![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quoting from Marnie's comment:
A local authority shall not
I'd forgotten about part b... well, part a makes sense, 'cos they oughtn't be promoting any lifestyle choices, but part b really needs serious rewording.
Of course, many Christians would probably disagree with me here, but I think a secular government is a Good Thing (as opposed to a Christian religious government). The problem with religious governments of *any* sort is that they obviously restrict freedom of religion. And although I'd like to see everyone in this country as a Christian, it doesn't *work* if it's forced on them. The difficulty is, it's hard to argue that people ought to have the freedom to be wrong - after all, they don't have the freedom to go around killing people, or even to take some kinds of drugs. But not giving people the freedom to be wrong, especially on such an a) important and b) contentious issue as religion, comes with the danger of it being so easy from that state to turn this not-having-the-freedom-to-be wrong into not-having-the-freedom-to-be-right... if people accept restrictions of a certain level, it's easy to change what those restrictions actually are, without changing the level of them, so that good things are suddenly restricted. In this particular case, what would everyone feel about Section 28 if it was worded the other way around - if it was talking about *heterosexual* relationships? If people have accepted this kind of restriction on religious grounds, it wouldn't be that big a leap to accept it the other way around on environmental grounds (and environmental activists sometimes can make this into almost a religion), due to overpopulation...
Yes, a religious government would be perfect if it actually *was* governed by God, and therefore actually did have perfect judgement on issues. But if it's run by people, there is so much scope for the twisting of God's word... it's better that the government is secular in this case, so that it seeks to restrict as little as possible on moral grounds, and works on the pragmatic 'people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others more than others would otherwise harm them' grounds, which are twistable but not quite so easily and devastatingly, because they're not seen as the product of some divine authority that cannot be contradicted.
This would be a nice speech to give at a church sometime... I suspect it'll meet a mostly positive audience among LJ'ers, and it'd be interesting to argue it against detractors to it...
A local authority shall not
- intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; and
- promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
I'd forgotten about part b... well, part a makes sense, 'cos they oughtn't be promoting any lifestyle choices, but part b really needs serious rewording.
Of course, many Christians would probably disagree with me here, but I think a secular government is a Good Thing (as opposed to a Christian religious government). The problem with religious governments of *any* sort is that they obviously restrict freedom of religion. And although I'd like to see everyone in this country as a Christian, it doesn't *work* if it's forced on them. The difficulty is, it's hard to argue that people ought to have the freedom to be wrong - after all, they don't have the freedom to go around killing people, or even to take some kinds of drugs. But not giving people the freedom to be wrong, especially on such an a) important and b) contentious issue as religion, comes with the danger of it being so easy from that state to turn this not-having-the-freedom-to-be wrong into not-having-the-freedom-to-be-right... if people accept restrictions of a certain level, it's easy to change what those restrictions actually are, without changing the level of them, so that good things are suddenly restricted. In this particular case, what would everyone feel about Section 28 if it was worded the other way around - if it was talking about *heterosexual* relationships? If people have accepted this kind of restriction on religious grounds, it wouldn't be that big a leap to accept it the other way around on environmental grounds (and environmental activists sometimes can make this into almost a religion), due to overpopulation...
Yes, a religious government would be perfect if it actually *was* governed by God, and therefore actually did have perfect judgement on issues. But if it's run by people, there is so much scope for the twisting of God's word... it's better that the government is secular in this case, so that it seeks to restrict as little as possible on moral grounds, and works on the pragmatic 'people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others more than others would otherwise harm them' grounds, which are twistable but not quite so easily and devastatingly, because they're not seen as the product of some divine authority that cannot be contradicted.
This would be a nice speech to give at a church sometime... I suspect it'll meet a mostly positive audience among LJ'ers, and it'd be interesting to argue it against detractors to it...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 06:26 am (UTC)From:For my part I would be horrified that if I sent a kid to school (hyperthetical being as I'm not planning on having any children) they might being taught by their teachers that homosexuality is okay.
Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 06:50 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 07:06 am (UTC)From:The idea of making that legal is *incredibly* scary.
What are you thinking Chess?
Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 07:56 am (UTC)From:Nobody's ever been prosecuted under S28, and I'm not sure anyone can be, since the only bodies that come under it are LEAs, and only by "promoting" particular teaching. Choices of what goes on the curriculum isn't, afaiaa, part of the responsibilities of LEAs. If an individual teacher, a school or the National Curriculum decided to "promote" it, the law would be inapplicable.
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 10:55 am (UTC)From:Neil
P.S.: You just wrote that 'cos you weren't getting enough comments didn't you Chess?
