Saturday, 26 January 2013

Teachers will be sacked and children will be indoctrinated with gay rights propaganda if same sex marriage bill goes through

The Daily Telegraph carried a front-page story this week saying that the Government is ‘powerless’ to stop teachers getting sacked if they refuse to endorse same-sex marriage.

It quotes a senior source at the Department for Education admitting that the UK is not ‘in control’ and that European judges will have the final say.

We knew that teachers were under threat, but now we know the Government secretly thinks so too.

The Coalition for Marriage (C4M) recently published a legal opinion from leading QC Aidan O’Neill (summary here) confirming that one of the major impacts of David Cameron’s new law allowing same sex marriage would be in the classroom.

It says that the law will require that children learn about gay marriage in sex education lessons.

This is because Section 403(1A)(a) of the Education Act 1996 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State ‘to issue guidance’ ensuring that pupils ‘learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’.

If gay marriage becomes law then ‘its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’ must be taught as part of sex education.

In addition, if gay marriage is taught within schools outside sex education, Mr O’Neill says that parents would have ‘little prospects of success’ in claiming a legal right to withdraw children from such lessons.

The Coalition for Marriage has now published a new report giving details of exactly the sort of material our children will be reading.

Gay Rights Activist group Stonewall has already produced a recommended reading list for primary and secondary schools aimed at normalising lesbian and gay families.

Titles include ‘King and King’, ‘Mom and Mum are getting married’, ‘Daddy, Papa and Me’, ‘Daddy’s roommate’, ‘Josh and Jaz have three mums’ and ‘Mommy, mama and me’.

Countering stigma for vulnerable children is one thing, but attempting to engineer and reshape children’s values and worldviews is quite another altogether.

A teacher training guide, also produced by Stonewall, suggests that primary school children could perform some of the storybooks as school plays.

An accompanying teacher training DVD produced by Stonewall, with support from the taxpayer-funded Training and Development Agency for Schools, suggests that pupils must become ‘resilient’ to the values of their parents and grandparents.

This is in reference to some parents and grandparents who may have objections to issues such as gay marriage.

In 2009, Muslim and Christian parents in Waltham Forest, East London, were threatened with prosecution for withdrawing their children from primary schools lessons that used the gay marriage story book, ‘King & King’. The council said the withdrawals were ‘unauthorised’ absences and that action would be taken against the parents.

The legal and political pressure to use these books in classrooms will be all the greater if marriage gets redefined. Culture wars about the meaning of marriage shouldn’t be dragged into our schools.

But some extreme local authority somewhere will try to do just that, and woe betide any teacher or parent who objects.

What we have learnt from two of the recent four European court cases involving Christians who lost their jobs for manifesting their faith is that under the Equality Act the right of Christian conscience is trumped by gay rights.

The Bill to redefine marriage was published on 25 January and MPs will vote on it for the first time on Tuesday 5 February.

I hope that these concerns will come up in debate and that MPs who back gay marriage will be around to hear them rather than just mindlessly filing through the ‘yes’ lobby in obedience to ‘unofficial whips’ when it is time to vote.

A national day of prayer has been called for on Sunday 3 February.

11 comments:

  1. May the Day of Prayer loose the Power of the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of Sin upon the MP's as they meet Feb. 5, in the name of the LORD Jesus Christ I pray, AMEN.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Countering stigma for vulnerable children is one thing, but attempting to engineer and reshape children’s values and worldviews is quite another altogether." --> This is exactly what religion does to children in the first place. It takes impressionable young minds and brainwashes them and twists them (i.e. "engineers and reshapes") to conform to religion's beliefs. The "values and worldviews" mentioned in this sentence is not the child's own, but those of his parents and other people who claim authority over him.

    What single tangible entity (notice I qualify "entity" as "tangible" lest you preach about "God" as I am sure you will) has the right to decide what another person should think? What person or group has the monopoly on deciding and imposing the values of everybody else, even those who do not share the same beliefs?

    Let the child grow up with a fair understanding of ALL beliefs and allow him/her to form his/her own values and worldviews. This is what the law is doing because the law is devoid of any religious beliefs, unlike one's parents and other figures of authority.

    When most children decide that homosexuality is wrong (and I highly doubt that that would happen if they were raised objectively), only then should you complain.

    If your God was truly a fair and loving God, I doubt he would condone any bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Nnonsense. This is the first legitimate and reasonable argument against SSM that Peter has come up with.

      We are largely a heterosexual society - ergo the ethos in our schools (and elsewhere) should be heterosexual. That does not mean gay people don't have rights, it just means the prevalent culture should be heterosexual. Gay parenting is fine if there aren't enough hetero parents to go around (in cases of adoption, for instance), but in an ideal world, every child needs two parents of OPPOSITE sexes, in order to be a balanced human being.

