Do You Agree With These Parents?

[youngmafbog]

I must admit I do hold some sympathy. Whilst I certainly do not condone homophobia I really dont think schools should be promoting LGBT propaganda for children as young as this.

But will the Muslims be able to do better at halting this mad rush to push sex (all types) onto young children than the Christians or atheists have been?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6655811/School-revolt-Muslim-parents-object-LGBT-equality-classes.html

[sherrardk]

From September 2020 all primary children will learn about LGBT issues when Relationship Education becomes a compulsory part of the curriculum.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Are we really going to forbid all family arrangements that are even slightly sub-optimal? Shall we leave children in care because the perfect family is not available to them? There's about 70,000 children in the care system last I checked, and adoption rates are falling. Even if (if!) same-sex parenting is sub-optimal in some way, it seems like bad policy to reduce the number of potential adopters in such circumstances//

A rather tendentious restatement of my position, Kromo. We agree, though, that children are better looked after in a loving family (however we define it) than "in care".

I am wholly for adoption - I was an adopted child myself, as it happens. That doesn't mean I endorse adoption by anybody, and I trust you don't endorse that either. You can think of circumstances in which you would refuse adoption, can't you? Say by suspected paedophiles? Or a rich old woman in her eighties? What you're doing in these cases is asking the question "Why do they want to adopt?". Typically adoptive parents are couples who can't have children and desperately want them. It's pretty easy to to recognise that class of adoptive parent and so know that the child is going to a "good home".

Now this is my problem with gay couples adopting: I think an adopted child, like a formal marriage ceremony, is an obvious symbol of newly acquired gay rights, and, therefore, has become to a certain extent fashionable - "everyone must have one". So in some cases, I think, the adoption is not based on a genuine desire to be a parent with the commitment to accepting the burdens and costs which go with parenthood.

Meanwhile (on your point of falling adoption rates) there's a possible undesirable consequence of gay adoption legislation: the pressure, including legal sanction based on the same "equality" principle, on adoption agencies, many of them church sponsored, to provide their services to gay couples. I think some such agencies in the States have been closed down as a result. Don't know if any in the UK have been affected.

[Kromovaracun]

Gay couples want children for exactly the same reasons heterosexual ones do. They have done so for a long time, too, but unlike heterosexuals have been barred from doing so until very recently. The impulse to raise a family is not ond I share personally (and I do think a serious cultural change is required in our attitudes to parenthood) but that is what motivates the overwhelming majority of gay people to adopt. They certainly don't adopt as a fashion statement. If you think they do, prove it.

I find your suggestion that the extra demand of gay couples is somehow straining the limits of adoption agencies extremely unconvincing. It's an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. Even if it is true, though, its a testament to how badly those agencies are run. It is not the fault of gay parents wanting to exercise their equal rights and give a child a loving home.

[vetuste_ennemi]

"4000% explosion in kids who are transgender" was a headline I read somewhere.

And along with the "explosion" a corresponding increase in children seeking gender reassignment treatments of various (often irreversible) kinds. And no shortage of adults encouraging them, and willing to "assist" the transition.

Now this "explosion" could be attributed to a suppressed demand caused by societal taboos and transphobic bigotry and increased awareness.

There's another equally plausible explanation: that an effective advertising campaign conceived in the academy and embraced and propogated by the educational establishment, mainstream media and the entertainment industry has made transgenderism fashionable.

[Kromovaracun]

What does transgenderism have to do with the subject at hand?

[vetuste_ennemi]

To illustrate the speed with which a dotty idea with possibly dangerous consequences can become mainstream and even fashionable in a very short time.

[vetuste_ennemi]

...same ad agencies, same promoters, same disciples.

[naomi24]

//What does transgenderism have to do with the subject at hand?//

From the link: //The No Outsiders In Our School programme promotes LGBT equality //

“T” I believe signifies Transgender.

[Kromovaracun]

You are aware that plenty of gay rights activists actually want to disassociate themselves with transgender activists because they are fundamentally different issues? And that there's considerable infighting among people who support the LGBT alliance?

Of course not. Every little thing has to be a conspiracy, regardless of evidence (of which there has still been none so far as I can see). Them gays and trans people are all a giant hivemind stralthily co-ordinating the downfall of civilization. It's the only possible interpretation that makes sense.

If you want my advice, v-e, you'd have a significantly easier time of countering the ideas you despise if you actually understood them.

[naomi24]

//You are aware that plenty of gay rights activists actually want to disassociate themselves with transgender activists //

That one doesn't.

[Kromovaracun]

All the programme seems to involve is teaching children that such people exist. Which they do.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Thanks for the advice, Kromo. I'll try harder to keep up in the future.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//All the programme seems to involve is teaching children that such people exist//

All? All?

Have to work harder on the keeping up bit. How many impossible things before breakfast have I got to imagine?

[naomi24]

Does it?

//We need our children to want to be part of that society, and we have to sell it to them; that desire may not come naturally by itself.//

http://www.insidegovernment.co.uk/uploads/2017/10/Hazel-Pulley.pdf

Brainwashing by any other name.

[naomi24]

^That to Krom.

[Kromovaracun]

But Britain is a diverse society. How is teaching kids that it is diverse brainwashing?

[naomi24]

//We need our children to want to be part of that society, and we have to sell it to them; that desire may not come naturally by itself.//

^That is not teaching. It's indoctrination.

[Kromovaracun]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Personally, I think teachers who counter religious prejudice by teaching students about other people are doing exactly what educators should be doing.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//But Britain is a diverse society. How is teaching kids that it is diverse brainwashing?//

But a part of that diversity is parents like those in the OP who believe that homosexuality is a sin. Is that, or is that not a legitimate part of multicultural Britain? And if it's not legitimate, why not?

[Kromovaracun]

I don't think homophobia is a tolerable part of it, no, because it inherently victimises people.