Am I the only one thinking some of these parents should have actually sat in on these lessons and perhaps learn’t something.
Teaching kids that there are gay people? How terable! Next they’ll be telling then there are black people and Jewish people! Tragic.
Mithos, I beleave you’re not ‘the only one’, so much as a member of a in a distict majority.
I really hate the way the parents are making out it’s the children they’re concerned about, but in my opinion that’s crap. They’re trying to find a ‘reasonable’ excuse to complain rather than coming right out with their own prejudice.
I totally agree, Mithos – although there’s no getting through to some people, I’ve found.
This is OUTRAGEOUS!! I am totally FURIOUS about this!
How DARE they play Elton John to kids! ;)
@Mithos, Yes,I think you are right there.At least the parents could then be certain that the lesson was in fact about bullying and not a social engineering ploy by lefties.
I wonder how the Elton John song went down?
Did he sing “Daniel”???
so little girls are scared of showing natural affection in case people think they’re gay.
Obviously, then, they HAVE been exposed to homosexuality in order to get such a negative response to it. Someone has told them it’s wrong; all this assembly has done is to show them what it is
It may be that some of their parents have been exposed to aspects of the seedier side of gay culture. I suppose its no fun to find someone peering at you through a hole drilled in a toilet cubicle.
Some things have to change.
So they think that the factual education on homosexual issues is making children uncomfortable making friends? No I don understand, it’s nothing to do with society’s expectations and taboos or the nature of children and their need to marginalise and pick on others.
Please carry on teaching them about ‘normal’ heterosexual couples wherever they look.
If they didn’t think that being gay was bad in the first place, they wouldn’t be worried about people thinking they were! So clearly they have a negative view in the first place and all the assembly is doing is trying to put that right. Not sure about playing Elton John mind..
Iain- If they feel like that-then why don`t they simply put a piece of toilet paper over the hole?
Why have holes in the first place? It just leads to homophobia.
What is pleasant to read is how few parents actually did complain. Only a handful of negligable professional Daily Mail mouth-foamers interceded in the debate, and were quite correctly and clearly rebuffed by the headmaster, who understands his duty of care to all children, regardless of who they will become.
It is only expected that the disturbed armchair spittle-flecked weirdos will be squealing. With integrated schools teaching science, rationality and giving children the tools to forge their own values, their dysfunctional worldview will mercifully be fading away in a few years.
Good point Mihangel. Not surprised parents complained though; how far is Bromstone Primary from “Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells” That stalwart of the Daily Maul? Who let those idiots breed?
“I think kids as young as four don’t need to know about that and it should be left to their parents to tell them when they think they’re ready.”
Right, and gay students should only be told about heterosexuality when they’re ready. And bisexuals should only be told that some people only like one type of “fun bits” when they’re ready. And asexuals should only be told that some people actually enjoy doing all this crazy stuff when they’re ready.
Oh, wait, how are we going to know which kids are gay and which are asexual and whatnot? Oh, right, they’re prepubescent children, so we can’t tell. Well, how are we going to know which story to tell which kids? Why not tell all of them all of the stories? Or are some more “equal” than others, parents? Yeah, I thought so.
And everyone who came to the logical conclusion that children not wanting to seem gay, once they were told what homosexuality is, must have already been exposed to prior homophobia in order to feel this way are absolutely spot on.
Ahahaha! I wonder if anyone actually did complain about that? When I was in year 6 (10/11), my teacher played us Alanis Morisette’s “Ironic” to teach us what irony was. Could have been worse, I guess.
Come to think of it does anyone really think that parents indoctrinate their kids at an early age against homosexuality? Could it not be that some kids reacted the way they did from a feeling of insecurity brought on by the ‘strange’ subject matter?
As Headteacher of Bromstone Primary School I would like to apologise for playing Elton John to such young children. I realise this could have been quite traumatic for some of them.
“Come to think of it does anyone really think that parents indoctrinate their kids at an early age against homosexuality?”
Yes I do. Intentionaly or not, they do.
If a child hears their perant using a word in a derogatory manner, they understand that that word must relate to something negative or unplesant, and then do not want to be associated with that word themselves, as it would then assiciate them with somehting negative or unplesant.
If perants say something is ‘smelly’ to mean ‘bad’, children don’t want to be called ‘smelly’, because they think that’s like calling them ‘bad’.
If perants say something is ‘gay’ to mean ‘bad’, children don’t want to be called ‘gay’, because they think that’s like calling them ‘bad’.
“Could it not be that some kids reacted the way they did from a feeling of insecurity brought on by the ‘strange’ subject matter?”
At a primary school level? No.
“As Headteacher of Bromstone Primary School I would like to apologise for playing Elton John to such young children. I realise this could have been quite traumatic for some of them.”
Could have been worse. Liberache for instance :)
Iain at 11.19 – I think you raise an extremely valid point. Young children tend to know right from wrong instinctively and they recognised their conditioning that day as something wrong.
Some have clearly been traumatised. I consider it sheer child abuse. The worry is that only a few parents could be bothered doing anything.
Cont. from my comment #20
I’ve just read about little Khyra Ishaq who was starved to death “by mother and her boyfriend”. Isn’t it so often the way that it is the unmarried, co-habiting ‘partners’ who murder children in the most horrendous ways? And of course there are so many barriers in place to dissuade married couples from adopting – so many unnecessary hurdles – just to create the perception of a shortage of parents in order to further this particular agenda against the family.
It is discrimination against children to further a social/political agenda. It is selfishness raised to a new level.
That poor little girl’s death has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. And her mother aswell as the mother’s boyfriend was charged. Some people are evil.
Adoption is no more difficult for married couples than it is for anyone else. It’s a long, stressful process for every potential adopter regardless of their marital status, race, sexuality or anything else. What you said simply isn’t true regarding adoption.
