Labor party and gay marriage

Most British people are liberal pansies

At least here

Be as liberal as you can but do NOT try to force your life style on children in schools, in communities arond you and in the whole nation . Gays are supported by a blind and deceiving media , by corrupt politicians and by blind public that just follows the tv set.....:rolleyes: .
 
Be as liberal as you can but do NOT try to force your life style on children in schools, in communities arond you and in the whole nation . Gays are supported by a blind and deceiving media , by corrupt politicians and by blind public that just follows the tv set..... .

I don't care if people are gay. In my opinion the government ought to laissez-faire
 
Be as liberal as you can but do NOT try to force your life style on children in schools, in communities arond you and in the whole nation . Gays are supported by a blind and deceiving media , by corrupt politicians and by blind public that just follows the tv set.....:rolleyes: .

Lessons about gays will be compulsory from age of 11
By Sarah Harris
Last updated at 12:21 AM on 28th April 2009
Comments (29) Add to My Stories Pupils as young as 11 will be taught about homosexuality and civil partnerships in compulsory sex education classes.

All secondary schools - including faith schools - will have to teach children about same-sex relationships as well as traditional families.

Previously, heads could decide to opt out of teaching the controversial subject.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173919/Lessons-gays-compulsory-age-11.html#ixzz0MxiOVWE8

=================

from the age of 11!!! jesus let these kids grow up before you teach them about same sex relationships. kids are being forced to accept a way of life which may or may not be harmful to them. children need to have a life before they know how do homosexuals have sex
 
Exactly.

I'm all for gay rights, but I don't understand why they like to prance around in their parades, take over the media, and butt in everywhere. Just 'cause I will tolerate them doesn't mean I approve of them. They're taking it too far, in my opinion. They should be happy with marriage, we don't have to even give them that.
 
Personal, social and health education classes are due to become part of the compulsory national curriculum in primary and secondary schools from September 2011.
Family and faith groups yesterday condemned the proposals.

From the first year in primary school, four and five-year-old children will learn about different body parts, with lessons about sex from the age of nine.

At Key Stage Three (ages 11 to 14), pupils will learn about contraception, pregnancy, sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.

Schools will also have to teach about ' different types of relationships, including those within families and between older and young people, boys and girls and people of the same sex, including civil partnerships'.

At Key Stage Four (ages 14-16), they will continue to learn about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases and same-sex relationships.

Enlarge

Guidance, which is due to become statutory, states: 'Students should address the role and benefits of marriage and civil partnerships in stable relationships and family life.'

Schools will also have a new duty to give pupils a financial education, teaching them about subjects such as the credit crunch and how to handle their finances in later life.

In addition, they will have to cover the dangers of alcohol and drugs.

Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, said that 'pressing the virtues of homosexuality' could lead to more experimentation, which could be 'harmful' to children.

He said: 'What we don't want to see is vulnerable young people being exploited by outside groups which want to normalise homosexuality.

'If this guidance purports to force faith schools to teach things which go against their faith then it is profoundly illiberal and must be resisted at all costs.'

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: 'Making PSHE a statutory part of the national curriculum could be used as a vehicle to promote positive images of homosexual relationships.

'It is difficult to see how teaching children as young as 11 about same-sex relationships and civil partnerships fits in with a study of personal wellbeing, and many parents will be very concerned about the prospect of such lessons being imposed over their heads.'

Under current rules, schoolchildren must be taught the biological facts of reproduction, which usually happens in science classes.

Every school must have a sex education policy, but there is no statutory requirement for teaching about relationships and the social and emotional side of sex.

The Government backed the move to a statutory PSHE curriculum last October and asked Sir Alasdair Macdonald, head of Morpeth School, in Tower Hamlets, East London, to report on its implementation.

His independent review yesterday recommended allowing parents to retain the right to withdraw their children from sex education classes.

Governing bodies will also be able to tailor the statutory curriculum around their ethos, for example Catholic faith schools could teach about contraception but say that its use runs contrary to their religious beliefs.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls said he would legislate to put the recommendations into effect, subject to a four-month consultation. He would keep the right of parents to withdraw their children under review.

He said: 'Compulsory PSHE will mean consistency and quality, so all children can benefit.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173919/Lessons-gays-compulsory-age-11.html#ixzz0MxjKICVG
 
Laissy_faire and laissez_faire indeed but laissez_faire what is good for the nation and NOT what destroys the people ....:) .

can you not understand what me and norse are saying here? we are not against homosexuals in any way, i am against the fact that it is taught has a perfect way of life.
 
what most grinds me is the fact that our children are taught in schools that homosexuality is a perfectly normal way to live, when in fact children should be allowed to judge for themselves what is right for them, personally i have a bi sexual son and that doesnt bother me, its the fact that schools are promoting it has a good way of life
I don't think that schools are promoting homosexuality. But they are presenting information about all ways of life in an unbiased manner. Children will form their own opinions based on the information they are given, so why be dishonest with them, or hide things from them?

