He's trolling, right? 
LGBT Relationship Lessons in UK Schools
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
you're
Always one isn't they're
I'm sorry, I was trying to respond to you without impeding your right to an opinion.
Truckloads of acid!
Open you're mind. You've been brainwashed by the educational system.
Touché
Go on PLEASE say the word Sheeple.
He's not wrong though.
What do you think that whole EU thing with wanting near straight bananas was all about eh? I mean if you really THINK about it. And dont get me started on them standardising the size of sausages.
Another reason why we need to just get Brexit done!!
What do you think that whole EU thing with wanting near straight bananas was all about eh? I mean if you really THINK about it. And dont get me started on them standardising the size of sausages.
Another reason why we need to just get Brexit done!!
No white text??
Next step is forbid heteresexuality and homosexuality and just put bananas and sausages up your arse to decrease population by 2040. I am all aboard, straight or curved bananas. Just because I am brainwashed not because i like it
But then you will be loved less?Next step is forbid heteresexuality and homosexuality and just put bananas and sausages up your arse to decrease population by 2040. I am all aboard, straight or curved bananas. Just because I am brainwashed not because i like it
Depends if the ones that loves me are bananaphobic or sausagephobic. If they don't care, how it should be, they would not love me less
Yeah...no
Why would there be?
Fixing a your to you're has become an internet meme. I find it pretty silly given we write short form all the time online. Even the reply was with a small letter y. I always cringe a little when I see the your corrected to you're
I cringed a little when I read his posts, so I guess we’re even.
I cringe when I see people get it wrong to be honest.
Really ? Most people posting online dont care. Sometimes it's easier than finding the apostrophe. I often see it on yt comment..
People should care. Apathy is no better than ignorance.
Your right on this one.
Making a meme is certainly a lot easier than improving your grammar. Shrewd move by the internet idiots.
No one should give a feck about english grammar on online comments. Its like fixing a crooked cherry on top of a pile of shit.
It's.
Great post.
I've noticed this thread a few times and stayed away from as I had rather suspected it would be an absolute shitstorm.
I was wrong. It's a diarrhea monsoon.
What in actual feck is wrong with demonstrating to children that not all relationships are heterosexual? It's not a fecking GCSE in enforced buggery.
I can't see any reason whatsoever to object to this other than, fundamentally, you believe homosexuality is wrong or perverse or you believe that children should be cossetted from being educated about the reality of society.
As for religious reasons: any society that puts religious freedom above equality and education is on the slippery slope to theocracy. People can believe whatever they want to but they must not be allowed to dictate educational curriculum on that basis. Any school teaching that, due to their god or gods or equivalent, that LGBT people are lesser or even simply pretending that they don't exist is betraying their duty to educate, damaging the children and society and in a state of moral bankruptcy.
I was wrong. It's a diarrhea monsoon.
What in actual feck is wrong with demonstrating to children that not all relationships are heterosexual? It's not a fecking GCSE in enforced buggery.
I can't see any reason whatsoever to object to this other than, fundamentally, you believe homosexuality is wrong or perverse or you believe that children should be cossetted from being educated about the reality of society.
As for religious reasons: any society that puts religious freedom above equality and education is on the slippery slope to theocracy. People can believe whatever they want to but they must not be allowed to dictate educational curriculum on that basis. Any school teaching that, due to their god or gods or equivalent, that LGBT people are lesser or even simply pretending that they don't exist is betraying their duty to educate, damaging the children and society and in a state of moral bankruptcy.
It's not cool. Not if you understand the big picture. If you only take things in and of themselves, then you are completely missing the objective. There IS a big picture. A school is not and should not replace the parents. If a parent/s agree fine - but most would have some common sense and say..I just don't think its acceptable. These are all stepping stones towards a bigger picture.
There are two biological genders. It's not an opinion but this is a psy op if there ever was one.
There are two biological genders. It's not an opinion but this is a psy op if there ever was one.
Last edited:
It is most cool.
