blank_frackis

I never really understood the logic behind Section 28, so perhaps someone could explain it to me. Presenting homosexuality as acceptable has no impact on sexual preferences and only someone who has homosexual preferences would be involved in a same sex marriage so who is this legislation aimed at?

mkpdavies

It could be argued that some kids go though a stage of confusion. I don't know if that's the case, as I never did.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

blank_frackis

I can't say I went through such a stage either, but I guess that could happen. I think there's probably a distinction between promoting homosexual sex and legitimising same sex couples as a living arrangement and the like though.

This-England

Levels of Homosexuality are vastly increasing among the young.

Tony Bennett

The following article by Christopher Booker in today's Sunday Telegraph touches on these issues:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Equality Act that disrespects Catholics

QUOTE

The sight of Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle, the Government's gay and lesbian shock troops, accusing the Catholic Church of trying to "blackmail" the Government over the gay adoption issue prompted me to look at the explanatory notes to the Equality Act 2006 which set this furore in motion. The chief inspiration for the Act was EU directive 2000/78, "a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation" that outlaws any form of "discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation".

Our Government chose to extend the meaning of "employment and occupation" to adoption. But the directive also includes a clause stating that the EU "respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations"; and that "Member States may maintain or lay down specific provisions on genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity".

In other words, our Government could have allowed the Catholic Church still to refuse the adoption of children by gay couples (as is the case in other EU countries such as Poland), but it has deliberately decided not to make use of that exemption.

UNQUOTE

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

It is clear that the homosexual lobby is after only one thing, which unfortunately they will never attain - full acceptance of their abnormal lifestyle and practices.

Tolerance of it is one thing; we all have to agree in society to tolerate different views and different conduct so long as it this is all within the law.
Whatever conesnting adults do in private is up to them etc.

But the homosexual lobby wants homosexuality promoted as an equally valid lifestyle to that of heterosexuality. And over the past 15 years or so been very successful at doing so.

It also wants to suppress all the known health risks associated with active homosexuality, and let's list just some of them - for none are disputed:

* homosexuals suffer more depression
* homosexuals are far more likley to commit suicide
* homosexuals are far more lilkey to be alcoholics
* homosexuals are far more likley to abuse drugs
* homosexuals have much shorter relationships
* homosexuals are more violent, especially towards each other
* homesexuals die 20 to 30 years earlier than hetersexuals
* homosexuals tend to have a range of health problems, both sexually transmitted diseases and other internal illnesses, related to their activities
* many homsexuals indulge in practices too disgusting to mention on this forum.

In any other walk of life, such known and predictable health risks would be enough to have health warnings up all over the place - on TV, in the GPs surgeries, in hospitals, in schools, etc. basically saying: "Keep Healthy - Don't Do Homosexuality".

It might perhaps be a much better idea for pupils at secondary school to have an occasional talk from those who have been happily married and those who deliberately abstain from sex until marriage - as is now happening in many U.S. schools (see references on the Net).

Instead of which the homosexual lobby, with government help, is actually proposing and promoting the use in school of story books which have explicit descriptions of sexual acts including mutual masturbation with other young people. Why?

And some want to take things still further. This was a major news item on AOL News last week:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call for explicit videos in classroom

[Search: Sex education - Search: Family planning - Your sexual health]

QUOTE

Some experts claim a new approach to sex education is needed.

Children should be shown explicit videos of mast------on as part of sex education, campaigners say.

Many pupils form impressions of sexual activity from pornography on the internet and need better lessons at school, said Rebecca Findlay, from the Family Planning Association.

She told the Times Educational Supplement that sex is still seen as too "embarrassing'' to be discussed.

Ms Findlay said: "We need to be able to look at someone mast------ng and see it not as pornography but as instructional.'' Using such images in schools might help lift the taboos around sex, she told the TES.

"What is mast------on? How do you do it? What does it feel like?