If they are not shown things from an unbiased source, then maybe they'll form their opinions based on information the received from bigots.

right ok....marriage in the eyes of most churches (apart from the quakers) is for hetroseuxal couples, i dont think they should be able to adopt because (i may be old fashioned here) children need a mother and a father, not two dads or two mums, and it is (normally) better fro children to be born into a relationship with a mum and dad
What makes you think that churches have things right? A lot of their ideas are based on what was considered 'right' or 'wrong' several centuries ago. Don't you think a modern, educated approach is more reasonable?

Why do children need a mother and father to be balanced and happy? Do you have research results that show that children raised by homosexual couples have psychological problems later in life? Or that they perform poorly in school?

I asked what procreation has to do with marriage. Many people marry and don't have children. Likewise, many people have children but don't marry. Why are the two connected?
 
I don't think that schools are promoting homosexuality. But they are presenting information about all ways of life in an unbiased manner. Children will form their own opinions based on the information they are given, so why be dishonest with them, or hide things from them?

If they are not shown things from an unbiased source, then maybe they'll form their opinions based on information the received from bigots.


What makes you think that churches have things right? A lot of their ideas are based on what was considered 'right' or 'wrong' several centuries ago. Don't you think a modern, educated approach is more reasonable?

Why do children need a mother and father to be balanced and happy? Do you have research results that show that children raised by homosexual couples have psychological problems later in life? Or that they perform poorly in school?

I asked what procreation has to do with marriage. Many people marry and don't have children. Likewise, many people have children but don't marry. Why are the two connected?

do you have children of school age? i do...and i know that schools promote homosexualty has a way of life, (see the above info that i posted)

Children do NEED a mum and dad, to be balanced,
 
People aren't bigots just 'cause they don't go accepting everything. Being open minded means entertaining other ideas, not automatically accepting them.

Also, there's plenty of 'educated' people that don't approve of homosexuality. I know it is natural, I simply don't approve of it (although I am tolerant of it)
 
Sorry, but what cannot happen naturally, should not be allowed to happen at all. It's unfair on the child. No matter how loving and caring the parents may be, that child will have to face people outside the home
 
i found this and i agree with it:

No, homosexual couples should not be able to adopt. We need to base public policy on facts, not on liberal prejudices in favour of homosexuality. We must not allow adoption at any price. Government figures (and common sense) show that the married family is overwhelmingly more stable than any other setting. Cohabitation is notoriously unstable (after all, unmarried heterosexuals have deliberately decided NOT to commit themselves to each other). Homosexual relationships are even more unstable. I don't know personally of one homosexual relationship that has lasted more than about two years. Homosexual people are entitled to make their own moral mistakes, but they are not entitled to insist everyone else approve and they are certainly not entitled to insist that children be used as guinea pigs in a gay rights social engineering experiment .
 
do you have children of school age? i do...and i know that schools promote homosexualty has a way of life, (see the above info that i posted)

Children do NEED a mum and dad, to be balanced,
No, I do not have children. But I promote education above all else, and will encourage my children to learn about everything as completely as they can. I will help them understand what they don't, and I will answer all questions. I am not religious, but if they decided that following God was their true path in life, I would help them reach those goals.

Reading what you posted above, it does not appear that schools are saying that homosexuality is the perfect way of life. They are merely presenting it as an option. It happens, so why hide it?

People aren't bigots just 'cause they don't go accepting everything. Being open minded means entertaining other ideas, not automatically accepting them.

Also, there's plenty of 'educated' people that don't approve of homosexuality. I know it is natural, I simply don't approve of it (although I am tolerant of it)
That's not what I said, Norsefire. But, it is possible that information can be picked up from a negatively biased source, which could create a negative bias in the person who doesn't know any better. Having all the details is the only way for children to really form a fair opinion.

Sorry, but what cannot happen naturally, should not be allowed to happen at all. It's unfair on the child. No matter how loving and caring the parents may be, that child will have to face people outside the home
So, heterosexual parents that are unable to reproduce shouldn't be allowed to adopt either?
 
That's not what I said, Norsefire. But, it is possible that information can be picked up from a negatively biased source, which could create a negative bias in the person who doesn't know any better. Having all the details is the only way for children to really form a fair opinion.
How do we know government will be an 'unbiased' source? The lib'rals will be prejudiced for it, just like the people against it.
 
i found this and i agree with it:

No, homosexual couples should not be able to adopt. We need to base public policy on facts, not on liberal prejudices in favour of homosexuality. We must not allow adoption at any price. Government figures (and common sense) show that the married family is overwhelmingly more stable than any other setting. Cohabitation is notoriously unstable (after all, unmarried heterosexuals have deliberately decided NOT to commit themselves to each other). Homosexual relationships are even more unstable. I don't know personally of one homosexual relationship that has lasted more than about two years. Homosexual people are entitled to make their own moral mistakes, but they are not entitled to insist everyone else approve and they are certainly not entitled to insist that children be used as guinea pigs in a gay rights social engineering experiment .
You're just a walking contradiction, aren't you?
 
How do we know government will be an 'unbiased' source? The lib'rals will be prejudiced for it, just like the people against it.
Telling children that it happens, and that two people of the same sex can be happy with one another is not biased towards homosexuality. Those situations do happen, whether you like it or not. It's just being honest.
 
Back
Top