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

reply to post by WhisperingWinds


Beautifully said, and I also don't want to "tread" on anyone in this thread or in life. I do appreciate and respect that Don't Tread Me allowed the thread to continue, and will do my best to honor the boundries she has set down.

LOL, I knew I should have avoided this thread, because this subject is so complicated...and when it comes to our kid's it is very "natural" to want to shield them from harm...and that is the heart of this discussion for most of us I believe, and again I understand and have considered everyone's opinions in this thread.

For the sake of further discussion in this post and some perspective of where my opinions come from....I grew up in CA, USA...very liberal, love each other environment...one of my dearest teenage friends, that is my friend to this day is gay...and I'm talking about one of my "core" friends...him and I spent hours playing chess and scrabble...and I gained alot of insight about his journey, he came out openly at about 17 or 18, and no one picked on him except his brother's...LOL....and they would die for each other.....

It was not my experience in life that gay kids were picked on by thier peers.. as much as he may have been "used and HURT" by older men when he ventured out to try and find a likeminded partner and lover as he got older, because, as we have established most people in our "reality" are straight......he did finally find Love and they were some of my first friends to drive up from LA to meet my daughter after she was born.....and yeah...they brought some of the cutest baby outfits you could imagine...

My concerns about the implications of teaching kid's ANYTHING that comes down the pike from the Federal Government gives me great pause....heck we wouldn't all be here if we didn't on some level KNOW that this is a much bigger issue.....for the record...I am an Agnostic basically...although as I learn and read more about history ,I'm leaning toward the concept of some "divine" power...whatever that means?

Look forward to further discussion with you all....♥

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Hmm... fair play. I have indeed seen 'Mean Girls', and yeah, the mum was fifty shades of over-the-top. I completely agree with you on the mass sexualisation of society. Although, I don't think it's to do with the eradication of traditional values per se (granted, I'm a liberal, irreligious, pro-choice egalitarian so I would say this lol) but really, I think the materialistic, commercial, overtly sexual world we live in is replacing the traditional Judeo-Christian West as the new status quo. It's easy to do this because women are still the sex objects, and men are still the relentless hunters. Why do I think this way, you might ask?

I graduated this summer. Some of the stuff I've heard and seen (I'm not completely chaste, but it's uni, there are actual reasons for going there) are heinous, filthy... debaucherous in nature. Backgrounds didn't matter; it was a jungle out there. The men, by and large, strove to conquer, and the women... they just had the decision of who to surrender to. Horrible, isn't it?

That being said, I still had several friends who, like me, had other aspirations and interests. We also came from diverse backgrounds, so there had to be something else that kept us largely disinterested in the free-for-all downtown in the nightclub district.

My Dad's an atheist, and has been since he was a teen. My Mum's... kind of a pantheist, like me. They gave me a rather comprehensive education about the birds and bees at the tender age of 11. They would be accepting if I suddenly said I fancied men. Nevertheless, they both told me where I could go if I got a girl pregnant. I'm 21 now, and they still say the same thing. So yes, sexualisation is a problem, but I think it's more about the media and entertainment sector, rather than the education sector. Europe, once again, is evidence of this.

Yeah, that mom was something else. Sad thing is, I have seen videos of some probably just as bad, and real. Moms watching young girls (like 8-11) dancing very, well, inappropriately, and singing lyrics to that "Genie in a Bottle" song. Look it up if you aren't familiar. Unreal, to my eyes, that a parent would allow their young daughter to even listen to that, much less encourage them singing and dancing to it! On a sidewalk, OUTSIDE, too. Probably a good thing it wasn't my neighbors.....

I have heard some pretty bad stories about what happens at a lot of the universities. Not much would surprise me. Even stories of colleges covering up rape cases, to "protect" the college! "Jungle" is a good term for it!

I agree that the media is a bigger problem than the schools, but the schools are still a problem (at least here). No matter who is responsible, it's a very dangerous trend.

it is good to know that some students, like you and your friends, found other things more important!

