A primary school teacher faced disciplinary action because she didn’t want to read to her class from a storybook about gay penguins.
The teacher, who has not been named, works in a school in a London Borough and her case has been told to a committee of MPs looking at the gay marriage Bill.
Another teacher, from Scotland, says he was pressurised to promote gay marriage against his will and it contributed to a breakdown.
The two teachers have remained anonymous because they fear for their careers, but have permitted a lawyer to outline their cases to Parliament.
47 Comments
Use these stories like these to show why we are in this battle. Of course when a same sex couple gets together it does not affect your marriage but it does affect society as a whole and our religious freedom.
I also believe it is important to note - and ought to have been aggressively noted by the teacher in question - that the Penguin book has become irrelevant and outmoded, because after the two supposedly "gay"" male Penguins had their tryst, they both went back to mating with females. (see link below).
Supposedly an example of "homosexuality in nature and the animal kingdom", the Penguins wound up being simply "bi-curious"-- or temporarily bored. So much for the "born that way" argument. !!!
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/world/2011/12/13/cbc-dnt-penquins-mating-with-others.cbc
ADDENDUM:
Here is a better link about the dubious gay nature of said Penguins:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2012/11/15/controversial-toronto-zoo-penguins-not-gay-after-all/
Am I cut off?
Guess not...shortened comments: these two teachers are reprimanded for unprofessional delivery of services to students. A course on Human Sexuality and Marriage cannot by definition include only one variant of sexuality and marriage. What a great opportunity for an enlightened and lively discussion that includes everyone. This isn't indoctrination. It's the Socratic method of sharing.
As for Two Penguins, hey, I have not read the book but I doubt they mate and hey, if they help a young fledging who does this hurt? In any event the kids can appreciate the care and concern expressed by the "adults".
"A course on Human Sexuality and Marriage cannot by definition include only one variant of sexuality and marriage."
Then why are polyamory and incest excluded? Such sexualities abound in the animal kingdom as well as among the human race, after all. Make no mistake, in spite all the slogans about "equality", this is only about promoting the supremacy of gay identity politics.
**As for Two Penguins, hey, I have not read the book but I doubt they mate and hey, if they help a young fledging who does this hurt? In any event the kids can appreciate the care and concern expressed by the "adults".**
Sorry, but that bogus book is being used to promote the gay agenda and is, moreover, based on a lie. Do you want a lie to be taught to your kids as truth?
"Then why are polyamory and incest excluded?"
Since when is polyamory and incest sexual orientations? Are you really saying their are people who can only find romantic and sexual gratification in groups or with siblings??? Really?
You people seem to get more desperate as Supreme Court oral arguments get closer LOL!
Can I continue to post?
For some reason, perhaps a key word, I can't get through. Here it is: Trust your teachers. Trust your kids. Trust that open, honest and safe discussions can cover all civil issues related to rights, responsibilities and the law. My students would accept nothing less than that. The young ones are taught to respect, care for and support everyone: I suspect that this is what the penguins wanted to do.
@Richard,
Do these "honest" and "safe" discussion you have include discussion the authentic science of biology and the true intent of the reproductive system?
Randy, If students wish to enter discussions of biology and reproduction into a larger discussion of human sexuality and marriage then by all means. In American Studies, we more often explore American History and society's issues through the lens of constitutional parameters and civil law. Our four guiding essential questions are: Who wields Power? What is Progress? What does it mean to be a Patriot? How do we address diversity?
You said sexuality, Richard. Not "orientation" whatever that means. Besides, bisexuality is considered an orientation but that's no reason to legalize bigamy.
If you can dismiss all the incestuous and polyamorous relationships that people find gratification in, why can't we do the same with homosexual relationships?
Randy, it's best to allow the students to guide the discussions (we guide the school sanctioned curriculum). Their real-world perceptions are always enlightening and definitely welcomed. We do blog with a California high school by the way. It's amazing the similarities in concerns of juniors from Maine to California.
SoA , sexuality is a continuum and gay, bisexuality and straight are three named orientations on that continuum. The relationships you mention (incestuous, polyamorous) are just that, relationships that at their core are much more often practiced by heterosexuals, so go ahead, dismiss them at your pleasure. Now, are you dismissing heterosexuality, too? I think you are not but relationships are subject to law, sexuality is not.
Sexuality is defined as such:
a : the condition of having sex
b : sexual activity
c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive
That does indeed cover incest and polyamory and any other sexual relationship you can name.
Also, given the promiscuous nature of homosexuality, polyamory is far more often practiced by homosexuals than heterosexuals. That is why STDs are more rife amongst gays than in any other group.
Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that marriage MUST be defined to cover ALL orientations, let alone sexualities.
@Robert - 'Since when is polyamory and incest sexual orientations' - OK, let's try beastiality. That's an orientation. Why not teach that too then?
