Schools could be required to teach children about gay marriage, Government documents seen by the Daily Mail reveal.
Officials at the Home Office and the Department for Education concede that teachers may be under a legal obligation to inform children about same-sex marriage once it has passed into law.
Under the Education Act 1996, pupils must learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life in sex education classes.
Critics said the documents, released under freedom of information laws, demonstrate that plans to introduce civil marriage ceremonies for gay couples in addition to existing civil partnerships, could have far-reaching and unintended consequences.
19 Comments
"could have far-reaching and unintended consequences."
Like stopping the hate towards gays maybe? How awful that would be.
Any dissent toward your views is considered "hate" in your feverish mind, eliasasm. That goes to show how open minded and tolerant you are.
Or maybe curtailing bullying somewhat, perhaps.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/05/homophobic-bullying-rife-schools-major-report-stonewall_n_1650511.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices&just_reloaded=1
Bullying is wrong in any case, of course. But I don't see how smearing the values that support the natural family as a civil and human rights abomination will do anything but expand bullying to include the oppression and ostracization of people of faith by the state.
SoA,
The issue is civil rights which your comments show you have no concept of or are not tolerant of civil rights for those you hate.
If is was not for hate, ignorance and fear NOM would not exist because there is no debate when it comes to civil rights. And that is precisely why all this has been made out to be about marriage. It isn't about marriage. It's about civil rights.
Except that marriage isn't a civil right.
And all the bullying comes from the opposition.
Students, Billy's s-s parents are coming to school to pick him up. Cover your eyes and turn away. Same sex marriage and families are now a reality in our British society but let's teach shame and recrimination.
SS"M" is NOT a civil right, eliasasm.
Civil rights are rights listed in the US Constitution, not arbitrarily declared by a special interest group to suit their sexual proclivities. Otherwise, why is the legalization of polygamy, bigamy, or incestuous marriages not every much a civil right to those who want them just as much as you want SS"M"?
The only thing you have to support your views are petulant ravings that have absolutely no intellectual or rational substance whatsoever.
Good, let children learn more of equality. Maybe become less closed-minded than other people.
Gay people exist. This is simply a fact of life that you all need to accept.
And in many places, gay people can legally get married. Another fact that you all need to accept.
11
Those who claim to be homo exist.
30+ states say that "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman who are not required to be heterosexual, nor Republican, nor Catholic. They may claim to be homo, for all the law cares.
So-called "same-sex 'marriage'" is not recognized in the vast majority of states, including mine.
This is definetely part of the consequences. States that have allowed this have in effect allowed the homosexual activists into the public schools to shove their agenda down our children's throats.
@Son of Adam
"Civil rights are rights listed in the US Constitution"
Which is why I'm sure you'll find that commonly accepted "civil rights" of our era, like the rights of blacks not to be discriminated against in hiring, living arrangements, marriage (or being treated as property), as well as women's right to vote, can all be easily located in our Constitution, correct?
Andy King:
Ever heard of the amendments?
"Which is why I'm sure you'll find that commonly accepted "civil rights" of our era, like the rights of blacks not to be discriminated against in hiring, living arrangements, marriage (or being treated as property), as well as women's right to vote, can all be easily located in our Constitution, correct?"
Of course. It's called the 15th and the 19th amendment.
>>It isn't about marriage. It's about civil rights.
If that were true, there would not be so many who had fought for *real* civil rights who are in disagreement with your position.
>>Gay people exist. This is simply a fact of life that you all need to accept.
Just because a small minority of the populace engage in a specific behavior does not require society to "accept" that behavior. People engage in all sorts of behaviors that society has deemed detrimental to the good of society. This is true whether a specific behavior is innate to the individual or not. Homosexual behavior has only recently gained in acceptance because we, as a society (beginning with the APA when they caved and removed it from the DSM), were too weak to stand up to the temper tantrums of those seeking acceptance of a behavior which had been long deemed detrimental to society. Until now, our society on the whole has only had the courage to vote common sense at the ballot box when marriage amendments come up for a vote, all while largely staying silent about these issues in the public square. However, now with the new data coming out how acceptance of this behavior is ultimately detrimental to children, perhaps we as a society can finally muster up the courage to reverse course.
Not seeing a problem with this. Gay people exist - get over it.
"Not seeing a problem with this. Gay people exist - get over it."
So do polyamorous groups and broken homes. Should schools depict those situations as normal and healthy as well?
tim,
Explain what you mean by the word, "gay", when you state that "gay people exist". How would you know they exist unless you have objective criteria for categorizing people?
The label, gay, is a very recent socio-political construct. It is not a sexual orientation. It is not a sexual behavior. It is not en enthnicity. It is not a race. It is not a sexuality. It is not intrinsic to humankind.
If your intention was to point at a modern political group, the gay identity group, then, okay, on what basis does an individual claim rightful membership in it? What would disqualify an individual? Who would decide these criteria?
I think you are going to run into most of the problems that racists have when they try to divide humankind into subspecies based on skin complexion, shapes of noses, and all the rest.
There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. And, sure, humankind is intrinsically social, cultural, political, and group-orientated. But those lines are very fluid and are not objectively inherent this way or that way.
The two-sexed nature of human procreation demonstrates that very well; as does the two-sexed nature of human community -- the family based on the married mom and dad being the organic unit of civilization. And this is the given bases for the marriage idea -- which is foundational to civil society.
The notion of a gay identity group, not so much.