Children deserve to learn about all kinds of people and to learn about fairness and tolerance. Some of those children listening may grow up to be gay, but what they heard in that assembly will in no way affect the numbers of gay children. I’m a teacher and every child in my class knew it was WRONG to use the word ‘gay’ as an insult. It’s not hard to explain that to children in an age-appropriate way.
Iris – do you teach at primary school? Can’t you feel it in your heart that children don’t need to know certain things at that age?
So, some children say ‘gay’ as an insult. Is it really worth telling them about ‘sexuality’ when they are too young to know what you’re on about? That makes it indoctrination, doesn’t it? Why are you in favour of indoctrinating children, Iris, rather than educating them?
OK, Stewart Cowan, I’ll bite.
In a word the answer is “hetero-normalisation”. This is the overt assumption that there is only one way to love, and it pervades society in such a way as to accepted as the accepted way. Consider TV ads: even ones which have absolutely nothing to do with sex, such as shaving foams, usually have an attractive woman appearing at the end to stroke the guy’s face. There are many like this. It does nothing to address sexuality that isn’t M/W.
We have a right to be recognised and respected: since the straight world is overwhelmingly “in our faces” we are only trying to redress the issue, starting young to say that “there are all sorts of people. They ALL deserve respect”
Thank you, Mihangel apYrs, for confirming you approve of indoctrinating youngsters.
Let’s hope that they recover and that the little girls especially can relate normally to their friends again.
Like I already said, young children have an uncanny knack for knowing right from wrong, so, for example, if an adult touched them inappropriately, they would know it was bad. I put it to you that these youngsters instinctively know that homosexual behaviour is wrong and that is the reason they are being brainwashed at an early age so they are less trouble for the social engineers when they are older.
You might want ‘respect’ for the way you live, but if the only way of achieving it is a major campaign of mind-control, do you think it counts as respect?
“young children have an uncanny knack for knowing right from wrong”
Incorect. Children learn right from wrong during their upbringing, usually from their perants.
“if an adult touched them inappropriately, they would know it was bad”
Also incorect (which makes sexual abuse cases in young children a nightmair, I might add).
“I put it to you that these youngsters instinctively know that homosexual behaviour is wrong”
Nope, I think your infering your own homophobia onto young children in order to justify yourself.
“and that is the reason they are being brainwashed at an early age”
No, they’re trying to make sure they’re *not* being indoctorated by people like you.
Care to come up with somthing remotly true?
Stewart is very, very cross about a very large number of things (women, atheists, the EU, ‘homosexuals’ – his distresses are many, and his blog is enjoyably Pooterish).
I have an instinctive moral knowledge that things aren’t going to get any better for him any time soon….
Here we go again! People like Stewart Cowan are attempting to suck you all into an inappropriate discussion. He is winding you up in order to gain quotes which he can use elsewhere on the Web. Gently, of so very gently, he is misleading everyone here into a discussion about inappropriate behaviours in the presence of children. Once again, as he always does, he seeks to introduce the idea that we gay people are wrong in asserting the value of early-age training.
He tells his gentle lies with such authority, such panache, but, in reality, he has no understanding of the way in which childish minds work. Young children do not have any ability to know right from wrong, love from lust, honesty from lies. For more countless thousands of years than our collective memories can recall the Law has repeatedly, time and time again, discounted the tainted and malleable witnessing of the juvenile and asserted the rights of the adult.
What Mr. Cowan is attempting to do, in his usual vicious, evil and duplicitous way, is to introduce into this debate the age-old canard that being gay is the same as being a child-molester and he is trying, in my opinion, to make you say that that most horrid of things is right and part of being gay. He is trying to entice you into the position which he believes you already occupy. He is evil, in my opinion, and duplicitous.
What he wants to do is reserve early-age training to him and his heterosexual, gay-hating companions – to exclude we gay people from having any input whatsoever from the training and guidance of our young so that he and his vicious beliefs can colour and mould the thoughts of the next generation into his own ways of hateful and violent thinking. Hw wants to exclude you, and me, from influencing our young by introducing the idea that we are unfit to train our young simply because we are gay – because we are gay we must be child-molesters! Don’t worry too much, it’s some sort of circular argument which straights like Mr. Cowan indulge in when they can’t think of anything else to say: it runs along the lines of “I don’t like gays, I hate child molesters, therefore gays and child molesters are the same thing”. It’s the prime definition of the stupidity which Mr. Cowan, and others, copiously demonstrate. Don’t hate them, please. You know that they can’t help it – they’re born stupid but we shouldn’t revile them for that, for that’s what God has given them!
He, Mr. Cowan, knows full well the old Jesuit maxim – give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man – means, but he seeks, cruelly, to play upon our natural impulses to protect children and invites us, with vicious abandon, to join him in limiting the knowledge which our young have to have, and in aiding him in promoting the hatred which he is prepared to teach to our young. All that done, by him, under some pretence that children, according to him, must remain ignorant of the world until they reach, presumably, some age at which he, and he alone, will inform them of reality.
This sweet reasoning, this appeal by Mr. Cowan to our better nature, to our natural desire to give to our young their innocent years is, in reality and on his part, nothing more than a crude attempt to operate hatred of us at different level.
All he is actually saying is that we should butt out and leave the formative years to him and his ilk – so that he and his kind can teach their hatreds long before we can argue for freedom and kindness and tolerance and love.
Wow! What hubris! His argument is: let me teach them hatred when they’re young for that is the natural way and then see what you can do later on when they are older. He expects us to buy that crap!
Sorry, Mr Cowan, I don’t buy your crap. I don’t buy your take on the world and I don’t buy your cheap and tarnished version of my Faith. You are anidiot – let me say that again because it felt rather good – you are an idiot!
He knows the importance of the formative years and he wants us out of those years. Don’t be fooled by him or the others of his persuasion. Governed by their hatred they see the entire area of juvenile education as yet another field where they can attack us – and they will use, where they can, the whole issue of child molestation against us – that is how deeply dishoest they actually are!