So Richard, are gays not powerful as a group?
SoA, you ignore the strategic differentiation between label and practice but nothing I can say will change your mind. So be it. Ed, state your point so that I can respond with focus. Define powerful and we can have a discussion. If you read my post above, as teachers we encourage the kids to explore their concepts of power and that leads to open discussion. Pretend you are my student...who wield's power?
Tim, the first part of post #20 applies to you, too.
Why not "teach" bestiality? Because, um, sir, having sex with animals is illegal. Being gay and having sex with another human being is not illegal.
Get it? Not that hard!
Having same-gender masturbation used to be illegal as well; and obviously should still be.
"Because, um, sir, having sex with animals is illegal."
Well then decriminalize it, just like sodomy and polyamory had been decriminalized. Not that hard either!
SofA - Why not let the animals vote as to whether it should be decriminalized?
Bobby-poo: It's time to take your meds ... there ... attaboy!
We don't need an animal's permission to eat them or keep them as pets. Why do we need their permission to marry them?
Um, sex with animals is illegal, remember? I'm sorry you and your goat are in love, but marriage is a legal contract that requires consent.
Well then, decriminalize it. Just like homosexuality was decriminalized. And how would you know that no animal would consent to marrying a human unless you can read their minds?
P.S. I'm sorry you mistake an anus for a clitoris. That's an exit, not an entrance.
SoA, it is a vagina.
Richard can you state your reasoning for treating same-sex sexual behavior as moral, ever?
If you would retreat to moral neutrality, then, you'd have no solid basis for teaching that it is okay. At best you might teach it as a variant of human sexual behavior that is not the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife. You could teach it as an animal behavior, I suppose, but not as moral human behavior. You could teach is an abnormal behavior in a range of sex-related behaviors. You could teach it as a behavior contrary to the form and function of the sexual basis for human procreation and human community.
The behavior is the subject, Richard, not the gay identity which is merely a political rather than a biological, physiological, or hard scientific notion. Gay is not an orientation but it is a political construct that is race-like. F course there is one human race and its nature is complementarily-sexed, not one-sexed nore sex-neutral.
If you claim a moral basis for teaching that it is the moral equivalent of coital relations, then, you are obliged to first argue that basis soundly. And, I am confident that such an attempt on your part would illustratethe profound flaws in your pro-SSM view.
SSMers demand that marriage become a gay issue. That is a distortion of the marriage issue but it is the purpose of the SSM campaign. So, if this gay stuff is of such great societal significance, then, the onus is on you to make the positive case for same-sex sexual behavior -- not a neutral retreat.
Supply your supposed sound moral reasoning for the public approbation of same-sex sexual behavior. Put up or drop it.
Richard, your American Studies course clearly has a leftist bias. Of your four guiding essential questions, two are agenda driven: What is Progress? How do we address diversity?
Take from me, a history professor, a better set of questions would be: Who wields Power? What do those who wield it hope to accomplish? What does it mean to be a Patriot? Is the modern push for diversity a good thing? Please, pleae. please consider these questions...
r
SofA - Why do you allow your intense self hatred stop you from making any sense?
How do you explain your repeated accusations of others?
OKB, do you (or did you) if you are too old to teach, refer to your students as -poo? Your salutation seems odd coming from a professor. All courses that allow students to question, research, reflect upon and form their own opinions are thought to be "leftists" by those who fear a diversity of opinion. Don't you agree? Your suggestions for essential questions possess the very bias you wish to avoid. Wouldn't you rather have the students come to their own conclusions? Don't fear their minds.
Chairm, the subject is not the behavior except to those of you who seem oddly consumed by this very topic. Consequently, I have no interest in devoting my energies towards convincing others to have an opinion one way or the other regarding personal behaviors, especially those in one's personal life and protected by law. You know to what I refer and I suspect your mind is in overdrive. No, my focus is on the right of all legally married ga
I finish...the right of all legally married couples to receive the same federal rights our government provides. To your point, I dropped "gay" because I believe it doesn't matter now. The government recognizes marriage with certain provisions. Those who qualify must share federal rights. This is what SCOTUS will consider. Nothing more, nothing less with respect to DOMA.
So your answer, Richard, is that you are not tobe trusted to honestly discuss a «variant of sexuality» and a supposed «variant of marriage». That is very odd way for you to reply to the query that arose right from your own earlier comments.
Your gay emphasis is front and center so why would you object to discussing it forthrightly? Especially given your previous comments in this particular comment thread, readers might expect you to do much better.
I did not ask about your personal behaviors.
I asked about the very thing that you said you urged us to support teachers discussing with school kids. That's public.
Lacking a sound moral basis, it hardly ranks as worthy of discussion on par with the sexual aspects of the union of husband and wife. Marriage, of course, is a public type of sexual relationship. Youd said something about an enlightened and lively discussion but would rather obscure the subject in shadows and kill the discussion.
