Three-year-olds to be taught about gay relationships

[Nicholas]

Children as young as three should be taught about same-sex relationships in a bid to stamp out homophobia in schools, it was claimed yesterday.

The National Union of Teachers, the country's largest teaching union, sparked outrage by demanding that nursery staff help to educate children about gay families.

It claims it is too late to wait until youngsters arrive at primary school to learn about the subject because some three-year-olds are already using homophobic language.

But critics branded the NUT as "achingly politically correct" and said the proposals were akin to "brain-washing" vulnerable youngsters.

The proposal was made yesterday when the NUT published its response to the Department for Education and Skills' Early Years Foundation Stage consultation document.

This government report sets out the "early learning goals" which youngsters should be achieving in the first few years of their lives.

But the NUT claims that it needs to go further and early years teachers should be given "the skills and tools to challenge racism, sexism and homophobia" and abusive language.

The NUT document says: "In the case of homophobia, the use of the word 'gay' is prevalent in primary schools and young boys who are perceived to not conform to masculine stereotypes are at risk of bullying, isolation and social exclusion.

"It is too late to wait until primary school to challenge prejudice and intolerant abusive language.

"The EYFS curriculum needs to alert early years teachers to their responsibilities to challenge gender stereotypes and to challenge language that is negative or prejudiced."

It adds: "It is particularly important to begin to make three to five-year-olds aware of the range of families that exist in the UK today; families with one mum, one mum and dad, two mums, two dads, grandparents, adoptive parents, guardians etc.

"There will be parents who are gay or lesbian who will want to be reassured that their children will be safe in the setting.

"Many gay parents do not 'come out' to their nursery schools because they fear their children will be bullied as a result of the sexual orientation of their parents.

"Now that civil partnerships are legal, nursery settings need to use the curriculum to educate children about all types of families and to promote respect and understanding."

But Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, branded the demands as "ridiculous".

He said: "I very much doubt that three-year-olds will be able to grasp the implications of these things anyway.

"Apart from that, even if they do, it seems completely wrong for the state education system to try and brainwash youngsters in this way.

"It is achingly politically correct and it's a sad reflection on the direction state education is taking, with the emphasis on teaching politically correct values, rather than worthwhile subjects."

Hugh McKinney, of the National Family Campaign, added: "To attach any kind of value judgement to the views and statements of three-year-olds is simply nonsense.

"Nobody condones homophobic language but to try and teach impressionable, immature youngsters about issues such as this is simply wrong for their stage of development.

"The state system should not be the basis for such teaching until children are older and more able to form their own judgements."

A spokeswoman for the NUT last night defended educating very young children about gay relationships.

She said: "It's never too early to encourage respect. It's about valuing every child and the relationship they live in and ensuring all children show respect to that relationship as well."

Isn't this just pandering to Gay rights and politically correct wierdo's yet again? :mad:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=397008&in_page_id=1770

[crazy_fairy]

I dont understand the piont, whats wrong with Gay relationships? Why is it an issue?

[TellMeMore]

The point is that why aren't teachers spending their time teaching children to read, write, reason, count, spell etc rather than wasting their time on precepts that should be learned from their wider environment.
And some people hold the view that there's lots wrong with gay relationships. Some people would choose for their children not to be brainwashed into believing that something they hold as unnatural and repulsive should be taught as normal behaviour.

[crazy_fairy]

That’s the exact attitude that the Government want to educate out of the minds of young people. They have realised that homosexuality is normal and is not repulsive and people who think this are ignorant and such ignorance is what the government want to get rid of. Is it not brainwashing that children use the word gay as an insult for almost everything simply because they are told their is something wrong with it by their peers. Do you really think children think there is something wrong with homosexuality? Its meerly the homophobic environment they grow up in. Is this not brainwashing in itself.

[TellMeMore]

That’s the exact attitude that the Government want to educate out of the minds of young people. They have realised that homosexuality is normal and is not repulsive and people who think this are ignorant and such ignorance is what the government want to get rid of. Is it not brainwashing that children use the word gay as an insult for almost everything simply because they are told their is something wrong with it by their peers. Do you really think children think there is something wrong with homosexuality? Its meerly the homophobic environment they grow up in. Is this not brainwashing in itself.

Well, let's call a spade a spade. Homosexuality is not biologically normal, regardless of what the chattering minority might say. Some people do find it repulsive, and believing it be so is not ignorant, it's merely choosing to believe the (probably diminishing but still) majority view. No I don't believe that children think there's anything wrong with homosexuality, nor that they are different to children of other races, as you rightly say children believe what they're taught.
However, given that people are allowed to practise their religion, there are religions which teach homosexuality is abnormal, so which choice do you make? Will you stop people choosing their religion or will you stop teaching that homosexuality is normal?
(Personally I would ban all religions, but fortunately for a great many people, I'm not in charge).