Stewart Cowan does not warrant your sympathy or your agreement. He is duplicitous and nothing more than a hate-filled mis-director seeking only to confuse the issue to his own benefit and the benefit of those who seek to pervert the Faith to their own ends.
See him off please! His hate-filled and anti-Christian rantings have no place here!
Congratulations to the Primary School for tackling the issue! I presently teach Year 5/6 and I am forever tackling the issue of mis using the word gay. Children need positive role models, the language to discuss emotion and the confidence to talk. Stonewall’s research proves that homophobia is the cause of much bullying in schools – this nedds to be tackled in an informed and creative way – so well done!!
Secondly, increasing numbers of children are brought up with gay parents – all families in primary schools are explored and discussed. This needs to continue.
Keep up the good work!
Ah! We meet again, Stewart Cowman, you weaselly little shit.
I see I was right to call you such in a previous comments thread (“New Zealand survey finds gay teenagers at risk”, May 27th). For those who weren’t there, and it was a very quiet thread, Cowman was using suicide rates of gay teens as an argument for keeping them in the closet “for their sake”. I quite rightly assumed that this was duplicitous bullshit and that he was only cynically pretending to care about these poor kids in order to advance his homophobic argument for social control. And now here he is, without even the barest pretence of wanting what’s good for us. So predictable.
Say, how would you respond to my post (15), Cowman?
Thank you Stewart Cowan for confirming that you only approrve of YOU and your sort indocrinating children.
Your hypocracy astounds me: coming on a gay site and effectively telling us that, because we want children to know we exist and aren’t evil and out to harm them, we are hurting them.
Let us be clear – your world excludes visibility of us as far as it can; we want to redress the balance so that gay children see a future, and straight children don’t see gays as shrieking Graham Nortons.
But why should I bother arguing with the likes of you, I can’t change your mind, and as others have said you’ll probably twist my words to suit your own agenda. But why ARE you here?
Returning to the commenting about the original article if I may: despite the fact that we live in 2009, this article demonstrates that prejudice is still very much alive in our society and I think that is very sad. This article also demonstrates just how much more work that needs to be done to change attitudes. It’s all very sad really.
Mihangel ap Yrs , regarding adverts on TV.
Advertise a shaving foam with two blokes having a smooch and you will only sell that product in Brighton.
I didn’t read the comments starting with personal abuse, but I’ll try and deal with the pertinent issues raised.
Children have an innocence – that’s why you know when they are lying.
Clementine – my distresses are indeed many. “enjoyably Pooterish?” Er, thanks?
“Stewart is very, very cross about a very large number of things
“women” – no, just feminists
“atheists” – no just the bolshy humanist ones
“the EU” – absolutely, and the treacherous UK government
“homosexuals” – again, only the ones who think that, for example, children should be subjected to mind control to accept homosexual behaviour as normal. They clearly know it’s not.
John MJ – “He is winding you up in order to gain quotes which he can use elsewhere on the Web.”
Can you find an instance where I have ever done this? It’s not a bad idea, though, so thanks ;-)
Plus, you are confusing children knowing right from wrong and offering reliable evidence as a witness. Hardly the same.
“he is trying, in my opinion, to make you say that that most horrid of things is right and part of being gay. He is trying to entice you into the position which he believes you already occupy. He is evil, in my opinion, and duplicitous.”
I was making the simple and proven point that marriage offers children the most secure and safe upbringing (on the whole). Hardly ‘evil’ to point this out surely. What is evil, however, is to use children as pawns in social engineering projects and leaving them traumatised.
Has anyone expressed regret for that or does the end justify the means?
Lastly, John MJ, you should try and appreciate the difference between disagreement/disapproval and hatred, especially when the former is done out of love and concern.
Katy – To repeat what I said to another teacher – “So, some children say ‘gay’ as an insult. Is it really worth telling them about ‘sexuality’ when they are too young to know what you’re on about? That makes it indoctrination, doesn’t it? Why are you in favour of indoctrinating children, Iris, rather than educating them?”
Mihangel – “But why ARE you here?”
Because the country can’t go on the way it has been these past few years. We are drowning in sin and it has to be addressed. Sin is real and the consequences are real and harsh. Why am I here: love for my fellow sojourners.
In my experience, most kids don’t really care about stuff like homosexuality. Friends of mine have lesbian neighbours and their kids have 2 sweet female neighbours. In the same way, they would have accepted black or chinese neighbours. The problem with our species is grown-ups who feel they have to fill impressionable kids with all kind of bull-shit, in stead of teaching them about diversity in life.
Katy – To repeat what I said to another teacher – “So, some children say ‘gay’ as an insult. Is it really worth telling them about ‘sexuality’ when they are too young to know what you’re on about? That makes it indoctrination, doesn’t it? Why are you in favour of indoctrinating children, Iris, rather than educating them?”
I think the point here Stewart is that someone else has done exactly that before.
“Here’s a word. It means something bad. Now go off into the world and use it”
Its like some vile abusive subliminal message crap. Don’t tell a kid what is actually means, but get the negative association in first, so that whenever they use it or hear it, they think its bad or wrong.
F*ck mate, and you’re knocking gay people.
In Sierra Leone they do something very similar with the kids, but its automatic weapons rather than words. Funny think there though, we don’t blame the person getting shot for teaching the kids about death before ‘they are too young to know’ about it.
No Stuart, you BELIEVE in sin, I don’t, nor in your god, or bible.
There are ethics and morals but keep your god out of the law and society in general.
it was to demonstrate that the straight world indoctrinates without them realising it. Gay teens seeing adverts like that think that they’re in the wrong in not appreciating it. Everywhere we look we see straights doing things that we’d get grief for (holding hands?)
How convenient. Wouldn’t have anything to do with me having trounced you in the last thread we were in, would it? You’d better get used to it, this is a clued up bunch and you’re not going to be left with anyone to talk to once you’ve ignored everyone who makes you look like an idiot. It’s not hard.