I think it rude of you. But I also think you wrote with too much haste.
You dropped «gay» but your gay emphasis remains. No same-sex scenario includes a husband and a wife. Do you complain that the bride-groom requirement is discrimination based on its sexual aspect -- or «variant» of human sexuality? Yes, you do. Do you consider the penguin book a benign book that opens discussion of the very stuff upon which you demand the imposition of SSM? Yes, you do. That is the point of your deigning to comment here, as you just conceded.
Look, as a self-claimed American Studies teacher, your retreat now would show you up as a poseur. I would have thought you would do much better than that. Other readers probably still think you could. Trust the discussion and let the chips fall where they may.
Please respond directly and forthrightly to my previous query. Thanks.
Chaim, despite your verbosity, why would you think anyone owes you an asnwer when you state things like, "Gay is not an orientation ". You are out of the mainstream on this. The UN has sexual orientation in several recent declarations. The Queen has just referred to it. Professional organisations all recognise it in the medical and scientific fields. Many states and nations have equal marriage.
If you would center your arguments in the real world then perhaps there could be some dialogue. But I don't see why anyone should respond directly and forthrightly to arguments that are three decades old.
bman - My "accusations" are based on comments in actually posts from one of the writers. I will try to find the posts. In the case of the other writer, his comments are so absurd as to have to reasonably conclude self hatred as the root cause.
@Richard,
You say to trust teachers and kids. Why don't you trust parents?
You say one of the four essential questions you ask is "How do we address diversity?" Gender is one of the most basic diversities in nature. We would literally die out without the integration of genders. Why do SSM advocates give sexual diversity higher priority than gender? How do you address the lack of gender diversity in SSM?
Paul Mc,
Gay is a socio-political identity. It is slang for homosexual orientation, sure, but gay is not a scientific term. It is not a biological term. It is not a physiological term. It is not a medical term. It is not a valid term of human sexuality. It is slang and it is political.
Same-sex sexual attraction is sometimes referred to as the central aspect of a sexual orientation. But even the concept of sexual orientation is not a scientific term. There is no blood test, for example, that will predict this or that infant will feel same-sex sexual attraction such that a supposed sexual orientation is fixed at birth.
Now, perhaps you meant a psychological or a psychiatric condition of some kind. But gay is still slang and still political rather than scientific in that context.
This is mainstream. You mistake socalled mainstream politics in your neck of the woods ... you mistake that for something else. Gay identity politics has gained currency but that says zilch about «gay» being an accurate term for sexual attraction. Sure, gay identity politics pushes many falsehoods into the mainstream stage, but the truth is not dictated by group identity politics. You might wish otherwise. Call the language police.
Your attempted insult missed the mark. Try to stick to substance instead.
Paul Mc, Richard urged a discusson. If you two are so fearful to discuss what Richard urged on school kids, how does that deserve trust?
The moralism on display might deserve to be mainstream or it might not deserve to be mainstream. If you had decades to prepare a sound moral argument, as you comment suggested, then it ought to be easy for you to present it.
That you are afraid to discuss it is not a signal that it deserves to be given consideration at all. Your own comment stands against what Richard claimed was an opportunity for enlightenment.
Sometimes you get what you asked for. What is your problem now?
Richard?
Paul Mc?
Do you concede, by your running away, that there is no sound moral argument in favor of the approbation of same-sex sexual behavior?
Yes, it appears to be your concession. SS moralism is negated by your own admission. Or, if not, then explain yourself.
Chairm, a few days absent from the blog brings me back. If you could ever take the time to reread your posts you might observe that you have no intention of engaging in any sort of reasoned, responsible debate. There can be no possibility that you are a Professor of History, let alone a legitimate Ph.d. No teacher in his right mind would stack the deck (as a lead-in to discussion) with such inflammatory presumptions and accusations as you do. You cannot be taken seriously for you are not open to another's viewpoint.
Richard, be forthright: you urge that school kids be drawn into discussions of a sexual variant. You have no sound moral reasoing for the moral approbation of same-sex sexual behavior or you would readily supply it. Instead you expect that school kids can be coaxed into a favorable view of this behavior. You'd expect to neutralize the opposing view dand close minds to the moral argument for the disapprobation of same-sex sexual behavior. That underhandedness is irresponsible. It is untrustworthy.
You could have the open discussion here. You flee instead. You could do better. I think you could Maybe you should think so too.
Look, the content of our comments will stand or fall based on merits and demerits. You, not I, introduced an appeal to academic authority.
Whether or not I am a professor is irrelevant. Whether or not you are a teacher is irrelevant. Why you brought up either thing is for you to own, not me. I appeal to reason and respect for human dignity. You?
So with the parting ad hom attack, Richard abandoned this comment section to reappear elsewhere to dodge the points made here.
He urged the discussion. He failed to deliver.