[crazy_fairy]

Homosexuality is not biologically normal, but it is naturally normal in the sense that homosexuality is present in almost all species of animal on the planet. I also believe it is normal in the sense that it is not abnormal yet its not "the norm", if you know what I mean. I would also heavily disagree with you that most people find homosexuality repulsive. People are repulsed by the thought of themselves undertaking the act of homosexuality, but not homosexuals. I am repulsed by the idea of having sex with women; yet do not find women or straight people repulsive just because they do something I would not like to do. There are religions that teach contraception is a bad thing, yet we continue to teach it as if its normal. Teach that homosexuality is normal in the wider culture of this society and allow the minority that are taught by their religion that it is wrong to believe so. Religion in itself I think is a good thing, as Marx said "the opium of the masses". Most people would say that’s a negative thing, but im a strong believer in ignorance it would be truly bliss. Its the way people interpret things that is wrong. For example the Koran does not say homosexuality is wrong at all, yet most Muslims believe it is against their religion. The same is for the bible. The bible never condemns concensual homosexuality. Sodom is usually used as evidence that homosexuality is wrong, but it only condemns the rape of men by other men, it too condemns a man raping women, so if the same logic is used straight people are also going against Christianity.

[kieronantony]

I cannot see why many people, although still minorities (for the time being), see that homosexuality is normal, it's unatural, as mentioned by Tellmemore, it's biologically unnatural, if everyone was gay then mankind would die out, if mankind was made to be out then gay couples would be able to reproduce as well, but they can't, therefore its not natural.

[crazy_fairy]

So a couple that are infertile are unnatural just because they are unable to reproduce? Homosexuality is not the norm, but it is natural. It exists throughout the animal kingdom. I think people have better views on homosexuality than allot of right-wingers on here think. Speaking as a gay man I have allot of personal experience on how people perceive me and im sorry if this hurts, I feel I am accepted! I believe the only places homosexuality isn’t accepted is super sized council estates where homophobia and other anti-social behaviour is the only thing they have to keep them entertained. And to be fair I wouldn’t want to associate with such kinds of people anyway.

[TellMeMore]

Homosexuality is not biologically normal, but it is naturally normal in the sense that homosexuality is present in almost all species of animal on the planet.
I suspect you're misinterpreting dominant/submissive behaviour to justify your viewpoint there, but I'm not a biologist. Even so I would say that's very unlikely. There's no species gain in such behaviour

I also believe it is normal in the sense that it is not abnormal yet its not "the norm", if you know what I mean. I would also heavily disagree with you that most people find homosexuality repulsive.
Again I rather suspect that depends where you live, outside london/big cities I think you'll find there are a lot of people who would take issue with that viewpointPeople are repulsed by the thought of themselves undertaking the act of homosexuality, but not homosexuals. I am repulsed by the idea of having sex with women; yet do not find women or straight people repulsive just because they do something I would not like to do. There are religions that teach contraception is a bad thing, yet we continue to teach it as if its normal.
I can tell you don't live in IrelandTeach that homosexuality is normal in the wider culture of this society Why, so you can justify it to yourself?and allow the minority that are taught by their religion that it is wrong to believe so. Religion in itself I think is a good thing, as Marx said "the opium of the masses". Most people would say that’s a negative thing, but im a strong believer in ignorance it would be truly bliss. Well that's unfortunate, you've obviously been gifted with some intelligence, don't decry it, believe me there will be plenty of people who will decry it for you, don't ever agree with them.
Stupidity is a bad thing, even if it is the norm!Its the way people interpret things that is wrong. For example the Koran does not say homosexuality is wrong at all, yet most Muslims believe it is against their religion. The same is for the bible. The bible never condemns concensual homosexuality. I could care less what any fairy story says about anythingSodom is usually used as evidence that homosexuality is wrong, but it only condemns the rape of men by other men, it too condemns a man raping women, so if the same logic is used straight people are also going against Christianity.I don't understand the point you're trying to make there, sorry

[TellMeMore]

So a couple that are infertile are unnatural just because they are unable to reproduce? Homosexuality is not the norm, but it is natural. It exists throughout the animal kingdom. I think people have better views on homosexuality than allot of right-wingers on here think. Speaking as a gay man I have allot of personal experience on how people perceive me and im sorry if this hurts, I feel I am accepted! I believe the only places homosexuality isn’t accepted is super sized council estates where homophobia and other anti-social behaviour is the only thing they have to keep them entertained. And to be fair I wouldn’t want to associate with such kinds of people anyway.

better views on homosexuality - no, just views that you agree with. You have a lot of experience on how you precieve people's perceptions of you, that doesn't mean you actually know what they think or feel about you, only the way they react to you.
You're wrong about only the supersize council estates not accepting it, there are lots and lots of places where you would feel very uncomfortable in this country.
You wouldn't want to associate with such people, you and me alike, unfortunately there will be no curfews on 'common people' I'm afraid so you might see some, life is tough, eh?