Funny how you ignore personal abuse like you’re above it, despite the fact that you were the one who started with the personal abuse.
Ahaha. Nice try. You know, I’m a bit of a videogame fan. I like the fact that each level is usually harder than the one before. Makes things fun. But in real life, every anti-gay tit I meet is just as stupid as the last. No challenge whatsoever. Now, to explain this one for the umpteenth time…
It’s been proven that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as children raised by straight couples in similar situations. Any studies blaming a detrimental effect on the sexuality of the parents are misleading – children raised by same-sex couples are usually adopted, and the longer children are in care homes, the greater they are hurt by the experience. The same effect is observed in children raised by straight couples.
There’s a similar sneakiness going on with your claim about good ol’ marriage. Studies showing how well married couples do against non-married couples do just that. They don’t compare civil partnerships or “soul mates” to married couples, they pool EVERY type of relationship out there (the vast, VAST majority of which are just flings), straight or same-sex, and then compare them to marriage. Kinda pointless, huh? Not to rhetoric-hungry homophobes, of course. No, marriage isn’t special – it’s the relationship behind the marriage that’s special, and such relationships are just as strong in the LGBT community as they are in the straight community.
Your vapid statements don’t have a leg to stand on.
Go, Pumpkin Pie. I was thinking today about the innate moral knowledge that pervaded my primary school, circa 1976. We were all united in agreeing the inferiority and rubbishness of
i. the Irish
ii. anyone disabled
iii. anyone with a non-local accent
How desperate we all were to avoid belonging to any of these unsavoury groups. How shocking that certain leftie parents thought we should get over ourselves…
Stewart – been away and just saw your post. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer you courteously.
You said: “So, some children say ‘gay’ as an insult. Is it really worth telling them about ‘sexuality’ when they are too young to know what you’re on about? That makes it indoctrination, doesn’t it?”
Yes, I’m a primary school teacher. The children in my class are the older age range and they certainly ‘know what I’m on about’ – don’t insult their intelligence. They were using the word ‘gay’ as an insult – eg “You forgot your PE kit? You’re so gay!” – but they were doing this unthinkingly. When I pointed out that what they were saying was illogical and stupid, and, worse, cruel, they stopped almost immediately.
Your comment about it being ‘indoctrination’ is so mad I was tempted not to even respond to it, but I will. Every child in my class at that time was white. If they had been using a word like ‘n****r’ or similar to describe people who forgot their kit/dropped their pencil etc, etc, my response would have been exactly the same.
Those children will grow up to be a hell of a lot more tolerant than you and that can only be a good thing.
Stewart doesn’t hate “women – no, just feminists”
So you don’t approve of EQUAL rights for women then???
May I remind you that it was a WOMAN who carried you for 9 months at the expense of her own body. You ungrateful little turd.
May I also remind you that the majority of the world’s ills (murder, rape, war, paedophillia, violent assaults etc) are overwhelmingly committed by MEN. Not women.
May I also remind you that such ills are a direct consequence of a macho, patricachal society wherein male aggression and dominance is not only accepted, but encouraged (seen little boys playing with guns anyone?).
I think you’re afraid of, and are despairing of, the ‘power’ and ‘dominance’- bestowed on you for no other reason other than you have a penis -is fading away.
And that’s WHY you hate feminists, because you, and every other feminist-hating straight male out there, think you have a God given right to dominate the world.
That’s why you’re pissed off about children learning not to hate. Because in your twisted little view, the lesbian and gay community, along with the feminist movement, are a direct threat to the ‘old world’ which you wish you still lived in. A world where gays are hated and still in the closet thorugh fear, and the woman is nothing more than a subservient slave to the man.
Feminism is NOT harmful, it merely seeks to empower and give equality to a group of people that happen to make up just over 50% of the world’s population.
Children being taught about people who have existed since the year dot is neither harmful or ‘indoctrination’. It is common sense.
Parents who complained about this assembly obviously hate their own children. They are probably religious.
Oh come on! Four year old Kids shouldn’t be made to understand society’s forbidden love! At that age they are into ‘Custard’ and ‘Jumping’
“society’s forbidden love”???
Jonathan, how’s about less of the Oscar Wilde-isms, and grow up.
I have a 5 year old nephew, my baby brothers son, who visits and stays over with my partner and I regularly. He is aware on some level me and my partner are gay and in a relationship, as he puts it I “like my partner the way daddy likes mommy”. Its nothing about sexuality, or sex. We show no more or less affection in front of him than his parents would, and for anyone to assume its about sexual behaviour is demeaning to my relationship and offensive to the life we have built together. The kid has no concept of prejudice, to he doesn’t even ask any questions, he accepts it as is. My brother believes prejudice is thought and learned, and he makes every effort to ensure there is no difference in how his son views us compared to any other member of the family. My brother is a smart guy, always was. Smarter then a lot of the freaks in this site.
My nephew just sees two uncles living together, in a strong and stable relationship, who have cool stuff to play with and spoil him when he stays over. My brother is keen to show and teach him about the “strong relationship” part, as this is what he sees as important:- a loving family. Gay or straight. Where’s the “indoctrination” here? Is gay contagious? No, of course it isn’t. Will my nephew turn out gay because he is around me? Well, my siblings were around me as children a lot more than my nephew, and they’re all straight… not much logic blacking up these stupid statement’s from the likes of that bigot Cowen, or Jonathan ans his overly dramatic statements.
By their purile logic, I must have “learned” to be gay from someone else. All my family are straight, so did they miss the lesions on “how to be queer”? I was born gay. Born. Gay. What part of that do these f*cking idiots not get?!? We keep telling them that. All the evidence points to that. If my nephew is born straight, all the queers in the world couldn’t change him, its that simple. But to “indoctrinate” hate and prejudice into a child at 5 years old, is the definition of un-fit parenting.
Children learn prejudice, they are not born with it. Teaching prejudice, or trying to hide the truth form children that gay people have normal lives and normal relationships, is demeaning to the child’s intelligence and reprehensible behaviour by those parents who pompously think they have every right to poison a child’s mind.