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

I guess you missed the quote from Plato that someone posted, wherein he did just that:

"Homosexuality, is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." - Plato

So Plato has a quote including the word "homosexuality", a word and concept (of sexual orientation) that was first coined long long long after he died? Are you familiar with the origin??

Can you cite an official source for that quote by Plato?

I didn't post it initially, and am not spending time hunting some "official" source. It isn't just that he had a quote that included the term, either. he had a quote that stated people that disagreed with it were in the wrong, which is something someone said "could not happen" today.

People have always been bullied about homosexuality, maybe a taste of their own medicine (for the religious folk) wouldn't be such a bad thing.

You all just going in circles...And no homosexuality and homosexual have not always been bullied, in the more ancient societies it was normal and nobody thought of it any different, in ancient Rome, Greece, and the middle east and everywhere around the world it was considered at one time as being normal, in the west and the middle east before the onset of the one god and religion it was normal. In fact its still done today, only its done under the table in those same countries who are so against it such as Arab countries, because its not pc but from what I heard many in those very same countries have gay relationships and just basically keep around a wife because it's the thing to do.

So no homosexuality for a greater majority of human history was normal and accepted, I mean does the name Alexander the great ring a bell? And many and much more famous or regular people had homosexual relationships back then. In fact even sex with children was pretty norm back then, many of the emperors and the Caesars had sex with children and many of the rich land owners, or traders back then practiced all kids of sexual lifestyles and the whole thing was seen as acceptable nobody really thought of it any better. Even by the children who were brought up in it as they were conditioned from a young age to accept it and sometimes over generations as well and so for them it was a normal thing. Which again just brings us back to that the thing you call "the norm" which is something that is not so singular as you all think, and what is the norm is generally what is the most prevalent over time and establishes itself as being so, and what is most prevalent has a lot to do with what people have been conditioned to accept, and people can be conditioned to accept pretty much anything over time, of which homosexuality is really a none issue.

Not saying they should not teach children about homosexuality and other sexual orientations and the other ways people are, because they should. But they should just stick to the facts and let kids sort it out by themselves as they grow up, we really do not need another society were the PC dictates everything of what will be considered the norm again, be it heterosexual or homosexual or whatever else, some however we should not accept again because as its been proven over ages to not be beneficial and leads to much hardships, such as sex with children and a whole bunch of other things.

Only if you consider the entirety of the world to have started somewhere in the middle ages or a few generations ago would homosexuality be considered taboo or not normal, if you go farther then that in a lot of other more ancient civilizations it really was no big deal at all, in fact even in our modern age its no big deal, people just like to make mountains out of molehills.

The problem is not that there is an all encompassing normal thing. Unfortunately its much more complex then that because there is no one thing that can be considered natural in and of itself, homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality and bisexuality and a whole bunch of other things, and what is natural is merely what is accepted by the majority. The fact is that everything that exists is natural in its own way somehow. And schools should stick to just giving the facts, and not concern themselves with trying to put the stamp of approval on either homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality. But people being people will do as they do.

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
"There is no such thing as right and wrong" is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard .

The only people that believe in objective morals are usually religious to some extent. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude about this in the least, but morals are a social construct and differ from culture to culture, which implies that there are no objective morals. I think people get so upset about the fact that morals differ across the world because deep down it makes them realize that if every culture has its own set of rules, then there probably isn't a sky daddy in the clouds who originally set the objective rules for humans that keep us safe, and that leads to the realization that the world is more or less random chaos.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 22-10-2012 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)

Interesting spin on that. But I too have a theory. We all have to be right. Any abrupt change in what we perceive as correct, conflicts with our understanding about who we are as a person. People don't like that and it would mean they've got it all wrong. It's a tough pill to swallow, that's why negotiations is an art.

Basing your morals on a book that was written by MEN 2k years ago is insanity given how society changed since then. You might just as well refuse to use electricity because people back then didn't have that either. Bat#...crazy...totally insane...nonsense.