[crazy_fairy]

The point about the book of Sodom was evidence of my argument that religion and its books are often interpreted in the wrong way. Yeah life is tough and I have experienced homophobia, but I also do believe homosexuals live in a relatively friendly environment and I think homosexuals are more generally accepted than others were making out, in my experience. Homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom its been proven several times. What about the gay penguins at London zoo that raised an orphaned chick together? Iv seen allot of homophobia been thrown around on this forum, some made by moderators. Must be something to do with right-wing dominance of the most active users.

[TellMeMore]

Well if you spend your time in gay bars you're probably going to believe that you're accepted...... And don't confuse tolerance with acceptance either. We have a rabidly liberal left-wing political ethos currently in the country, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way.
I'm still not convinced about gay animals, but like I said I'm not a biologist.
Rightwing dominance, you state that like it's a bad thing (LOL)

[crazy_fairy]

Infact I spend most of my time in straight bars. I live in a very conservative area and there are not many of us here. I truly believe I am accepted in this community, I am a friend with all the locals we drink together, stop and chat and IV never experienced any homophobia from anyone in my community. Maybe im just lucky enough to live in a very friendly and accepting area. The right wing thing, I also have many right-wing views on immigration, law and order etc etc, but feel I have no way of venting my support for the right, as gay people are not represented in the slightest.

Oh here's an interesting (well not really) link about Gay animals from a leading science magazine.


http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

[Shatter Resistant]

They have realised that homosexuality is normal and is not repulsive and people who think this are ignorant and such ignorance is what the government want to get rid of.

Bollox. It's a mental illness. To me, a plug fits a socket and your Marmite Motorway is an exit hole, and an exit hole only.

[kieronantony]

Shatter Resistant. All I have to say is this... Nice analogy lol

[claire]

If I was a lesbian in the town I live in I'd be scared for my life. I've know kids who have been beaten up for being gay or bi. The world is far from excepting gay people.

[claire]

sorry wrong use of verb, accepting. (I don't know if I should pass the ninth grade)

[crazy_fairy]

Unfortunately the ignorance of the masses cannot be legislated against. It is a sick and disturbing world that does not accept someone for who they are when their being posses no threat to society. Thankfully we live in a free society were I can legally be who I am. Shatter Resistant your disturbing homophobia tells me that you are an uneducated bigot with no sense or view of the wider world, only your insignificant life and minor surroundings are what matters to a mind so small. I seem to be functioning awfully well for someone with a mental illness. Claire you obviously live in a part of the UK that has come to promote a stereotypical image of our nation to the rest of the world. Lager louts, mindless soles with nothing to do than beat up those who do not conform to a section of society that anyone with a real sense of intellect or culture would sincerely be repulsed at belonging to.

[Nicholas]

Being gay is abnormal. The norm is being a heterosexual hence being gay is abnormal. We are heterosexual by design anyone who tells you any different is having a laugh.

[kieronantony]

Honestly though, I do not personally condone gays, look at the way we are made, it's fairly obvious we were meant to be heterosexual. If some men want to be gay that is up to them but I do not want to see it in public, nor do I want my children being submitted to this sort of thing, now that is disgraceful.

[zoobee2]

The norm is to be hetero. However, we should also be accepting of all people, regardless of whether or not we perceive them as normal.

Having said that, it is utterly ridiculous to be teaching 3 year olds about homosexual relationships, or any sexual relationship for that matter. Gee, we just learned to poop in the potty a year ago, on to sex! Ridiculous.

We should teach children tolerance and acceptance, at any age by being examples of such at home and in the classroom. To focus on any one group is particular is silly. There is not enough time in the day to teach kids about every single division among the human species.

[crazy_fairy]

I agree that biologically it is abnormal to be homosexual, however I believe their is some normality, for example someone who has lost their legs in a car accident, I would consider them to not be "the norm" yet still be normal. This is my view on homosexuality. It is also a very natural trait. Strong research has proven that homosexuality is present in thousands of species around the world. And this whole "its a one way street", what? You’ve never wanted to or haven’t had anal sex with women? I also agree that relationships of any kind should not be taught to children as young as three, however I strongly believe that homosexuality should be taught at a later age in schools. Not necessarily the ins and outs of homosexual sex, although ofcourse i see no problem here but im sure others would, but the fact that it exists and you shouldn’t be ashamed if you think you are gay. The fact that two people of the same sex can have a perfectly stable and healthy relationship. Most of my relationships have been far more stable than my heterosexual counterparts.