I always want to throw my hands in the air when i hear things like this! Those parents really should have attended the assembley themselves and learn a thing or two!
Homophobic bully is a real issue and CAN happen from an early age in primary schools. As someone who has experienced this myself i know what a negative impact it can have on your life!
If these parents dont think that its an issue – they need reminded of terrible incidents of homophobia such as the murder of Michael Causer in Liverpool. They need reminding that Michael and his murders where in the british education system within the past 5 years… need i say more!?
Well done to this school in Kent and i hope many more tackle this issue!
Will, that’s a beautiful story, thanks for sharing that with us. Hopefully people, like you and your brother can teach these bigots a thing or two. And you’re right, its parents who teach prejudice…. and how can any self respecting parent want that for a child?
And Chris, well said. I wonder if these parents woudl be so keen to teach their kids homophobic bullying if their OWN kids turned out gay and are found half beaten to death by people LIKE them who thinks this is okay behaviour? Maybe they wouldn’t be so keen to think that being gay is “thought” when they’re sitting beside their gay child’s hospital bed wondering will s/he recover from the head wounds….
Go away, nasty cultist. Things like ethics and morality pre-date your religion by millenia (why, I was just leafing through Plato’s The Republic the other day – lots of ethical discussion, not a whole lot of Jesus). Seeing as how religious values are not necessary to make a child a good person, why do you insist on their indoctrination? Religion should be something they are free to choose for themselves, when they are old enough to fully comprehend such a choice.
As for this whole sexuality thing… Either we remove all reference of any sort of relationships from their storybooks (mummies and daddies, etc.), or we present a fair and balanced view of reality. To do any different is irresponsible and immoral social engineering.
Yeah, it’s kinda hard to imagine just how horrible a person has to be in order to have a problem with a story as sweet as Will’s. The world would be a much better place if such a family was the norm.
Comment 45: “Being a school teacher and having been to one of these homosexual indoctrination sessions, your comment to your child is so far from any comparison it is ridiculous. One sentence to one child cannot be compared to four hours of dogma by homosexuals who want that to be the dominanat factor in sex education.”
I try not to be rude when people say things I disagree with, but honestly you’re trying my patience! Are you somewhat muddled?? This was mentioned in an ASSEMBLY. Are you telling me 4-11 year old children sat through a four hour assembly??
“dogma by homosexuals” What the f**k do you mean?? Elton John’s music contains subliminal messages? All the teachers are homosexuals??
And it wasn’t a comment to ‘my’ child *rolls eyes* It was part of a PSHE lesson for ALL children in my class. Not one parent complained. And why should they? And it wasn’t one sentence either. Talk about making up your own story! I (obviously) gave a very short explanation of a much longer lesson.
“Ridiculous”? That just about describes you. It’s no more ‘indoctrination’ to tell school children that they should treat human beings equally regardless of their sexuality, than it is to tell them they should treat human beings equally regardless of their colour. Children have a natural sense of fairness and they well understand how offensive it is to denigrate somebody just because they’re different to you. They also realise that gay people aren’t the devil incarnate and that bad people exist in every colour, gender and sexuality.
What’s REALLY ironic was that in later discussions one child told me that Christianity was “crap” (they were all from Christian families and most went to church many times a year). I’m an agnostic but I didn’t try to tell him my beliefs, I just told him that people’s beliefs should be treated with respect, and that he was entitled to his own opinion, but should express it carefully and adjust it as he learnt more and was able to come to his own conclusions. I asked him why he’d said that, and he told me that all Christians were “loonies”. I didn’t allow ANY disrespectful language in my class, so I gently corrected him. And to think I stuck up for a faith that produces hate-filled people like you!
It may come as news to you as you struggle to push your bigoted little views down people’s throats, but most people in this world share the SAME agenda. It’s you who are out of step with the rest of humanity.
Let me say this one more time. YOU ARE BORN GAY. No LGBT people need to ‘indoctrinate’ anyone – not that they could anyway – because gay people are being born every second of the day and night from straight parents.
since we are born gay
there is no age limit to talk about it .
kids holding hands or adults embracing does not make thir sexuality. these perents are sicka nd need counseling .
a colored child should not be told what he is for fear of him knowing he is a part of this diverse world
I think adults underestimate children’s understanding. I have seen several examples of children, brought up by friends and aquanitances who understand “daddy and mummy’s friends are gay” and have no problem with it. Also, people who have gay baby sitters etc. These “englightened” straight people are an example to the ones who sream and shout about how we are goinf to corrup their little darlings; you can’t make someone gay!
Comment 45 is by Will, not me!!!
Poor Tiglathpileser… did the nasty queers delete your infantile comments? Best thing to do now is sit down and pray for some some of that legendary smiting from your petty god on those who deleted your words.
Oh, and Will (now comment #45) I love your story about your nephew and brother. Its good that sometimes we are reminded that the nut jobs in here are not everyone, and that there are wise and tolerant people out who know its not a “lifestyle” choice and want to see their kids grow up to be tolerant and not so naive as to think all same-sex relationships are about just sex. How fu*king insulting and stupid can a statement like that be?
How did you know I meant you, Tiglathpileser? ;) But, of course, I did. The comment numbers changed when the spam was removed. But I guess you knew that, eh? Oh, how I laughed at your comment there. Why not spend some time in my class? I’m sure you’d fit in well amongst the ten year olds. And maybe they’d educate you a little too.
Oh get a life parents and grow up! Real life is here and now, deal with it!
The only harmful thing to children is to brainwash them with homophobia and ignorance.
And they say gay people shouldnt be parents – wrong yet again!
and not so naive as to think all same-sex relationships are about just sex. How fu*king insulting and stupid can a statement like that be?
