure, some were, but it was far from the norm. What did we learn? A bit about VD in HS, puberty lessons in Jr high. Enough, but not lessons on what we should or should not be doing. These days, many assume that most kids will be having sex, and that they should be given free condoms, driven to abortion clinics, and now this; teach them to be gay? Wow.....

No, you aren't homophobic for thinking this is wrong. It isn't a phobia to believe something is a bad idea, or immoral.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I'm having a hard time trying to understand what age group of children we are talking about here ?

Can children even know or truly understand what their sexual preferences really are? If I remember correctly , being a child was about exploring emotions, and having a crush on a TV personality could be acted out with a member of the same sex, by kissing. Did this mean I was gay as a kid because I pretended my friend was "little joe" from Bonanza.
If a teacher had seen us doing this at recess, would I have been classified as gay ?

I don't think its fair to label any child as having a sexual preference before they are fully mature enough to actually understand what sex is about...and I would really hope that an adult wouldn't do that.
edit on 22-10-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ihavenoaccount
 






Denying its existence is like denying that we live in a predominantly patriarchal society, where you have to comply with this and that to live up to what makes a real 'man' or 'woman'.


So if that's what makes a patriarchal society, doesn't the reverse, forcing Christians, Jews, or secular conservatives, to think as you do, to indeed, treat them with contempt, wouldn't that amount to the same thing?

Or is reverse discrimination ok?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
What do I think? I think it's sick, and that some schools are more concerned with programming the kids than teaching them anything useful. Since when should that topic be in schools at all?? How about basic biology, lessons on puberty, and leave the rest to the parents? The more they teach kids about sex ed, the more kids are having sex, and the higher the teen pregnancy rates. When I was in school, we didn't have all that, and pregnancies were something you never really saw. Most were not promiscuous, either. Sure, some were, but it was far from the norm. What did we learn? A bit about VD in HS, puberty lessons in Jr high. Enough, but not lessons on what we should or should not be doing. These days, many assume that most kids will be having sex, and that they should be given free condoms, driven to abortion clinics, and now this; teach them to be gay? Wow.....

No, you aren't homophobic for thinking this is wrong. It isn't a phobia to believe something is a bad idea, or immoral.


I love this post, and agree with you so much..that I had to post it.. Giving you one measly star just didn't suffice.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
At the end of the day it is not the job of the education department to instill these values into children.

Conceptually it is a great idea to teach equality.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So to combat suicide you feel the schools should be focusing the kids more and more on suicide and give them questionaires and assignments on suicide and morbid things like how would they do and how do they feel about it and so on? Yep that's values clarification and it is a Progressive agenda to socialize the children into their mold of what they think society should be.
Same thing with the gay agenda, to stop bullying they are focusing the children more and more on it. Yep values clarification.
The real agenda is to destroy the bedrock of traditonal mores and values and the family unit. It was Marx's dream to destroy the bourgeois family and he said it in his Communist Manifesto.

Here is an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto


Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists.

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.

The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime.

But, you say, we abolish the closest relationships, by putting social education in place of the domestic one.




fathersforlife.org...


Note the intent to replace education by parents with that of the State.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


And FFS's, let kids be kids, they'll discover their sexuality when they are ready.
It's not about sexuality. It's about discouraging bullying of gays.


What makes gays so special? Personally, I don't care if someone is gay or straight, means nothing to me but as a biological imperative for the purposes of procreation, which it appears sex was originally about (other than recreational sex), anything other than a heterosexual union seems to be a contradiction to nature.

What bothers me a little is that roughly 2% or 3% of the population are dictating the rules to the other 98% of the population (tail wagging the dog) and they are using extortion (hate crime propaganda and laws) to do it, isn't that bullying? Aren't they accusing people of what they are actively doing themselves, bullying? Seems a double standard, maybe they should all just STFU and leave it in the bedroom.

If they want to stop bullying, which I agree with, stop it unilaterally. That means start with the government, IRS, bankers, police, foreign policy, military, you know, like trickle down economics. How about some trickle down ef'ing common sense.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The more they teach kids about sex ed, the more kids are having sex, and the higher the teen pregnancy rates.


www.teachersmedia.co.uk...

www.spiegel.de...