Common sense? A totally meaningless expression.
Is it common sense that leads you to the conclusion this is a "psy op"? Stepping stones towards what bigger picture? A society that consists of people who consider a relationship between two people equally valid irrespective of the individual's gender? Those shadowy manipulators are at it again.
What's the big picture then, oh wise one?
Schools should teach knowledge, understanding and tolerance shouldn't they? Isn't that how you civilise the little feckers?
Individuals living their lives as they see fit. Why does this make some people so angry? You don't have to like it, you just have be tolerant.
I have no idea at all.
Wrong on a variety of levels.
There's a good chance that guy believes in Lizard People and the New World Order, but more than two genders is where he draws the line.
As you said "biological", I'm going to assume you meant to put "sexes"...
The Paris Zoo literally just unveiled an exhibit of an organism with 720 different sexes.
@Tarrou
It took me some time, but here's a more detailed reply on the issues discussed before. There's no obligation to answer, just ignore this post if you prefer that. It works just as well as a general contribution to this thread.
Talking point was an example of more or less liberal parents hoping for their child to turn out heterosexual for its own good. To me the bottom line is this: wider society treats homosexual people as undesirables, and these hypothetical parents regard homosexuality as a somewhat unwanted trait in their child as well. The subjective reasons may differ, but the objective consequence is the same. Regardless of intentions and self-image, that stance is fundamentally in line with the homophobia of one's environment, and reinforces outside pressure on one's child instead of protecting it against it.
Below are my views on various issues that were part of the same discussion. I spoilered them for better readability.
It took me some time, but here's a more detailed reply on the issues discussed before. There's no obligation to answer, just ignore this post if you prefer that. It works just as well as a general contribution to this thread.
Talking point was an example of more or less liberal parents hoping for their child to turn out heterosexual for its own good. To me the bottom line is this: wider society treats homosexual people as undesirables, and these hypothetical parents regard homosexuality as a somewhat unwanted trait in their child as well. The subjective reasons may differ, but the objective consequence is the same. Regardless of intentions and self-image, that stance is fundamentally in line with the homophobia of one's environment, and reinforces outside pressure on one's child instead of protecting it against it.
Below are my views on various issues that were part of the same discussion. I spoilered them for better readability.
What I mean with "homophobia":
There's a misconception that describing something as homophobic means to automatically denounce the criticized person as a textbook homophobe, a raging gay hater, or suchlike. But hostility and discrimination against LGBT people is a matter of culture, which is always more than just a matter of individual attitudes.
People may take part in this culture out of very different personal motives; And in some cases the reason might not involve a primary resentment against LGBT people, but rather carelessness, ignorance, or conformism. (Which should not hide the fact that pathological aggression and violence exists plenty.)
All of this has often been spelled out for racism and misogyny in Caf discussions, and it's true here as well.
That said, I do believe a deep-seated fear and mistrust of "deviant" sexual activities and identities lies at the heart of this cultural phenomenon. I think the majority of those who actively contribute to it will share this perception of a threat to some degree. Some of what's been written in this thread is a good illustration.
On the implicit notion that the preference of a heterosexual child is harmless, and can be easily replaced by acceptance in case the child turns out differently:
Humans often develop/discover/accept/declare their adult sexual preferences in their teens, or even as late as adulthood. That means we may talk of a solid 15-20 years or more of parents preferring a heterosexual child before their hope is ultimately disappointed.
I think it's very unlikely that this attitude of the parents towards their child remains undetected in the close vicinity of a family. And I'm sure this awareness of one's parents attitude towards oneself will usually be disastrous for a gay child. It will also be an influencing factor on heterosexual children in their attitudes towards sexuality conflicting with cultural norms.
On parents declaring they only want the best for their children:
Parents usually think of them as acting "in the best of interest of our child". Of course prohibiting something can well be in a child's wider interest. But at the same time, all kinds of repressive and abusive treatments of children are given the same (self-)justification. It's simply the go-to self-image for any kind of parenting.