In the world according to the gaystapo, truth must be avoided at all cost. Why would anyone think it is about sex when one reads the diary of a homosexual that says he had sex with 32 men in one weekend. By your definition, he would need to have sex with at least 100 men in a weekend.
Not true. I earn about $5,000 a week from my investments
Let me say this one more time. YOU ARE BORN GAY.
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
Of course iris you are going to tell me you know more than the APA, the organisation that the gaystapo have been quoting as proof that you are born a homosexuals. Now that they have changed their mind, of course you will have to say they are wrong won’t you?
“Not true. I earn about $5,000 a week from my investments”
Well, you certainly wouldn’t be earning it from your comedy skills…
And I didn’t say there was a gay gene – I don’t believe there is. Perhaps you could quote the bit where I said that or why not put more words into my mouth as you have wilfully misunderstood most of what I said.
PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY, ok? I believe, as do many scientists, that this is due to influences in the uterus, probably, but not definitely, hormonal.
Sexual arousal experiments which have measured ‘instinctive’ ie non-controllable, responses to carefully chosen sexual images, have demonstrated that the gay people don’t respond to straight images. This isn’t wilfulness, it’s part of their brain, just as non-arousal to gay images is by heterosexuals.
And your attempts at provocation are rather pathetic, in my opinion. You don’t want to engage in a discussion at all. I’ve had interesting discussions with religious people on here, but they were courteous and genuinely interested in discourse – you’re not.
By all means continue to post your comments on this thread, but I won’t be responding as you obviously don’t want any discussion. If you want to ask proper questions and make sensible points, I will answer you, but thumbing your nose and making childish comments is pointless. You don’t annoy me – I feel sorry for you. Not because you, I presume, are religious, but because you seem a sad, bitter person.
“Why would anyone think it is about sex when one reads the diary of a homosexual that says he had sex with 32 men in one weekend”
You read the diary’s of homosexuals???? What do you do, sleep with them and then rob their diary’s??? You dirty bastard. And straight people don’t sleep around. Oh, no, of course not…. Hugh Hefner is a virgin, I suppose? You are one stupid person upandatem to make statement like that.
“An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.”
And since when do psychologists do genetics? Besides, you’re statement is completely wrong. I’d go so far as to say your a liar. If you’re going to use science, please at least be versed in it. We homosexuals do have a better education level, after all.
There is evidence of hereditary genetics playing a factor, although this is likely to be a combination of factors. Also, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) states, in a 2000 position statement, that they oppose “any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change their sexual orientation.
Now, here’s some real science: Each cell expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The process of turning genes on and off is known as gene regulation. Gene regulation can occur at any point during gene expression, but most commonly occurs at the level of transcription (i.e. a transcription factor). Hence heterosexual parents can produce gay children if they contain the genes, and research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of sexual orientation switching on these genes, including prenatal hormones, and brain structure. No single controlling cause has been identified, but research is continuing in this area, and no doubt we will find the answer. But suffice to say that twin studies appeared to point to a major genetic component. [American Journal of Sociology (Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002)]
Did you understand that? I kept it simple for you, layman’s terms. No big words. Assumed you’re a complete idiot when it comes to science, Tiglathpileser. Well, didn’t really have to assume, you’ve kinda proved it really with your silly statement…. but try keep to scientific arguments and methodologies please. It insults my intelligence if you don’t.
And besides. You’re missing the obvious. We don;t care what you think. We’re born gay because we know we’re born gay. Don’t argue with what you don’t understand.
Iris and Will sure kicked your ass, didn’t they, Pigletpleaser? Here’s some more.
A) Genes aren’t the only thing that shape a person before they’re born. Hormones are another big factor. That homosexuality is innate is not in doubt, nor has been for decades – the big idea here is that it is a number of factors that decide a person’s sexuality before they’re born.
B) They did not say there isn’t one, they said they haven’t FOUND one yet. That statement is almost entirely different to what you said.
C) We’re here and we’re queer. The way science works is that YOU have to disprove US. Burden of proof is on you, we don’t need scientific studies to back up what everyone can see, but if there’s one teensy flaw in anything you present to us, it’s game over for you.
Will – I’m gay myself and it was not an Oscar Wildism, it was infact a humorous quote from Russel Howard.
Lighten up! Of course kids need to see homosexuality as normal yet having classes e.t.c on homosexuality as a subject in itself is wrong in my eyes. If you want to tell kids about it, do it in a sex-ed class covering the emotional and physical aspects of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
Jonathan, you should be apologising to Will for your comments, not telling him to “lighten up”. You acted like a moron, and he put you in your place. Sorry, but that just means he’s smarter than you, so maybe you should grow up and apologise like a man, eh?
["Not true. I earn about $5,000 a week from my investments"
Well, you certainly wouldn't be earning it from your comedy skills… ]
I didn’t say I was. I said I was earning it from my INVESTMENTS. AS far as I know, telling jokes is not involved in investing money.
[And I didn't say there was a gay gene –]
I don’t remember saying that you did
[I don't believe there is. Perhaps you could quote the bit where I said that or why not put more words into my mouth as you have willfully misunderstood most of what I said]
I am only following your lead.
[And your attempts at provocation are rather pathetic, in my opinion.]
So are yours.
[You don't want to engage in a discussion at all.]
Neither do you.
[I've had interesting discussions with religious people on here, but they were courteous and genuinely interested in discourse - you're not.]
Neither are you.
[I feel sorry for you. Not because you, I presume, are religious, but because you seem a sad, bitter person.]
Not true. Most people who know me say I am a gay person most of the time as can always be relied onto bring humour to the situation.
[You read the diary's of homosexuals???? What do you do, sleep with them and then rob their diary's??? You dirty bastard. And straight people don't sleep around. Oh, no, of course not…. Hugh Hefner is a virgin, I suppose?]
I don’t know, I have never met him.
[You are one stupid person upandatem to make statement like that].
And you are one stupid person to think that one can only read when one is shagging a homosexual.
["An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" — meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way." And since when do psychologists do gene tics? Besides, you're statement is completely wrong.]