[claire]

I live in the United States. I agree with Kinsey's theory that people are attracted to the opposite sex or their own sex at a degree. I believe it is a zero if you are exclusively heterosexual and 6 if you are exclusively homosexual. He believed that most people fell inbetween. I view gayness as an abnormality as much as I view green eyes as an abnormality.

[crazy_fairy]

The states, well im hardly suprised. Bible belt America was never stronger. Strike down those who do not conform and replace them with mindless followers of a quite honestly disturbing faith. "The Opium of the masses", i bet this enlightened thinker did'nt expect America to still be smoking this much opium in the 21'st century.

[crazy_fairy]

So if for example the BNP came into power, what legislation would they bring in with regards to homosexuality? Would you agree with such legislation?

[Nicholas]

There is nothing in BNP election manifestos that point towards any persecution of anyone regarding sexuality.

[zoobee2]

when i was a teenager i thought i was gay because i found the female body to be more attractive than the male body. after being through a few relationships, i know now that i am most certainly not gay, and women are just generally better looking than men.

HAHA

[crazy_fairy]

There is nothing in BNP election manifestos that point towards any persecution of anyone regarding sexuality.

This may be true, but it seems you do not know your party so well. These are the answers of Dr Phill Edwards National Press Officer BNP after being questioned on homosexuality.

Q: What is the BNP's policy in regard to homosexuality?

A: We believe that homosexuality is unhealthy for any community. Even so, no one wants to see homosexuals which make up less than 2% of the entire population persecuted for being what they are. That's why homosexuality was legalised. Nevertheless, the flood of homosexual propaganda to 'normalise' this tendency has been both unforeseen and corrupting. Consequently, there will be a ban on the public display and promotion of homosexuality, including in schools and in the mass media.

To whom it may concern, The BNP website says that 'homosexuality is unhealthy for any community'. How is homosexuality unhealthy for a community? In what way? MB.

Reply: Because it is unnatural ie does not lead to procreation but does lead to moral terpitude and disease. Furthermore, realising the fragility of normal relationships these days where half of new marriages end in divorce, it undermines social/marital cohesion by adding confusion - when young people are told by role models that homosexuality is OK it is bound to cause conflict between their natural, normal instincts, on the one hand, and the powerful persuasion of role models on TV and other media. The BNP would make it unlawful to promote homosexuality and return it to the closet where the law says it should be ("consenting adults in private"). My own personal view would be to recriminalise it and return to the situation as it was pre 1967.

Seems like some quite durastic legislation would be passed if you ask me. With mad biggots like this fronting the party. Thank god for umbrella policies, so that the BNP will never achieve power.

[Nicholas]

This may be true, but it seems you do not know your party so well. These are the answers of Dr Phill Edwards National Press Officer BNP after being questioned on homosexuality.

Q: What is the BNP's policy in regard to homosexuality?

A: We believe that homosexuality is unhealthy for any community. Even so, no one wants to see homosexuals which make up less than 2% of the entire population persecuted for being what they are. That's why homosexuality was legalised. Nevertheless, the flood of homosexual propaganda to 'normalise' this tendency has been both unforeseen and corrupting. Consequently, there will be a ban on the public display and promotion of homosexuality, including in schools and in the mass media.

To whom it may concern, The BNP website says that 'homosexuality is unhealthy for any community'. How is homosexuality unhealthy for a community? In what way? MB.

Reply: Because it is unnatural ie does not lead to procreation but does lead to moral terpitude and disease. Furthermore, realising the fragility of normal relationships these days where half of new marriages end in divorce, it undermines social/marital cohesion by adding confusion - when young people are told by role models that homosexuality is OK it is bound to cause conflict between their natural, normal instincts, on the one hand, and the powerful persuasion of role models on TV and other media. The BNP would make it unlawful to promote homosexuality and return it to the closet where the law says it should be ("consenting adults in private"). My own personal view would be to recriminalise it and return to the situation as it was pre 1967.

Seems like some quite durastic legislation would be passed if you ask me. With mad biggots like this fronting the party. Thank god for umbrella policies, so that the BNP will never achieve power.


What is wrong with not wanting to promote something that 98% + of the population( the moral majority) do not take part in. And what is wrong with keeping your sexuality to yourself? I personally would not like my children to see gays groping and phornicating in public, would you? No matter what anyone tells you homosexuals are a very small minority in this country , why should the majority bend over backwards(excuse the pun) to promote this minority abnormality?

