Panorama Tonight - The Teaching of LGBT in Schools

My opinions differ from yours.
That doesnt mean yours are more valid than yours, you're too close to the coalface to be objective.
It just means our opinions differ.
It is allowed, you know.
Almost every Parent I've ever known has one mission in life and that is to have happy and content children. Anything which seemingly threatens that peace, will result in hostility and this subject is incendiary, because so many people seem to think they know what is best for other peoples children. I am certain on another subject where I wished to interfere in other peoples lives, they would quite rightly result in a sharp exhale and a 'Jog ON'.

We live in weird times and for once TM is right when she talks about the inability to debate anymore and respect another opinion and maybe compromise a little to find a peaceful and harmonious path where all pull together.
 
My opinions differ from yours.
That doesn't mean yours are more valid than yours, you're too close to the coalface to be objective.
First, I suspect you meant "yours are more valid than mine". Second, how does actually working in a school mean I cannot be objective about LGBT education in a school? By that metric, Nobel prize winners are too close to the coalface to determine who should win a Nobel prize.

Just for reference, I'm a straight white British bloke in his 30s. I think I can manage objectivity pretty well; certainly better than you manage to be patronising.

It just means our opinions differ.
It is allowed, you know.
Right, which of these opinions did you disagree with since you quoted the whole post:

As I pointed out right at the start of the thread, chances are a majority of those 9 and 10 year olds have a mobile phone. They will almost certainly have a friend that has a phone. ?

They will know about homosexual relationships from the news and constant online slanging matches. ?

The choice is not do you have those children finding out about gay couples or not. ?

The choice is do you explain homosexual relationships in a sensible and age-appropriate way in schools or leave it to the internet and word-of-mouth? ?

I'm quite happy to discuss the issue and have a rational argument about where we disagree.
 
So you weren't RSigs then?
Don't tell that Badger Heed chap but I'm actually one of those never served stinking civvy cnuts.

I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to ask actually.
 
First, I suspect you meant "yours are more valid than mine". Second, how does actually working in a school mean I cannot be objective about LGBT education in a school? By that metric, Nobel prize winners are too close to the coalface to determine who should win a Nobel prize.

Just for reference, I'm a straight white British bloke in his 30s. I think I can manage objectivity pretty well; certainly better than you manage to be patronising.


Right, which of these opinions did you disagree with since you quoted the whole post:

As I pointed out right at the start of the thread, chances are a majority of those 9 and 10 year olds have a mobile phone. They will almost certainly have a friend that has a phone. ?

They will know about homosexual relationships from the news and constant online slanging matches. ?

The choice is not do you have those children finding out about gay couples or not. ?

The choice is do you explain homosexual relationships in a sensible and age-appropriate way in schools or leave it to the internet and word-of-mouth? ?

I'm quite happy to discuss the issue and have a rational argument about where we disagree.
Have you heard of attachment theory ? why do you think that your opinions should be given more weight than a parent, who has brought up a child and doesn't clock off from caring at 4pm.

If a child is given two views, will you respect the child's view or wish to challenge that opinion ?
 
Not heterosexual couples - just Shelley types.
I just want to be clear about this.

If married couple A use IVF to get a woman pregnant, have a child and care for that child as loving parents that's OK.

If married couple B use IVF to get a woman pregnant, have a child and care for that child as loving parents that's bad.

The only difference between said couples is couple A have different genitals and couple B have the same genitals. That means couple A have a normal baby and couple B have a 'test tube baby'. Do you genuinely believe that?
 
Have you heard of attachment theory ?
Yes, why?

why do you think that your opinions should be given more weight than a parent, who has brought up a child and doesn't clock off from caring at 4pm.
Where did I say that?

If a child is given two views, will you respect the child's view or wish to challenge that opinion ?
Generally speaking I always challenge children's opinions, it's one of the best ways of making them learn.
 
I think you know what I mean.
A friend of mine set up a Ltd Co, NWA Ltd... I asked him if he'd heard of Compton's finest he hadn't...
Dumb hoe says something stupid that made me mad
She said somethin' that I couldn't believe
So I grabbed the stupid bitch by her nappy ass weave
She started talkin' shit, wouldn't you know?
Reached back like a pimp and slapped the hoe
 
I just want to be clear about this.

If married couple A use IVF to get a woman pregnant, have a child and care for that child as loving parents that's OK.

If married couple B use IVF to get a woman pregnant, have a child and care for that child as loving parents that's bad.
You mean it's like Good Aids vs Bad Aids?
 
'Primary attachment' - hilarious. Incidentally, there aren't a 'myriad of family groups' nowadays. There are proper families, consisting of both natural parents (male and female) or a single natural parent (male or female). The remainder are, in the main, a collection of the mentally ill and assorted freaks.
Are you in one of those "proper" families @Roti?
 