But you know what, you have the RIGHT to believe in that stuff...no one's stopping you. But at the same time, you don't have the right to force those craziness on others. The US isn't a theocracy, religion (any religion, not just Christianity) has NOTHING to do with current laws and morals.

But even if you have the right, wouldn't you think it's crazy to base your morals on a book that states obvious demonstrable nonsense like global floods and talking snakes? Because if the answer is no, you might just as well start a Harry Potter cult or start believing in Zeus again

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Basing your morals on a book that was written by MEN 2k years ago is insanity given how society changed since then. You might just as well refuse to use electricity because people back then didn't have that either. Bat#...crazy...totally insane...nonsense.

But you know what, you have the RIGHT to believe in that stuff...no one's stopping you. But at the same time, you don't have the right to force those craziness on others. The US isn't a theocracy, religion (any religion, not just Christianity) has NOTHING to do with current laws and morals.

But even if you have the right, wouldn't you think it's crazy to base your morals on a book that states obvious demonstrable nonsense like global floods and talking snakes? Because if the answer is no, you might just as well start a Harry Potter cult or start believing in Zeus again

edit on 22-10-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

What if the morals aren't based on that book..do they still become invalid because they differ from those who disagree ?

Just because some behaviors are considered moral and and good to some, does not make it moral and good to all.

There are laws that allow many behaviors that are not seen as healthy and "normal" to many with no religious beliefs.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

Just because some behaviors are considered moral and and good to some, does not make it moral and good to all.

That's right. But unless those behaviors infringe on someone else's rights, it doesn't matter what those behaviors are.

There are laws that allow many behaviors that are not seen as healthy and "normal" to many with no religious beliefs.

Yes. So what?

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Basing your morals on a book that was written by MEN 2k years ago is insanity given how society changed since then. You might just as well refuse to use electricity because people back then didn't have that either. Bat#...crazy...totally insane...nonsense.

But you know what, you have the RIGHT to believe in that stuff...no one's stopping you. But at the same time, you don't have the right to force those craziness on others. The US isn't a theocracy, religion (any religion, not just Christianity) has NOTHING to do with current laws and morals.

But even if you have the right, wouldn't you think it's crazy to base your morals on a book that states obvious demonstrable nonsense like global floods and talking snakes? Because if the answer is no, you might just as well start a Harry Potter cult or start believing in Zeus again

edit on 22-10-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

What if the morals aren't based on that book..do they still become invalid because they differ from those who disagree ?

Just because some behaviors are considered moral and and good to some, does not make it moral and good to all.

There are laws that allow many behaviors that are not seen as healthy and "normal" to many with no religious beliefs.

edit on 22-10-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)

I'd like to think that we base our laws on logic and rationality...or at least on the overall consensus of TODAY'S society instead of some 2k year old book.

Sadly some crazy fundies seem to disagree and want to turn the US into a theocracy:



And IF you want to turn it into a theocracy think hard and long if this is the right way. Because there is no cherry picking, if you consider the bible the truth and only truth you have to accept its laws and "morals"...which are REALLY F***** UP if you actually bother to read the whole thing and not just cherry pick stuff (the Koran and most other scriptures aren't much better...because people from 2000 years ago lived in a different time)!!

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Oh sorry, I forgot about the 2% in Australia with possibly another 2% who are fighting for something they don't practice themselves...

Now try making some sense

reply to post by SerialVelocity


Just to play your game, if we replace the word "gay or homosexual" by "pedophile", is it ok then? Because i guess pedophiles are born this way, so it makes them normal? Pedophiles are considered sick because they doesnt have the same sexual orientation than "normal" people. So why gays aren't?

When we say "normal" it means the majority. So i guess its not the word to use in this situation. The right word would be "different" and we are all different, that what's makes this world beautiful.

By the way i'm not advocating in any way for pedophiles here, just trying to show you that your little game of words wasnt right. I for myself think it's a pretty bad thing for grown ups to take advantage of young children but if we play in the same sense you are doing here, that makes it ok since they are born this way.

