Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

reply to post by dontreally

A lot of interesting religious undertones and symbolism for one who claims to support the natural aspect over the moral aspect of the question.

You didn't hurt my feelings.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

And FFS's, let kids be kids, they'll discover their sexuality when they are ready.

It's not about sexuality. It's about discouraging bullying of gays.

reply to post by Phage

A lot of interesting religious undertones and symbolism for one who claims to support the natural aspect over the moral aspect of the question.

I merely mentioned the natural aspect.

In any case, its a moral question.

What are my 'interesting religious undertones and symbolism"? I didn't mention any. I'm speaking in purely political terms.

Are you against a pluralistic society? Or are you for, as another poster mentioned, a "nanny state" which enforces it's agenda upon the masses?

I'm for pluralism. I have no 'agenda' against gays. I merely wish schools would stick to the traditional curriculum. And if the question of sexuality comes up, it is not a prejudice, by any means, to see male-female copulation as out of the norm, since it is so obviously implied in natures dynamics. It's merely extending what is implied.


You, on the other hand, clearly have an agenda. Which is why I'm hurting your feelings.

reply to post by Phage


So you agree with this legislation? I may have overlooked what your views are here.

If I think "I consider homosexuality to be contrary to natural law", you consider that 'bulllying'?

Btw, how am I to trust your presentation of the "facts" when you boldly quote Mark Twain "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. "???

reply to post by Phage

Where did that come from? It sounds like you're saying they want us to turn gay. "Agree with their sexual preferences"? All they want is to not be treated differently because of their sexual preferences.

No..that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that they want to teach our kids what is morally ok and considered "natural" in sexuality, and many have opposing views on that, so it really isn't up to the public educational system to do that.

Where does the line get drawn, on "sexual preferences"..and who in the educational system gets to decide next what will be considered as perfectly normal, and ok...and should not be treated any differently than what some may consider the norm now.

This whole issue goes way beyond the gay issue and who has the rights to teach what is normal and what is different, and basically boils down to personal moral beliefs.

reply to post by dontreally


That professor Rotkin offically teaches courses in Marxism. It's not just a fluke.

reply to post by dontreally

Are you against a pluralistic society? Or are you for, as another poster mentioned, a "nanny state" which enforces it's agenda upon the masses?

No. But I also know that peer pressure is very strong in a school environment and that bullying based on prejudicial thinking is part of it.

I merely wish schools would stick to the traditional curriculum.

Even in a greatly changed world schools should do the same things they've always done. Even with children suiciding because of pressures applied by peers, schools should do nothing about addressing those pressures.

And if the question of sexuality comes up, it is not a prejudice, by any means, to see male-female copulation as out of the norm, since it is so obviously implied in natures dynamics.

It is, as you say, obvious that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. It would be absurd to claim otherwise.

You, on the other hand, clearly have an agenda. Which is why I'm hurting your feelings.

No. I just respect people unless they give me reason not to. Their sexual orientation does not factor into it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

And FFS's, let kids be kids, they'll discover their sexuality when they are ready.

It's not about sexuality. It's about discouraging bullying of gays.

And what about the bullying of so called "sluts" for their sexual behavior ?

What about the kids who bully other kids because they believe in fairy tales and go to church on Sunday.

What if these kids that go to church don't bully others, but do make it known that they think some sexual preferences are not in line with what they believe God wants ? Do they get protection from being bullied for their personal beliefs ?

If you are trying to discourage bullying in school, better make it all across the board, because I see a lot of bullying going on towards children who's families are religious.

reply to post by dontreally

So you agree with this legislation? I may have overlooked what your views are here.

What legislation? I don't see any law involving this.

If I think "I consider homosexuality to be contrary to natural law", you consider that 'bulllying'?

No. I consider kids harassing other kids because they are gay to be bullying.

Btw, how am I to trust your presentation of the "facts" when you boldly quote Mark Twain "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. "???

By finding the facts on your own. That's the point, but I thought that would be obvious.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

And what about the bullying of so called "sluts" for their sexual behavior ?

That's bad. But so is being a slut in school.

What about the kids who bully other kids because they believe in fairy tales and go to church on Sunday.

Bad.

Do they get protection from being bullied for their personal beliefs ?

I would hope so.

If you are trying to discourage bullying in school, better make it all across the board, because I see a lot of bullying going on towards children who's families are religious.

I'm pretty sure that's the idea behind the program. It's just that the gay aspect seems to have taken the front row.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Interesting.. There's a basic metaphysical confluence between Marxism (or socialism) and Moral Relativism.