"These are conversations people should be having in sex education classes. But in British culture, sex is something embarrassing.''

Dr David Limond, a lecturer from Trinity College Dublin, said the 30-year-old row over the controversial 1970s film 'Growing Up' still limits what could be shown in schools today.

Intended as a resource for school sex education, 'Growing Up' featured scenes of adolescents mast------ng and a naked couple copulating.

Dr Limond said there is no reason why appropriately-produced footage of mast------on should not be used in schools.
He called for a more open approach to sex education that would provide a "better transition'' between school, where sex is "veiled and mysterious'', and the adult world where "anything goes''.

Sex education has been mandatory in state secondary schools in England since 2000.

UNQUOTE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

blank_frackis

But the premise of all this is decidedly shaky - how can what you're taught in school affect long term sexual preferences? You know, I spent 12 years in school being told I should eat broccoli and brussel sprouts but it didn't change my preferences for those two foods one iota (I despise them) so why are sexual preferences any different?

I have yet to see any evidence that what children are taught in school affects their sexual preferences (or taste, or sense of smell or any other biological drives) and if you reject that idea, then presenting a "homosexual" lifestyle as normal will only have an impact on those who already have the preferences in the first place. Is the answer to this:

* homosexuals suffer more depression
* homosexuals are far more likley to commit suicide
* homosexuals are far more lilkey to be alcoholics
* homosexuals are far more likley to abuse drugs

to constantly drill into those who have these preferences the idea that they're abnormal?

Tony Bennett

This-England wrote: "Levels of homosexuality are vastly increasing among the young".

REPLY: If you had used the word 'considerably', I might have agreed with you.

But not only the young, also in the rest of society.

And most especially in the Houses of Parliament and in the main media, both TV and newspapers and magazines.

And in central and local government.

Plus the usual places: call centres and hotels.

In most societies, those who are actively homosexual are no more than 1% to 2% of the population. Here in the U.K. this might be increasing to 2% to 3% - a significant rise

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phagocyte

I still wouldn't have. But then I wouldn't have seen the meaning of such a statement to begin with.

Proof please.

Why does something tell me that I should be looking less for proof here and more for justification for what appears to be a distinctly pejorative meaning on your part?

Proof of all this. Also, I'd like to know what you mean by "actively" homosexual. Homosexuality isn't a verb.

Phagocyte

Sounds about as retarded as putting up signs that say "Keep Healthy - don't have an IQ of over 120."

Let's have talks from people who have come into much pleasure from shagging outside of wedlock, are celibate, and who are perfectly happy not being married. You know. While we're having little talks with children.

And which U.S. schools would those be? I can't think of any public schools that make such determinations about what life goals to suggest to children beyond that of not picking up venereal diseases.

I think you'd best state your meaning. And your sources.

Possibly because such things occur?
Why don't you tell me which books you're referring to, and what age group? I don't see how this relates to any "homosexual lobby" or "government help."

Why do I get the impression that you are deliberately not being clear in order to make the matter appear larger than it actually is?

And sex ed is not mandatory in places like America, oddly enough. That said, do you have some reason for bringing up masturbation footage as it applies to state schools, or is this just a red herring?

Tony Bennett

Phagocyte wrote: "Also, I'd like to know what you mean by "actively" homosexual. Homosexuality isn't a verb".

REPLY: Homosexuality is a noun, as you quite correctly point out. Homosexual is an adjective (as well as a noun), which I qualified with an adverb. 'Actively' means engaging in sex, rather than just having an 'orientation' towards other males/females.

The following terms are all grammatically correct:

1. Active homosexuality

2. Active homosexual (noun)

3. Actively homosexual (adjective).

You will probably be aware that this is a distinction that the Church of England (and I do not say their position is correct) makes about its clergy. It says that to have an orienation towards other males/females is permissible for its clergy, but that to actively express that orientation sexually is not permissible.

It is not something it is willing to enforce in practice anyway

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------