[von-Scharnhorst]

What bloody interest, use, or business is it of ANY one, what goes on in some ones bedroom, stair case, kitchen, whatever, in some ones own home any way?

It does not matter if they are gay or not, shagging each other on top of a taxi in the middle of Oxford street in rush hour, is going to get you arrested.

Where's the problem in that?

[crazy_fairy]

What is wrong with not wanting to promote something that 98% + of the population( the moral majority) do not take part in. And what is wrong with keeping your sexuality to yourself? I personally would not like my children to see gays groping and phornicating in public, would you? No matter what anyone tells you homosexuals are a very small minority in this country , why should the majority bend over backwards(excuse the pun) to promote this minority abnormality?

Whitehall officially set out to determine the amount of gay people living in the UK late last year. This was a direct action taken after the introduction of civil partnerships. They found that in fact 3.6 million Britons are openly gay or lesbian. This is in fact 6% of the population or 1 in ever 16.66 people. If 1 person in every 16.66 people is gay, exactly how abnormal can they be? 1 in every 16.66 people must have a voice and must be recognised. Pressure groups with numbers almost 2% of 3.6 million have a bigger voice and more influence on the government. "The moral majority" what a ridiculous statment, what does this prove? The majority may not be gay, but how many disagree with homosexuality? You say that you would not want your children seeing gay people groping in public, but what, you wouldn’t mind your children seeing two straight people groping? No one is asking people to bend over backwards for gay people; we just want what is right.

[von-Scharnhorst]

No one is asking people to bend over backwards for gay people;
No. But would you have us bend over forewards for them?

[kieronantony]

I don't think it's too much too ask for gay people to not perform homosexual acts outside.

[crazy_fairy]

It would be inapropriate for a straight couple to grope in public, as it would homosexuals. If straight people can kiss and hold hands in public then homosexuals should be able to as well. Its as simple as that.

[kieronantony]

NO, it's not though, I do not know any straight person who wants to see poofs kissing in public and it would really piss me off if younger children saw it, it sets a bad example.

[Nicholas]

Whitehall officially set out to determine the amount of gay people living in the UK late last year. This was a direct action taken after the introduction of civil partnerships. They found that in fact 3.6 million Britons are openly gay or lesbian. This is in fact 6% of the population or 1 in ever 16.66 people. If 1 person in every 16.66 people is gay, exactly how abnormal can they be? 1 in every 16.66 people must have a voice and must be recognised. Pressure groups with numbers almost 2% of 3.6 million have a bigger voice and more influence on the government. "The moral majority" what a ridiculous statment, what does this prove? The majority may not be gay, but how many disagree with homosexuality? You say that you would not want your children seeing gay people groping in public, but what, you wouldn’t mind your children seeing two straight people groping? No one is asking people to bend over backwards for gay people; we just want what is right.

This six percent figure you say is fallacious in the extreme. In the last census less than 2% considered themselves gay or lesbian. Norman tebbit even put that number at less than 1 in a 100. The whitehall report based its figures not on actual figures it had collected itself but from various studies over a period of 25 to 30 years. I read some of the reports and they are far from convincing. I have no problem with seeing my child seeing a heterosexual person kissing. I do jave serious issues with seeing a pair of social lepers groping each other in front of my children. They should not have to put up with that perverse and abhorrent behaviour. We are heterosexual by design , homosexuality is a abnormality. No one of your gay rights campaigners ever tell the real story of violently abusive relationships and a sexuality ravaged by AIDS do they?

[zoobee2]

so then, obviously gay people have this strong tendancy to just go at it full force in the middle of the street. whowouldathunkit?

i like how people make hetero relationships seem all polite and gay ones all dirty and sexually explicit. its just not acceptable in mainstream society. that is the only difference. No one should be groping each other in public, gay or not.

that 2% also only represents those who are willing to openly admit that they are gay. if society is so unaccepting, most of your gays are probably not admitting it.

[Shatter Resistant]

Gay is not normal, allegedly. And what makes it worse, allegedly, gays adopting children. If they decide to be gay, it ain't possible for them to climb into bed and produce a child, allegedly. It's nature way of saying "It ain't right". If they remained childless, they would hopefully die out as a breed, allegedly.

[TellMeMore]

Supposing genetic engineering advances so much (and it's not that unbelievable) that men could carry children to term in an artificial womb, could gays then have children. The baby would obviously be born rectally. It's not real childbirth, it's more going through the motions..............

[hallowedwarrior]

The norm is to be hetero. However, we should also be accepting of all people, regardless of whether or not we perceive them as normal.