So in the end, declared intention means little; it's a matter of assessing what objectively happens between parents and their children. And I can't imagine a situation where treating the sexuality of a child as undesirable can ever be in the child's interest.
On the Saudi Arabia example:
The Saudi Arabia example was supposed to provide a counter-argument to the standpoint that the explicit wish for a heterosexual child is essentially anti-gay. It was supposed to paint an example of liberal and non-prejudiced parents forced into the wish not to have a gay child by their environment.
I don't think that argument works for a number of reasons:
1. This thread is about the situation in the UK. A hypothetical family in Saudi Arabia is no convincing argument for judging a certain stance in the very different social environment of the UK (or similar places).
2. I'd be surprised if the percentage of closet liberals among those Saudis who don't want a gay child is more than miniscule. It seems like a far-fetched example.
3. Even if one accepts the possibility of a situation where the distress over universal homophobia justifies the wish not to have a gay child, what I wrote further up still applies: No matter the subjective intentions, these parents objectively reinforce the exclusion by the surrounding culture, and convey the pressure onto their children.
I also still think the Alabama example provides a good analogy to the Saudi Arabia example.
There's a misconception that describing something as homophobic means to automatically denounce the criticized person as a textbook homophobe, a raging gay hater, or suchlike. But hostility and discrimination against LGBT people is a matter of culture, which is always more than just a matter of individual attitudes.
People may take part in this culture out of very different personal motives; And in some cases the reason might not involve a primary resentment against LGBT people, but rather carelessness, ignorance, or conformism. (Which should not hide the fact that pathological aggression and violence exists plenty.)
All of this has often been spelled out for racism and misogyny in Caf discussions, and it's true here as well.
That said, I do believe a deep-seated fear and mistrust of "deviant" sexual activities and identities lies at the heart of this cultural phenomenon. I think the majority of those who actively contribute to it will share this perception of a threat to some degree. Some of what's been written in this thread is a good illustration.
On the implicit notion that the preference of a heterosexual child is harmless, and can be easily replaced by acceptance in case the child turns out differently:
Humans often develop/discover/accept/declare their adult sexual preferences in their teens, or even as late as adulthood. That means we may talk of a solid 15-20 years or more of parents preferring a heterosexual child before their hope is ultimately disappointed.
I think it's very unlikely that this attitude of the parents towards their child remains undetected in the close vicinity of a family. And I'm sure this awareness of one's parents attitude towards oneself will usually be disastrous for a gay child. It will also be an influencing factor on heterosexual children in their attitudes towards sexuality conflicting with cultural norms.
On parents declaring they only want the best for their children:
Parents usually think of them as acting "in the best of interest of our child". Of course prohibiting something can well be in a child's wider interest. But at the same time, all kinds of repressive and abusive treatments of children are given the same (self-)justification. It's simply the go-to self-image for any kind of parenting.
So in the end, declared intention means little; it's a matter of assessing what objectively happens between parents and their children. And I can't imagine a situation where treating the sexuality of a child as undesirable can ever be in the child's interest.
On the Saudi Arabia example:
The Saudi Arabia example was supposed to provide a counter-argument to the standpoint that the explicit wish for a heterosexual child is essentially anti-gay. It was supposed to paint an example of liberal and non-prejudiced parents forced into the wish not to have a gay child by their environment.
I don't think that argument works for a number of reasons:
1. This thread is about the situation in the UK. A hypothetical family in Saudi Arabia is no convincing argument for judging a certain stance in the very different social environment of the UK (or similar places).
2. I'd be surprised if the percentage of closet liberals among those Saudis who don't want a gay child is more than miniscule. It seems like a far-fetched example.
3. Even if one accepts the possibility of a situation where the distress over universal homophobia justifies the wish not to have a gay child, what I wrote further up still applies: No matter the subjective intentions, these parents objectively reinforce the exclusion by the surrounding culture, and convey the pressure onto their children.
I also still think the Alabama example provides a good analogy to the Saudi Arabia example.