I'm not convinced on that one. In the UK, our sex ed programs aren't as robust as others on the continent, but our teen pregnancy and STI rates are astronomical in comparison. Not to mention the fact that we also have a higher age of consent threshold, (16 here, generally between 13-15 EU-wide.)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SerialVelocity
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I know what you can do, replace 'gay' or 'homosexual' in your first thread with another minority, say 'black'. Then see how narrow minded you are and whether or not you would post that kind of thing in a public forum.


Since there is no "gay gene", one cannot classify homosexuals as a race, and compare them to actual races. There is a LOT of evidence indicating this is mostly environmental in causation, NOT genetic, and is, in fact (as it used to be classified) a mental disorder. It was only removed from the books as such due to lobbying, in any case, not due to any evidence to the contrary. Thus, calling it "normal" isn't accurate. Doesn't mean people that have this issue should be treated badly, beat up, etc. because that is flat wrong, but it also doesn't mean we should be teaching teenagers that it's a normal way to be, at a time they are already confused by all the hormonal changes. Schools should not be teaching anything on this topic AT ALL. it's not about bullying, either, as the very bulling speech by a guy that was supposed to be teaching against that proves! Some pro-homosexual fellow, giving an "anti-bullying" lecture and actually bullying, viciously, every Christian student present. No, this is about brainwashing and recruiting. If you are interested, and can stomach the vile stuff this guy spews, here is the link: (content warning, though, this is NOT pleasant!) - supposed "anti-bullying" liar



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Rubicant13
 



The notion of 'segregation' as if it were bad, is misleading. Earlier segregation was patently unconscionable as it had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the individual, or of his character, or of his behavior: it was a simple, bigoted, and prejudiced nonsense. On the other hand, there is a perfectly valid and understandable basis for why a very large segment of the population - conservatives, mostly - who find something inherently reproachable in homosexuality.



You would be correct that the term segregation is a bad, misleading term. It's because segregation in any form IS bad. What would you think if you were one of the homosexual children put into one of these "other" schools separated from heterosexual children? What kind of message would that impart to you? Perhaps the thought that because you are not of the most common sexual orientation, you are not worthy to be around other kids that have a different sexual orientation than you? How is that any different from separating children into different schools due to their color? Homosexual children cannot help what their sexual preferences are, especially at a young age. It would make me feel different and possibly even subhuman. And separating children due to their sexual orientation IS segregation no matter what spin you put on it. Homosexuality shouldn't be treated like it's a disease - that's exactly how separating me from heterosexual children in public schools if I were a homosexual child, would make me feel.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
but it is wrong to promote the idea that homosexuality is normal. We know it is not right

Define "normal".

Also, 'right' and 'wrong' are just social constructs that vary by what part of the world you were raised in. And if constructs vary by distance, like morals and religion, then it's subjective, and therefore not valid in an objective sense.

TL;DR - There is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Vandettas
 


How?


Because mostly everyone in the world is straight.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   



SO now it's a thought crime to regard heterosexuality as the norm in human relationships.

This is called "heterosexism", joining racism and sexism as the new no-go zone, and the Proud Schools pilot program rolled out to 12 Sydney and Hunter high schools over the past two terms is aimed at stamping it out.

The program defines "heterosexism" as the practice of "positioning heterosexuality as the norm for human relationship", according to the Proud Schools Consultation Report. "It involves ignoring, making invisible or discriminating against non-heterosexual people, their relationships and their interests. Heterosexism feeds homophobia."

So there it is. If you think the vast majority of people are attracted to the opposite sex and that heterosexual human relationships are the norm, you are feeding homophobia.



The state government would prefer you didn't know about its Proud Schools program against homophobia, "transphobia" and "heterosexism".

It features professional learning for teachers, "celebrations of diversity for students" and "embedding discussion of sexuality and gender diversity into the classroom".