Others have already pointed out the flaws in your statements about it not being "normal".
i completely disagree as in the animal kingdom IE other NATURAL things it also exists.
hence looking at natural things leads one to the conclusion that indeed yes it is normal
to practice different types of sexuality.

while i understand that you say your ok with it obviously your not because as we have
seen so many many times in the past your pushing the agenda of protecting the children
from an idea you simply disagree with because you dont think its natural or normal.
our children only need the truth, yes some people choose to do that, other people
disagree with it but they could also be wrong..... it really is that simple.

reply to post by Phage


So to combat suicide you feel the schools should be focusing the kids more and more on suicide and give them questionaires and assignments on suicide and morbid things like how would they do and how do they feel about it and so on? Yep that's values clarification and it is a Progressive agenda to socialize the children into their mold of what they think society should be.
Same thing with the gay agenda, to stop bullying they are focusing the children more and more on it. Yep values clarification.
The real agenda is to destroy the bedrock of traditonal mores and values and the family unit. It was Marx's dream to destroy the bourgeois family and he said it in his Communist Manifesto.

Here is an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists.

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.

The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime.

But, you say, we abolish the closest relationships, by putting social education in place of the domestic one.

fathersforlife.org...


Note the intent to replace education by parents with that of the State.

reply to post by Phage

No. But I also know that peer pressure is very strong in a school environment and that bullying based on prejudicial thinking is part of it.

What age group are you referring to? For example, would you like to see 'dating' in lets say, between male or female students in grade 3 or 4, upwards? And, the "bullying" you worry over, is based on a prejudice of other kids who most likely accept the views of their parents??

I don't see why the majority - 97% of the population is heterosexual - has to accommodate the minority, by sacrificing some of it's most core and basic beliefs.

It's either you are for plurality, and thus have the humility to admit differences in belief, or you are a statist who would like to see the state shape everyone elses views.

If you have a homosexual child, surely, schools can be set up to accommodate them.

Even in a greatly changed world schools should do the same things they've always done

In this one matter. I didn't say all around.

reply to post by Phage

What legislation? I don't see any law involving this.

I used the word very loosely in the sense of 'doctrine'. Although, again, you caught me.

Anyways, do you agree with it?

reply to post by Phage

That's bad. But so is being a slut in school.

So let me see now.its ok to be gay, but its not ok to be a gay slut? Who has the right to judge that now ? Someone who is oppressing sexual freedom ? (just making the argument) Its not ok to be a slut in school in whatever gender you prefer, but once you are an adult, I don't care what you do?

I'm pretty sure that's the idea behind the program. It's just that the gay aspect seems to have taken the front row.

That is where the confusion lays. If you can't bully someone for their own personal beliefs, you can't bully or "teach" them into accepting that being gay is as natural and no different than heterosexuality, when their religions say differently.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It's so difficult not to hate Karl Marx.

I've made the same argument myself. Others have as well.

Marxism is universalist, and rejects a capitalist system which rewards merit and hard work. Moral relativism is universal in it's rejection of any particular objective moral. Family units are 'particularities' within the larger social fabric, and as such, serves to 'differentiate' and 'separate' groups of people. Nationality is also a big no no for Marxists, because it 'creates' division. And even love - love too is only meaningful when it's for some particular. So they want to strip us of anything meaningful, because particularism makes life meaningful.

There's not a single human being that doesn't love his mother and father more than someone elses mother and father. What does Marxist want? Universal love? Please, prey tell, WTF does that mean?

Originally posted by Mcfrazer

So its ok for you to attack people beliefs but not OK for others to simply have different beliefs...

Originally posted by Nite_wing
In my local community, it is not "socially" acceptable. However in certain parts of town heterosexuals are considered abnormal. You can usually tell which part of town you are in by the asses hanging out of butt chaps.
Do they sell butt chaps in Oz?

Is your local community 1930's Germany?

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I have been thinking about this topic for a couple of hours now.
I think I am tired of being tolerant of all sorts of behavior.
I am tired of not being able to speak my mind without being called a bigot, racist, homophobe and many other things.

Hitler claimed he was not a bigot either, just loved his country...

No. I do not live in 1930 Germany. Do a lot of people in your country wear chaps with their ass hanging out in front of kids? I guess if enough people do it, it becomes "socially acceptable?"

Just because I don't want kids to see homosexuals flashing their ass on the street doesn't really make me a bigot does it? (See San Francisco. See Disney on Gay Day,) You are now attacking me on my beliefs. What does that make you? A priest? (Oops. Shouldn't have said that.)

The whole issue here is that the gay agenda is being pushed as acceptable. Why is that? Is there vigorous open affection going on in the streets in OZ among the LGBT community? Is there the same kind of behavior displayed openly by heterosexuals? Is everything supposed to be acceptable and we are all supposed to be the sheeple and ignore it? Are you getting ready to start pushing NAMBLA now? Is that going to be socially acceptable? There is an agenda here; to make LGBT seem as socially acceptable. Hell, vigorous open displays of affection are not socially acceptable among heteros.

I am not saying that there isn't homosexual attraction in the world. It just doesn't have to be put on the streets and in schools to indoctrinate young children. I believe in Germany, there was indoctrination of children against Jews if you want to get into history.

Admit it for a change. Gays feel "different" and they want everybody else to sympathyze with them. Sorry. You be you and I will be me. I don't push my guns and bible against you. Don't push your crotch against me and tell me it's a banana.

Sex is a private action between people. There are social mores which have worked around the world for a long time. You wish to change it because you want sympathy? Ain't gonna get it here.