It is not my statement. It is a statement of the APA which in your rage you obviously don’t want to know and if it is wrong, you will have to admit that what the APA has said for the last 30 years is wrong as in homosexuals are born that way.
[I'd go so far as to say you’re a liar.]
It take’s one to find one.
[If you're going to use science, please at least be versed in it.]
I didn’t use science. I used a quote from an APA document, which in your rage you failed to grasp.
[We homosexuals do have a better education level, after all.]
Can you prove that as a fact?
[There is evidence of hereditary genetics playing a factor, although this is likely to be a combination of factors. Also, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) states, in a 2000 position statement, that they oppose "any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change their sexual orientation.]
And the APA in 2009 has stated that homosexuals are not born that way.
[Did you understand that? I kept it simple for you, layman's terms. No big words. Assumed you're a complete idiot when it comes to science, Tiglathpileser. Well, didn't really have to assume, you've kinda proved it really with your silly statement….]
It wasn’t my statement. It was a statement from the APA, the organisation that has been quoted ad infinitum over the last 30 years to bolster your claim that you are born homosexual.
[but try keep to scientific arguments and methodologies please. It insults my intelligence if you don't.]
[And besides. You're missing the obvious. We don’t care what you think.]
Yes you do because you keep responding with foul and abusive language. A well rounded individual who is secure in who he is doesn’t need to do that.
[We're born gay because we know we're born gay.]
And the APA, which has been saying for 30 years you are born gay and which the gaystapo has quoted ad infinitum, now says that you are not. If you don’t like it, argue with them, not me.
[Don't argue with what you don't understand.]
[Iris and Will sure kicked your ass, didn't they, Pigletpleaser?]
Here’s some more.
[A) Genes aren't the only thing that shape a person before they're born. Hormones are another big factor. That homosexuality is innate is not in doubt, nor has been for decades - the big idea here is that it is a number of factors that decide a person's sexuality before they're born.]
Hormones have the following effects on the body:
• Stimulation or inhibition of growth
• Mood swings
• Induction or suppression of apoptosis which is the process of programmed cell death (PCD) that may occur in multicellular organisms. Programmed cell death involves a series of biochemical events leading to a characteristic cell morphology and death, in more specific terms, a series of biochemical events that lead to a variety of morphological changes, including blebbing, changes to the cell membrane such as loss of membrane asymmetry and attachment, cell shrinkage, nuclear fragmentation, chromatin condensation, and chromosomal DNA fragmentation. Processes of disposal of cellular debris whose results do not damage the organism differentiate apoptosis from necrosis.
• Activation or inhibition of the immune system, which is a collection of biological processes within an organism that protects against disease by identifying and killing pathogens and tumour cells. It detects a wide variety of agents, from viruses to parasitic worms, and needs to distinguish them from the organism’s own healthy cells and tissues in order to function properly. Detection is complicated as pathogens can evolve rapidly, producing adaptations that avoid the immune system and allow the pathogens to successfully infect their hosts.
To survive this challenge, multiple mechanisms evolved that recognize and neutralize pathogens. Even simple unicellular organisms such as bacteria possess enzyme systems that protect against viral infections. Other basic immune mechanisms evolved in ancient eukaryotes and remain in their modern descendants, such as plants, fish, reptiles, and insects. These mechanisms include antimicrobial peptides called defensins, phagocytosis, and the complement system. Vertebrates such as humans have even more sophisticated defense mechanisms. The immune systems of vertebrates consist of many types of proteins, cells, organs, and tissues, which interact in an elaborate and dynamic network. As part of this more complex immune response, the human immune system adapts over time to recognise specific pathogens more efficiently. This adaptation process is referred to as “adaptive immunity” or “acquired immunity” and creates immunological memory. Immunological memory created from a primary response to a specific pathogen, provides an enhanced response to secondary encounters with that same, specific pathogen. This process of acquired immunity is the basis of vaccination.
• Regulation of metabolism which is the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments. Metabolism is usually divided into two categories. Catabolism breaks down organic matter, for example to harvest energy in cellular respiration. Anabolism, on the other hand, uses energy to construct components of cells such as proteins and nucleic acids.
The chemical reactions of metabolism are organized into metabolic pathways, in which one chemical is transformed into another by a sequence of enzymes. Enzymes are crucial to metabolism because they allow organisms to drive desirable but thermodynamically unfavorable reactions by coupling them to favorable ones, and because they act as catalysts to allow these reactions to proceed quickly and efficiently. Enzymes also allow the regulation of metabolic pathways in response to changes in the cell’s environment or signals from other cells.
• Preparation of the body for fighting, sex, fleeing, mating, and other activity In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female types (or sexes). Sexual reproduction involves combining specialized cells (gametes) to form offspring that inherit traits from both parents. Gametes can be identical in form and function (known as isogametes), but in many cases an asymmetry has evolved such that two sex-specific types of gametes (heterogametes) exist: male gametes are small, motile, and optimized to transport their genetic information over a distance, while female gametes are large, non-motile and contain the nutrients necessary for the early development of the young organism.
An organism’s sex is defined by the gametes it produces: males produce male gametes (spermatozoa, or sperm) while females produce female gametes (ova, or egg cells); individual organisms which produce both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic. Frequently, physical differences are associated with the different sexes of an organism; these sexual dimorphisms can reflect the different reproductive pressures the sexes experience.
• Preparation of the body for a new phase of life, such as puberty, caring for offspring, and menopause. Puberty refers to the process of physical changes by which a child’s body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction. Puberty is initiated by hormone signals from the brain to the gonads (the ovaries and testes). In response, the gonads produce a variety of hormones that stimulate the growth, function, or transformation of brain, bones, muscle, skin, breasts, and reproductive organs. Growth accelerates in the first half of puberty and stops at the completion of puberty. Before puberty, body differences between boys and girls are almost entirely restricted to the genitalia. During puberty, major differences of size, shape, composition, and function develop in many body structures and systems. The most obvious of these are referred to as secondary sex characteristics.