      >> Let the child grow up with a fair understanding of ALL beliefs

      He will get this outside of school - our media is constantly bombarded with images and messages representing various minorty groups, including gays, so one can hardly hope to escape it.

      Speaking of "ALL" beliefs, why restrict it to gay marriage? Why not teach polygamy and polyandry as a valid option in our schools, as well? After all, there are cultures which practise these "beliefs" to this day.

      Shoving one's beliefs onto people that don't want them, is even more objectionalble than not teaching various alternate liefstyles in school.

      As for having authority over one's children, that's what a parent is FOR, matey - I shudder to think what a child growing up in your new age Utopia would end up as. Undisciplined, confused, and lacking direction - what one would call a "loser".

      Delete
    2. "it just means the prevalent culture should be heterosexual" --> I question the "should be" part. If you had said "are" then this would be a legitimate fact. Saying "should be" implies gays have no right to influence the culture.

      "We are largely a heterosexual society - ergo the ethos in our schools (and elsewhere) should be heterosexual." --> this is the same as saying "We are a largely Christian (or insert other religion here) society - ergo the ethos in our schools (and elsewhere) should be Christian."

      "Gay parenting is fine if there aren't enough hetero parents to go around (in cases of adoption, for instance)" --> then why is there an overabundance of orphanages and orphans in the world. You say this as if hetero couples are stepping up and giving these orphans a good life and as if gay couples are preventing them from doing so. But if one gay couple is willing to adopt one child and raise him/her in a good home, provide him/her good food, send him/her to a good school and make sure he/she knows he/she is loved where one hetero couple refuses to do so, then why the heck should anyone choose to deny the child that right? More than that, why should an organization who *cannot* and *will not* provide the same kind of life for the child be allowed to deny the child that right?

      "but in an ideal world, every child needs two parents of OPPOSITE sexes, in order to be a balanced human being" --> this is quite literally an argument against single parents which, as a child of a single parent, I find quite offensive. I'm very much balanced, thank you very much, and so are the millions of other children in the world who were brought up by a single parent.

      "He will get this outside of school - our media is constantly bombarded with images and messages representing various minorty groups..." --> I agree, but school is a LARGE influence in a child's life. Children have the tendency to assume that anything a teacher says is true, so if a teacher says "gays are disgusting and they should be treated as second-class citizens," that belief is taken to be true by the child and this thinking becomes the basis for homophobia. Couple that with the parents' teachings about homophobia, then you have yourself a gay-bashing believer.

      "Speaking of "ALL" beliefs, why restrict it to gay marriage? Why not teach polygamy and polyandry as a valid option in our schools, as well?" --> Why not? The only thing about polygamous marriages and societies, though, is that there's an underlying principle that women are second-class citizens compared to men. In my opinion, however, as long as the school can make children realize that none of the participants of the relationship should be undermined by another, as long as no person is HURT by another, people can do whatever the hell they want.

      Besides, my point is that schools should NOT influence children to be gay or to enter polyamorous relationships, but they should NOT discriminate against minorities, just because they go against the beliefs of the school's controlling group. This is why Muslims are getting flak for teaching their children that it is OK to hate Jews.

      Delete
    3. "As for having authority over one's children, that's what a parent is FOR, matey" --> I did not say that parents should NOT have authority over their children. What I said was that the line "attempting to engineer and reshape children’s values and worldviews is quite another altogether" is basically the pot calling the kettle black since these "values and worldviews" are not the children's own in the first place, but the parents'. But since it is unavoidable that the parents will have bias towards their own beliefs when teaching children these values and worldviews (e.g. a homophobic father would teach his son that it is acceptable to punch gays), it is the law's responsibility through laws and consequently, schools to balance this out.

      MY "new age utopia" would contain people with open and accepting minds, who have empathy and respect for everyone and who know right from wrong, NOT people who talk about loving your neighbor and then denying them the same human rights just because of who they choose to marry.

      Delete

    4. >> But if one gay couple is willing to adopt one child.... where one hetero couple refuses to do so, then why the heck should anyone choose to deny the child that right?

      WHO is denying the child that right? Certainly not me!

      Dunno what you're ranting about, mate.

      Btw, nice of you to assume I was raised by 2 parents - actually I was raised mostly by my father, as mum died when I was young. I would have preferred (shock horror) to have had a Mum AND Dad. Dad did a great job, but that doesn't mean it was the ideal. He knew it, we knew it. You can deny it all you like, but having a single parent OR two parents of the same gender is NOT the same as having a mum and dad.

      Ask any kid who's lost their mother or father.

      Delete

    5. Of COURSE children's worldviews are shaped by those around them - parents, teachers, etc. However, when they get to adulthood, children will often reject the teachings of their youth (e.g. religion).