Having said that, it is utterly ridiculous to be teaching 3 year olds about homosexual relationships, or any sexual relationship for that matter. Gee, we just learned to poop in the potty a year ago, on to sex! Ridiculous.

We should teach children tolerance and acceptance, at any age by being examples of such at home and in the classroom. To focus on any one group is particular is silly. There is not enough time in the day to teach kids about every single division among the human species.

"It is achingly politically correct and it's a sad reflection on the direction state education is taking, with the emphasis on teaching politically correct values, rather than worthwhile subjects."

HERE FUCKING HERE! Back to the original subject. Should we teach children this, when most who will graduate high school can barely read or write? Personally I think not. This is where ppl should be shouting in the streets, "seperation of church and state" as this falls under teaching of morales in school does it not? So many have complained about the idea of religion within school, "stick to math sciend and writing!" and right they are. I would send my kids to school to learn to become doctors and lawyers. Not how to interact with others they meet. I would take it upon myself to instill that into my children.

As for my attitude towards gays, Im not homophobic. HOWEVER lets get one thing straight, homophobia is the FEAR of homosexuals. I do not believe that this lifestyle is right or natural, but I am tired of being called a homophobic because I believe this.

[Nicholas]

Supposing genetic engineering advances so much (and it's not that unbelievable) that men could carry children to term in an artificial womb, could gays then have children. The baby would obviously be born rectally. It's not real childbirth, it's more going through the motions..............

:D .......................you are talking out of your arse.

[hallowedwarrior]

Supposing genetic engineering advances so much (and it's not that unbelievable) that men could carry children to term in an artificial womb, could gays then have children. The baby would obviously be born rectally. It's not real childbirth, it's more going through the motions..............

But what does this honestly prove then.....simply that it is not normal. If you have to alter your body to have children it doesnt mean that now you have become normal just more fucking abnormal than you were before.

[crazy_fairy]

How are two consenting men engaging in a homosexual relationship perverted? You have some serious issues if you think i'm a pervert. Violent relationships? Do you know any gay couples? I seriously doubt it; there is no more violence or instability in gay long-term relationships than their heterosexual counterparts. Your issues with regards to having children are ridiculous, so you are too against IVF? 1 in 100, this figure has been laughed at since he first said it. The most recent reports on aids in the UK have showed that in fact new cases of aids in the gay community are going down. In the heterosexual community however it is rising. Aids is so prominent in the gay community simply because before we knew how aids was transmitted the gay community believed it to be safe to have anal sex without a condom. As a result large amounts of gay men got aids. The majority of gay men with aids are 30 plus. The younger generations are much more educated about aids and studies have shown that gay men between the ages of 18-25 are no more likely to have aids than heterosexual men of the same age. This shows that it is more than likely that within the next 50 or so years aids will not be any more prominent in the gay community than the heterosexual. I also agree with gay couples adopting children. The majority of chidren up for adoption are aged 6 plus. Most couples want babies and if they do adopt an older child it is usually girls. This leaves a large amount of children that simply could never find adopting parents. Gay men that are in a stable relationship, with secure finances and jobs ect therefore offer excellent oppertunities for a child. Is it not better for a child to enter into a loving stable unit, than spend their childhood in a care home to be booted out with no family at 18?

[hallowedwarrior]

-----> there went the point of this thread

[TellMeMore]

But what does this honestly prove then.....simply that it is not normal. If you have to alter your body to have children it doesnt mean that now you have become normal just more fucking abnormal than you were before.


It was a joke. Humour, funny. You must recognise laughter, I'm sure you hear it all the time. (No, I'm not going to explain that one, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.)

[zoobee2]

The debate about how to treat gay people is completely ridiculous. It DOES NOT MATTER if you view them as "normal" or not. There are lots of behaviors that people participate in that are not really normal. The fact remains that they are people with the right to choose how to live their life, mainstream or not, and they should be treated with the same respect as anyone else.

I have had the whole gay people adopting kids debate before, and it led nowhere but in circles. I am not going there again. All I will say that is based on the status of the "group homes" (we don't call them orphanages anymore, its not PC) in the USA, and how children there are maintained, I agree w crazyfairy.

[Shatter Resistant]

The fact remains that they are people with the right to choose how to live their life, mainstream or not, and they should be treated with the same respect as anyone else.

I think that this has hit the nail on the head with the thread. Normal people believe being gay is (even by nature) not right, dirty, immoral (all allegedly ;) ), but in order for normal people to accept this against their wishes, the government want to brain wash the children because they are unable to convince the rational side of society.

If either of my young children turn gay, with hand on heart, I would disown him/them and therefore out of the will. No doubt this will get deleted and I will receive another slap on the wrist but I will not be forced into believing something that is wrong and disgusting. How can someone say putting a penis up someones rectrum natural. Defies logic and nature. It's a crap pipe.