In a strict sense, the term puberty (and this article) refers to the bodily changes of sexual maturation rather than the psychosocial and cultural aspects of adolescent development. Adolescence is the period of psychological and social transition between childhood and adulthood. Adolescence largely overlaps the period of puberty, but its boundaries are less precisely defined and it refers as much to the psychosocial and cultural characteristics of development during the teen years as to the physical changes of puberty.
• Control of the reproductive cycle A life cycle is a period involving one generation of an organism through means of reproduction, whether through asexual reproduction or sexual reproduction. In regard to its ploidy, there are 3 types of cycles:
• haplontic life cycle
• diplontic life cycle
• diplobiontic life cycle (also referred to as diplohaplontic, haplodiplontic, or dibiontic life cycle)
These three types of cycles feature alternating haploid and all germinates. To return to a haploid stage, meiosis must occur (see Cell division). The cycles differ in the product of meiosis, and whether mitosis (growth) occurs. Zygotic and gametic meioses have one mitotic stage and form: during the n phase in zygotic meiosis and during the 2n phase in gametic meiosis. Therefore, zygotic and gametic meiosis are collectively term haplobiontic (single mitosis per phase). Sporic meiosis, on the other hand, has two mitosis events (diplobiontic): one in each phase.
As you can see, hormones play no part in a person becoming a homosexual.
[B) They did not say there isn't one, they said they haven't FOUND one yet. That statement is almost entirely different to what you said.]
What is it you don’t understand about their comment “An APA publication includes an admission that there is NO homosexual gene….NO spells NO not FOUND. Comprende?
[C) We're here and we're queer. The way science works is that YOU have to disprove US.]
The way science works is that it has to prove itself. No self respecting scientist would say “I have found a new planet.” And is asked “can we see it” and he relies “NO, you have to prove that I haven’t seen it.”
[Burden of proof is on you,]
NO it is on you because you claimed without evidence that you are born homosexual.
[we don't need scientific studies to back up what everyone can see,]
I didn’t say you did. The comment came from the APA, the homosexual’s friend until this week.
[But if there's one teensy flaw in anything you present to us, it's game over for you.]
And it there is any flaw in your statements which according to the APA there is, it is game over for you, but I guess you will keep playing it long after the lights have gone out and why have you spent the last 30 years quoting the APA claim that your born homosexual?
P.S. You are definitely queer!!!
Am I supposed to take a bit of cut’n'paste form Wikipedia as serious proof for your bigotry???? Please.
And you you STILL don’t understand the basis of biology. One should try read what one is posting, or at least read further.
I’ll just take one point. One of you’re more stupid statement. And elaborate for the benefit of those who have the IQ above that of a pebble.
“As you can see, hormones play no part in a person becoming a homosexual”
- You cut and paste a lot about hormones, but you clearly don’t understand it. If you bothered to try understand, you’d know that hormones do affect genes. Take estrogen. Estrogen are small molecules, which readily enter through the plasma membrane. Once inside the target cell, they get tightly bound to specific receptor proteins, which are present only in the cytoplasm of the target cells. The hormone receptor protein complexes activate the transcription of specific genes in two possible ways. First, the hormone receptor protein complexes interact with specific non-histone chromosomal protein and this interaction stimulates the transcription of corrector protein complexes and this interaction stimulates the transcription of correct genes. The hormone receptor protein complexes activate transcription of target genes by binding to specific DNA sequences present in the regulatory regions of genes.
Now do you understand what this means? I doubt it. But suffice to say, in its very simplest form, that hormones can regulate genes, or ‘activate’ genes.
This means your statement on hormones proves my point, not disproves it, as you stupidly thought. In order for hormones to regulate genes, the genetic code needs to be there in the first place…. therefore there has to be a genetic component in homosexuality.
- Please see this study, Proceedings on the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0511152103), it shows a correlation between pre-natal hormones and sexuality, and suggests the basis of this is biological rather than environmental. The twin study I mentioned before, indicates a genetic factor. Studies like this one are what you’re missing and are from a reputable scientific journal. Not wikipedia.
You should try giving studies of your own, it helps makes your Science-101 statement a little more believable.
And curious, I’ve seen your style of comment before, the childish attacks with turning a phrase, the square brackets…. now, where could that have been. Changed your name recently have we?
As for this one- [but try keep to scientific arguments and methodologies please. It insults my intelligence if you don't.] What intelligence?
Er, the intelligent I have demonstrated clearly that I have, above what little you obviously have.
You are a fool, Tiglathpileser. A fool trying to use science to explain his bigotry and hate. You make me laugh.
Will – And curious, I’ve seen your style of comment before, the childish attacks with turning a phrase, the square brackets… now, where could that have been. Changed your name recently have we?
We sure have seen this rather unique kind of comment before. The childishness of the responses are very similar in style to previous comments on almost the same subject.
“realitycheck” by any chance? “Archdeacon Brian Hurtin”? And now Tiglathpileser. All the same person it seems.
Great post, Will. I love Tiglathpileser attempt to answer your previous point with such a blindly obviously cut and paste of stuff he just didn’t understand. What a twat!
Ha! What a fool you are Tiglathpileser! Its so bloody obvious you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about! Clearly Will is a little more versed in science than you are, he licked you good!!! Knowledge versus cut and paste…. at least give Will a challenge.
And you? Well, lets just say a visit to a museum wouldn’t go amiss. Start small, you know, in the kids section… you’re clearly not that smart.
[Its so bloody obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about! Clearly Will is a little more versed in science than you are, he licked you good!!! Knowledge versus cut and paste…. at least give Will a challenge.]
Waht I posted was work done by specialists in the field we are talking about.However, I notice that everyone is wrong if they don’t agree with your take on things…on everything. That being the case why aren’t all University Professors homosexuals as they seem to have a superior brain and knowledge?