Education Minister Adrian Piccoli wants you to think it is all the work of his predecessor Verity Firth, who started the whole project in the dying days of the Labor government.

But Piccoli kept the program, which cost $250,000, despite the fact that there is no evidence that homophobic bullying is a big problem in NSW schools and despite the fact anti-homophobia elements are already incorporated in the existing PDHPE syllabus.


The thought police telling kids heterosexuality's not the norm


So based just on this, "despite the fact that there is no evidence that homophobic bullying is a big problem in NSW schools and despite the fact anti-homophobia elements are already incorporated in the existing PDHPE syllabus." ,more should be done and taught that bullying is wrong, full stop,which I would fully back.

Sexualisation in society is rampant for children and adults, whoever the young kids follow,be it Lady Gaga,Britney or Paris etc etc sex sells and its marketed toward the young,in the music industry and on TV.

There are heaps of vids out there....


There has been an agenda going on for along time..


reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Great post ThirdEyeofHorus


Which sums up my feelings on it all,its about social engineering,but not for the better.Order out of chaos.

This is part of one of my posts from quite awhile ago....

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963


Just a few that lifted my eyebrows and remember this is from 1963 compared to the world of today.


25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

There`s many more in the list of 45 which I think are relevant,but for many I would replace Communist with TPTB.

Note at the bottom it says that this document hasn`t been digitized and can be verified through a US library,I would love someone from ATS to verify it.
.........................

We are being played people,as in most issues,we are rats in their maze.




edit on 22-10-2012 by gps777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally

So if that's what makes a patriarchal society, doesn't the reverse, forcing Christians, Jews, or secular conservatives, to think as you do, to indeed, treat them with contempt, wouldn't that amount to the same thing?

Or is reverse discrimination ok?


Why do you assume I'd be in favour of the reverse? Why are we dealing in absolutes when there are so many nuances involved? See, that's generally what's involved in patriarchal structures - absolutes and hierarchies abound. Contempt and adversity is necessary for a patriarchal society to thrive, as is competition and conquest.

When people talk about how much they hate political correctness, it's usually because it denies them the freedom to denigrate others without repercussions. In the adult world, I'd say, "Yeah, say what you want. Just don't cry 'PC gone mad' when someone knocks your lights out'."

So to answer your question, no. Society wouldn't treat them with contempt... ideally. It would just ignore them. I had no idea that saying "Hey! Don't make fun of that guy, it's wrong and hurtful!" was contemptuous, but meh.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
but it is wrong to promote the idea that homosexuality is normal. We know it is not right

Define "normal".

Also, 'right' and 'wrong' are just social constructs that vary by what part of the world you were raised in. And if constructs vary by distance, like morals and religion, then it's subjective, and therefore not valid in an objective sense.

TL;DR - There is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'.


"There is no such thing as right and wrong" is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard .

If every adult in a country felt it was ok to rape women or children , it is neither right or wrong? purely subjective?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


What age group are you referring to? For example, would you like to see 'dating' in lets say, between male or female students in grade 3 or 4, upwards?
Who said anything about dating?


I don't see why the majority - 97% of the population is heterosexual - has to accommodate the minority, by sacrificing some of it's most core and basic beliefs.
What accommodations are you talking about?


It's either you are for plurality, and thus have the humility to admit differences in belief, or you are a statist who would like to see the state shape everyone elses views.
What? What this is about acknowledging differences.


If you have a homosexual child, surely, schools can be set up to accommodate them.
Why? Why should a homosexual be segregated?

edit on 10/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 


So let me see now.its ok to be gay, but its not ok to be a gay slut? Who has the right to judge that now ? Someone who is oppressing sexual freedom ? (just making the argument) Its not ok to be a slut in school in whatever gender you prefer, but once you are an adult, I don't care what you do?
I thought we agreed that children should not be having sex. It doesn't matter if it's homosexual or heterosexual sex.


If you can't bully someone for their own personal beliefs, you can't bully or "teach" them into accepting that being gay is as natural and no different than heterosexuality, when their religions say differently.
But you can teach them that they cannot taunt homosexuals because they are different.

edit on 10/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join