Poor kids at school in the play ground telling the teacher "Yes my mam is coming to parents evening and my mam as well" !!!!!!!!

Leave kids out of it. Let them decide for themselves when they're 16.

[claire]

What do you define as normal??? If you mean straight people are "normal" I am one of the striaght people who doesn't think being gay is not right or dirty. I don't think that there would be anything wrong with saying "Yes, my mom is coming to parents evening and my mom as well." It's a sad world we live in when someone will say they disown their children if they admit to being gay.

[Crowly]

Normal would be the standard biological blueprint for mankind. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that homosexuality cannot be genetic - any genetic difference that disallows reproduction doesn't stay in the gene pool very long.

Most likely homosexuality is a mental disorder, an attention seeking reflex of sorts. If I had a child turn gay I would probably attempt to find the root of his obvious issues and instabilities, though if he insisted on flouting society just to be different I would disown him just as much as I would if they end up religious.

Homosexuality is not something to discriminate against, nor is it something to change your way of life for. That is to say I reserve the right to call them stinking fags if they're reserving the right to be stinking fags.

I would not give it equal respect as a normal heterosexual relationship because it is not a normal heterosexual relationship. If you use a little logical progression, recognising officially the union of two men (or women) is no different to recognising the union of man (or woman) and a goat, say.

Political correctness very seldom obeys the rules of logic, however, and that is a damned shame.

[zoobee2]

I was not talking about a conspiracy. I said children should not be taught about sexual relationships in school, any kind thereof. And when they are old enough for sex ed, they need to be taught about hetero relationships as being normal, and gay ones as being existant. However, that does not change that all people by virtue of being human need to be treated with respect.

If my kid turned out to be gay, I would discourage it, but most certainly NOT ever disown him. EVER.

[kieronantony]

I can't see how alot of you lefties criticise right wingers for not condoning homosexuals, espcially seeing as for, I think, all of the first half of this century LABOUR & the TORIES made homosexuality a crime. In fact, when we liberated the concentration camps in Germany, all the homosexuals were left in there because it was a crime in Britain and France as well as Nazi-Germany.

[claire]

Normal would be the standard biological blueprint for mankind. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that homosexuality cannot be genetic - any genetic difference that disallows reproduction doesn't stay in the gene pool very long.

Most likely homosexuality is a mental disorder, an attention seeking reflex of sorts. If I had a child turn gay I would probably attempt to find the root of his obvious issues and instabilities, though if he insisted on flouting society just to be different I would disown him just as much as I would if they end up religious.

Homosexuality is not something to discriminate against, nor is it something to change your way of life for. That is to say I reserve the right to call them stinking fags if they're reserving the right to be stinking fags.

I would not give it equal respect as a normal heterosexual relationship because it is not a normal heterosexual relationship. If you use a little logical progression, recognising officially the union of two men (or women) is no different to recognising the union of man (or woman) and a goat, say.

Political correctness very seldom obeys the rules of logic, however, and that is a damned shame.


Could you please elaborate on the stinking fags part?

[crazy_fairy]

I think it’s a great assumption to assume that all so-called "normal people" think homosexuality is dirty and immoral. Homosexuality is not a choice or a mental disorder. Realising I was gay was one of the hardest things that have happened in my life. Overcoming your own prejudices is hard enough. Do you truly believe 3.5 million people in Britain alone would put themselves through hell just for attention? I am glad that my parents were not fucking narrow-minded bigots. It horrifies me that people as sick minded as you even exist. It is people like you that are immoral, perverted and abnormal. The gay community does'nt try and make you feel small, degraded and threatened. It is sick and disturbing people like you that break the peace. You are immoral, i certainly am not.

[Crowly]

Do you truly believe 3.5 million people in Britain alone would put themselves through hell just for attention?

Let me ask you this.

Did you realise it whilst you were a mid to late teenager?

I'll put £20 on the answer being yes.

[zoobee2]

sexual identity period. Come on now Crowly, you are leading crazy fairy right into your trap.

[claire]

It doesn't matter if he was a teenager; that has no relevance.

[Crowly]

sexual identity period. Come on now Crowly, you are leading crazy fairy right into your trap.

Yes, and I am going to spring it so hard it makes his head spin.

It doesn't matter if he was a teenager.

No offence, but that's because you have never studied Psychology, so here's an idea, why don't you quit with thinking what you assumed is true and listen to what people who have studied this have to say.

[claire]

I know what people have studied and I understand the point you where trying to make with teen deal; it doesn't take someone who has studied psychology to figure that one out. Classifying homosexuality as a mental illness is a little outdated by like 35 years.