Almost every Parent I've ever known has one mission in life and that is to have happy and content children. Anything which seemingly threatens that peace, will result in hostility and this subject is incendiary, because so many people seem to think they know what is best for other peoples children. I am certain on another subject where I wished to interfere in other peoples lives, they would quite rightly result in a sharp exhale and a 'Jog ON'.

We live in weird times and for once TM is right when she talks about the inability to debate anymore and respect another opinion and maybe compromise a little to find a peaceful and harmonious path where all pull together.
That’s interesting. Most of the adults I have met since I became an adult ( in fact, when I was a kid) do not always put their child first. Disclaimer: I don’t have kids. I can barely look after myself.
Most people are the stupid, selfish people they always were. And some have kids. An outrage starts, then the parents kick off with ill-informed, hateful opinions. Which then get passed on to the children.
Otherwise we would be living in Utopia, right?
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
First, I suspect you meant "yours are more valid than mine". Second, how does actually working in a school mean I cannot be objective about LGBT education in a school? By that metric, Nobel prize winners are too close to the coalface to determine who should win a Nobel prize.

Just for reference, I'm a straight white British bloke in his 30s. I think I can manage objectivity pretty well; certainly better than you manage to be patronising.


Right, which of these opinions did you disagree with since you quoted the whole post:

As I pointed out right at the start of the thread, chances are a majority of those 9 and 10 year olds have a mobile phone. They will almost certainly have a friend that has a phone. ?

They will know about homosexual relationships from the news and constant online slanging matches. ?

The choice is not do you have those children finding out about gay couples or not. ?

The choice is do you explain homosexual relationships in a sensible and age-appropriate way in schools or leave it to the internet and word-of-mouth? ?

I'm quite happy to discuss the issue and have a rational argument about where we disagree.
Xhamster.... The lucky little bastards...
 
Yes, because it's not possible. Two women cannot make a child. It's quite simple and has been the law of nature since the beginning of time. But now, all of a sudden we have to be forced to accept it so as not to upset a minority fringe group. Well, sorry, I'm not buying it. But don't worry, eventually people like me will die off and then humanity can convince itself that black is white.
Can you do me a favour and post a link to some approved source that categorically states mother = woman who gives birth to a child and there is no other meaning.

Only you seem to have convinced yourself that that is what the word mother means and I don't think it does.
 
A turkey baster is irrelevant without sperm to go into it - until sperm can be produced in a lab and eggs can be synthetically manufactured - you still need a male and a female to produce the raw ingredients to make another human. Evolution generally wins - but AI/global warming etc, will probably kill us all off before we need to worry to much about the future of humanity.
They were working on that 11 years ago, not heard much since.
Sperm cells created from female embryo
 
This woman, that decided she's a man, then decided to get pregnant and doesn't want to be listed as the mum, but the dad on the birth certificate...

How do you explain this to a kid?
Im going with "your primary carer whilst doubtless having many sterling qualities is an attention seeking tosspot "
 
My bold. Thank you. Can you also admit that two mothers is an absurdity? I've never said that two women or other genders cannot fulfill a parenting role. I maybe arguing semantics, but it's the thin end of the wedge (for god's sake don't bring Wedge into this) and I've been pushed too far. As has already been said by others, a child is produced by introducing the sperm from a man to the eggs of a women. That's it. Any variation on this theme is not possible without the former. So to teach anything else to children is at best patronising, and at worst misinformation.




Ta. I just fixed my plumbing, no, that's not a euphemism, and have opened a bottle of red. Hope to do so.
What about surrogacy - one gives birth to the other woman's baby?

Thing is, your correctitudinousness requires the narrowest of definitions for 'mother'.

Given your definition though, I pronounce you the rightest of right.
 
Calling someone a poof really is not the same as calling them n*gger.
Attempting to equate the two does the gay rights movement no favours at all.
Why not -

Both are pejorative terms aimed at something that's beyond the individuals control and both now have serious negative connotations

Ok perhaps the N word is a bit strong but what a bout the milder racist terms such as Paki or Coon -

Yes sorry mods but I think the usage is necassery
 
Yes, why?


Where did I say that?


Generally speaking I always challenge children's opinions, it's one of the best ways of making them learn.
Attachment theory would suggest the children look to attachments, when confused, or in difficulty and whatever your trying to sell will never work, especially at primary level, unless a child happens to hail from a dysfunctional family and as such, they may or may not pass that attachment on to others including teachers.

You said it yourself, you always want to challenge children's opinions, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't turn it into a 'my way or the highway' conversation. But in reality what you are really doing is challenging their parents opinions.

If the subject is not science, maths or whatever. Why as a teacher do you feel that desire and who appointed you judge, jury and arbiter of what is or isn't right ?
 

Latest Threads

Top