I'm also not homophobic, i was just trying to make you think a little more outside the box and also trying to understand why some situations are ok and some others not. I'm heterosexual but have a couple of gay friends and this is not a problem at all. Like one other poster said, it's less competition for the cute girls!!

Peace out

reply to post by bigwig22


Pedophiles don't have relationships with consenting adults

What's next? Are you going to pretend homosexuality is the same as beastiality?

reply to post by MrXYZ


Hehe, i could (because they are two sexual behaviors, and heterosexuality is one too) but i wont

I was just trying to make a point that you can't compare a sexual orientation with a race.

There is no controversy as if someone is black or white, he is born this way (maybe except for Micheal Jackson ) . I was just trying to show you that there is no 100 proof that someone is born gay or pedo or zoo if you want.

I for one think that this is something that is influenced by a lot of thing while the person is young but not born this way.

I may be wrong but that's the way i think.

More on topic : i agree with the program in the OP, children must know that being gay is not a disease. But i think they must also learn that we are all born with the same basics, just that for some, this change depending of the experiences in life and the way they are educated.

Just my two cents.

Peace out.

This will never work. A waste of taxpayers money and even if you have two brain cells and ONLY two brain cells...so long as the two can communicate, common sense will tell anyone, except gays of course....that this is just stupid. One procreates and brings forth life...the other is based on nothing but lust of the flesh and produces nothing but trouble.

I don't hate gays but let's call a spade a spade....if everyone were gay they world's population would die in one to two generation. Alas....now we have a motive and it fits all the other motives of trying to poison us, kill us in wars etc.

The International Bankers are behind this. They fund feminism, this kind of crap...anything so long as it causes a rift between citizens or race or sexes or so long as we die from it.

reply to post by bigwig22


The key element is CONSENT. A kid isn't mature enough to consent to something like that, and I think we can all agree neither can a donkey. 2 gay adults on the other hand can and they aren't harming anyone in the process.

some things that are equated to homosexuality in the old testament - all these things are "abominations" in the KJV:

Eating shrimp and lobster and shellfish (seafood that lacks fins and scales )
Cheating in the market by using rigged weights
Opressing the poor and needy

How do right wingers cope with those 3??!!

Originally posted by Phenomium
This will never work. A waste of taxpayers money and even if you have two brain cells and ONLY two brain cells...so long as the two can communicate, common sense will tell anyone, except gays of course....that this is just stupid. One procreates and brings forth life...the other is based on nothing but lust of the flesh and produces nothing but trouble.

I don't hate gays but let's call a spade a spade....if everyone were gay they world's population would die in one to two generation. Alas....now we have a motive and it fits all the other motives of trying to poison us, kill us in wars etc.

The International Bankers are behind this. They fund feminism, this kind of crap...anything so long as it causes a rift between citizens or race or sexes or so long as we die from it.

So in short...you don't hate gays...but think they're part of an agenda to wipe out humanity. Got it, makes perfect sense

For crying out loud, when will people finally arrive in the 21st century?

reply to post by MrXYZ


I won't argue with that mate.

Did you read my entire posts?

I was just trying to point that there is a big difference between sexual orientation and race. Check to wich post i was responding in my first one please.

Peace out.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Lol!

People often sees conspiracies in everything!!

Star for you on that one!

When are we going teach , not shooting a corrupt politician/banker/law maker/lobbyist, is not normal? (sarc)

it should be taught, it is not normal to be gay, but, its ok, its ok to not be "normal" whatever the F that is. Is being like half the #$%^heads in office is that norm? Is stabbing your own people in the back , signing over there sovereignty and allowing a clause for citizen to be assassinated and imprisoned for life, is that the kind of normal we need? I think not!

The real thing to be taught should be, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NORMAL, and that when people use the term normal, they mean conformity. But no one want to use the words conformity because then people will realize they are being steered in a direction they may not have taken. So using the word normal or not normal has the self regulating aspects of conformity , and a negative at same time,to sway people, even if they have an ulterior motive,(such as living life?) they way they see fit, whether its drugs, music, type of clothes, sexuality, conspiracy theories,types of art, sports,dance or what ever may have you.