      There is no need, whatsoever, to confuse them further by imposing homosexual teaching on top of everything else. Reality check - absence of homosexual teaching does not constitute homophobia. In my day, there was none of this PC nonsense, and no sex education - I managed just fine. Astonishingly, I knew how to make love without being taught, I knew that not every man was attracted to women in the way I was, etc. etc. I am a healthy adult male, and I have friends of all persuasions - hetero, homo, black, asian, jewish, blah blah. My own wife is from one of these "minorities" (not homosexual, obviously) which is always bleating on about "rights" and antagonising folk who might not otherwise be antagonised (I hasten to add that she herself is a most sensible woman and not one of the bleaters).

      Inflicting lessons about Mummy and Mama on helpless children ain't the way to go about getting rid of bigotry. I think you'll find that the inevitable fallout from this ludicrous exercise will be that parents will be venting their homophobia at home (in response to these lessons), and futher indoctrinating their children against gays.

      In short, the result will be the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. Something to think about, matey. Sometimes you win the battle and lose the war.

      Delete
  3. But we already have same sex CPs in the UK and if the schools wish to teach children about marriages then there is also an obligation on them to teach children about CPs anyway. Stonewall's books are how old? Are they in existence now or new books? What I'm saying is this is already around now, SSM has nothing to do with this material since we don't have SSM in the UK yet but we do have CPs and we do already have Stonewall's books!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm also concerned about where this is all going for Christian freedom. However, school is meant to hold a mirror up to society - like teaching that not everybody lives in the 'nuclear family', that in some families mum pays the bills and dad does the cooking, that in some communities extended family is important. Having grown up under section 28, I can tell you how confusing and painful it all was. My friends were 'coming out' and I didn't even know what that was. Rumours went round that 2 of our female teachers were living together, but they couldn't be open about it. A very good friend cut off all contact after school having not been able to trust any of us enough to 'come out'. It's only now I realise how much sweeping under the carpet there was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A funny story coming out of all the confusion. I once spent a summer camp pretending to be the girlfriend of a gay guy. I was his cover so that the boys wouldn't realise he was gay. He was my cover so that I wouldn't have to explain that I was a Christian and therefore not available for sex. Seemed to make perfect sense at the time. We'd no idea we were supposed to be mortal enemies!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've been observing changes in sex education in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. LGBT- organisations in these countries are not only promoting sex education which represents homosexuality and same-sex marriage in a positive way, but offer guidelines for teachers which represent an expansion of sex education far beyond what has been up and till now considered appropriate, specifically confronting school children from the age of six, or even younger, with homosexuality on the cognitive and emotional and limited physical level. Educational politicians are being persuaded to introduce this kind of sex education to children of age 6 or even earlier. In order to justify this, LGBT- organisations are advocating extreme theories of child sexuality. According to the guidelines they are directing towards primary school teachers:
    - children of age 6 and earlier have the capability of sexual arousal and experiences
    - infants are sexually aroused by their parents and may experience orgasms due to interaction with their parents
    - there is nothing wrong with encouraging and stimulating children's sexuality from a very early age. In fact it is desirable to do so.
    I've seen guidelines for schools and teachers recommending pantomime as a method of familiarizing children with sexuality, others containing explicit cartoon pictures of people having sex in various "positions", situations and locations (in my view cartoon-pornography for children). In a brochure ("Ganz schön intim") for teachers, officially approved by the Austrian education minister (social-democratic party, SPÖ), the authors suggest to teachers (and parents) that it is accepted knowledge that children are born with the capacity to become sexually aroused and experience orgasms in the interaction with grown-ups. It contains various recommended methods to confront children aged 6 onwards with sexuality. Example: Young children should try to figure out whether they would like, or would not like, to allow specific people to touch their testicles or labia. They should think this proposition through regarding their best female friend, best male friend, general friends, brother, sister, children they have never met before etc. and write down their answers.
    A guideline (Psychosexuelle Entwicklungsschritte, amorix.ch) published by the Hochschule Luzern and supported by the Swiss government's health agency informs teachers about the "psychosexual development" of their pupils. Allegedly children "discover that their sexual organs are a source of lust" and develop "erotic interest in their parents" at the age of 4 !!
    The problem is, that these guidelines are based on unproven theories of early childhood sexuality, but do not state this fact. Also, the classroom is not an appropriate environment to discuss or be confronted with subject matters concerning deeply private matters such as sexuality. The relationship between teacher and pupil rarely carries the kind of trust necessary to accommodate disclosure of various aspects of personal sexuality. This and pressures arising from typical social dynamics within a group of school children, could inflict damage to the psyche of children of the more sensitive type. The fact that children have a right to privacy concerning sexual matters, just as grown-ups do, is neglected in the above mentioned guidelines.
    I do have the impression, that certain LBGT-organizations are attempting to degrade society's attitude towards children in order to help establish certain "gay-rights" and even to assert a homosexual life-style onto children under the pretence of promoting anti-discrimination and equality, whereas the children's interests appear to be of no serious concern, let alone paramount concern.
    Stefan.

    ReplyDelete