[england expects]

does anyone realise that most of this pro gay business is influenced by sir Ian mckellen and his filhty little crowd, I think too much policy is influenced by celebrity , more than we realise. I remember when another gay knight followed Blair into number 10 one day and even took it upon himself to answer reporters questions to blair!!, we should realise that this government is more interested in getting phootgraphed with Shilpa Shetty and assorted gay, coloured, politically correct celebrities who are influencing government policy to I think a very dangerous degree.

[Nicholas]

Blair has made it his busniess to control the celebrity status of the politician and to play the media. Tony Blairs government employs 3,259 press officers. Press officers are more usually known as spin doctors. sad state of affairs indeed!

[violentpacifist]

What is wrong with not wanting to promote something that 98% + of the population( the moral majority) do not take part in. And what is wrong with keeping your sexuality to yourself? I personally would not like my children to see gays groping and phornicating in public, would you? No matter what anyone tells you homosexuals are a very small minority in this country , why should the majority bend over backwards(excuse the pun) to promote this minority abnormality?

You can promote homosexuality! its a completly ridiculous notion. Seeing one to many Will & Grace episodes or seeing two girls kiss or gay men holding hands is not going to make you gay. Banning the "promotion" of homosexuality which my guess is anything showing homosexuality as something other than mental disease to be treated is a limitation of free speech. Something the BNP claim to be against, they say they are against political correctness but they just want to create their own version with more and stricter limitations on what we can say and do.

[Nicholas]

You can promote homosexuality! its a completly ridiculous notion. Seeing one to many Will & Grace episodes or seeing two girls kiss or gay men holding hands is not going to make you gay. Banning the "promotion" of homosexuality which my guess is anything showing homosexuality as something other than mental disease to be treated is a limitation of free speech. Something the BNP claim to be against, they say they are against political correctness but they just want to create their own version with more and stricter limitations on what we can say and do.

WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN. Not promoting homosexuality is not a limitation on free speech its about allowing the majority voice of your average heterosexual person to have a wider more heard voice within our community. We are living in a time where being a heterosexual white male has become something of a sin or where we are seen to carry some sort of collective guilt for some things done years ago. Is having a heterosexual bias too much to ask? Or imagine we all went and took over our cities streets in marches? The gay rights movement and all those left leaning members of society who pander to gay rights are some of the most politically correct liberal morons going. BTW the BNP do have gay members.

[violentpacifist]

WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN. Not promoting homosexuality is not a limitation on free speech its about allowing the majority voice of your average heterosexual person to have a wider more heard voice within our community. We are living in a time where being a heterosexual white male has become something of a sin or where we are seen to carry some sort of collective guilt for some things done years ago. Is having a heterosexual bias too much to ask? Or imagine we all went and took over our cities streets in marches? The gay rights movement and all those left leaning members of society who pander to gay rights are some of the most politically correct liberal morons going. BTW the BNP do have gay members.

I never said they didn't. Heterosexual bias seems pretty dominate to me, I don't see any sin or collective guilt. Theres nothing stoping you marching in the streets, so many people are against gay civil unions, gay adoption and these books I wonder why they didn't protest against it. If you want your average heterosexual person to have their voice heard more surely you must say something first? Stop relying on the tabloids to fight your battles for you and actually do something instead of sitting around moaning.

[Nicholas]

I never said they didn't. Heterosexual bias seems pretty dominate to me, I don't see any sin or collective guilt. Theres nothing stoping you marching in the streets, so many people are against gay civil unions, gay adoption and these books I wonder why they didn't protest against it. If you want your average heterosexual person to have their voice heard more surely you must say something first? Stop relying on the tabloids to fight your battles for you and actually do something instead of sitting around moaning.

The BNP don't do marches. After the disgraceful scenes in the 70's and eighties of National front marches and the stain it left on nationalism thats the last thing the public face of nationalism needs. Most people who are against gay unions and civil partnerships dont hate gays but have a serious reason for doing so. Whether it be religious or just because they would rather have the norm which is a heterosexual partnership. Its not just about sitting around moaning. I have got involved in local politics on anumber of occasions to promote the BNP. People may moan (and rightly so)but the biggest voice should be heard at the ballot box.

[violentpacifist]

Most people who are against gay unions and civil partnerships dont hate gays but have a serious reason for doing so. Whether it be religious or just because they would rather have the norm which is a heterosexual partnership.

Civil partnerships and the norm of heterosexual marriage can sit together easily, its not a one or the other policy. It dosen't seem to be a major issue for the majority of people because civil partnerships don't affect their lives in anyway and it dosen't bother them.