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 11:23 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 12:22 pm (UTC)From:Well, surely part of the point of 'the state' is to prevent individuals hurting/harming others? To create a society in which most people live 'good' lives. (Modern states, I mean - I guess the feudal barons were quite likely to just be looking out for themselves, but even then ... think of fairy stories/myths, the 'good king' is always one who cares about his subjects and wants them to live as safe and happy lives as possible. Ie he locks up/kills those who would make people's lives unsafe.) Badly expressed (it's been a long day), but I hope you see my point :)
For my part I would be horrified that if I sent a kid to school (hyperthetical being as I'm not planning on having any children) they might being taught by their teachers that homosexuality is okay.
For my part I would be horrified if any potential child of mine was taught at school to pass judgement on the sexuality of others - if all involved are (explicitly) consenting adults. I quite firmly believe in tolerance unless others are being harmed by the actions of the person in question.
no subject
Date: 2001-06-14 12:45 pm (UTC)From:And Neil, how would you like it if you were constantly told from a young age that who and what you are is wrong and offensive. That's what it's like.
School's just don't mention it, they are scared to be prosecuted. This means that openly gay kids are more likely to get bullied. This is never a good thing.
It is up to you to tell your kids that your God thinks that homosexuality is evil. It is not up to society to pass judgement on ppl who are not hurting anyone (at least not without their consent). You have the right to do what you like to yourself Neil, you can even take drugs, just not carry them around/store them/sell them... or kill yourself.
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 02:13 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 08:25 am (UTC)From:So yeah, it's not a non-view. I never said it was. Neil said something, that I paraphrased to show my view on the subject.
And yeah - every government has problems. But I agree with Chess, in that I think that a government that thinks it has divine right to rule, and divine inspiration for its rules will be more likely to get autocratic quicker than a government that thinks it has to answer to the people in some way.
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 11:00 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 11:19 am (UTC)From:Neil
Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-15 11:27 am (UTC)From:And Neil, how would you like it if you were constantly told from a young age that who and what you are is wrong and offensive. That's what it's like.
So in school, because of Section 28 you are told by teachers that it is wrong and offensive?
School's just don't mention it, they are scared to be prosecuted.
So in school you are not told that it is wrong and offensive becauseof section 28?
Can we make up our minds here?
And Naath I can't legally take drugs, because taking drugs involves at least momentarily being in posession of them and this is illegal: the state judges that drugs are a bad thing and, for my own good, prohibits me from messing up my life with them. They really couldn't care if I've consented to taking drugs or not, it's still a *bad* thing.
Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 11:44 am (UTC)From:CORE DUMPED
Re: Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-15 11:56 am (UTC)From:Now, as I've said, "promoting" something often ends up meaning "talking about something so as to give the impression it's OK". But in either sense of the word, teachers can easily "promote" a good deal of things which are inappropriate for Christians (recreational soft drug use, as you've mentioned; premarital sex, whether hetero- or homosexual; a whole slew of non-Christian worldviews from atheism to Wicca). And there's no legal burden on them not to do so-- and rightly so, because people need to be able to think for themselves. What would be far more worthwhile than censorship of what teachers can say is making sure that people are taught not to believe anything anyone says just because of the person who said it.
Re: Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-15 12:35 pm (UTC)From:Drugs was a bad idea, ppl tend to hurt other ppl with drugs, they sell them, they steal to get them etc.
Anyway, what I wanted to say was that I think children should not be influenced by parents/teachers into thinking that they are wrong/dirty/bad/evil just because some ppl think that God doesn't like gay men.
That came out bad...
I'll try again shall I?
I will anyway.
It is your view that homosexual sex is bad, this is your view, this is fine. It is my view that it is good, as is heterosexual sex, as is sex with sheep... so long as noone forces anyone to do anything that they don't want to. This is beside the point. There is no need to imply to kids that they are bad because they are gay. You can explain your pov to them yes, but there is no need to force your belief system on someone else.
I for instance am bi, pagan and happy with it. You don't like that because you are straight and Christian. I'm not about to try to force you to be gay, or think that gay ppl are wonderfull, I just think that you shouldn't support a system that sujests that a lifestyle choice (that is perfectly legal) is somehow worse than another choice, just because that's the one that you happened to make. Especially on young ppl who aren't really old enough to have had time to think through what it is that they want.
Re: Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-15 12:41 pm (UTC)From:That is what I meant (honest).
ppl should decide for themsleves whether they wish to be/are gay, straight, bi, christian, pagan, aetheist, agnostic, muslim, whatever.
It should not be forced on them
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 01:45 pm (UTC)From:Being "taught that homosexuality" is okay would be acceptance. It wouldn't be teaching them "oh go, on, give it a try, you might like it" ;)
Surely you can see that there's a world of difference between accepting people as they are and actively trying to change people's sexual preferences?
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 09:36 am (UTC)From:And is the system at present trying to change anyone's sexuality?
What exactly is the problem here?
As far as I can see the problem is that Chess can't drag her teachers off on tangential debates about the subject. But I think that's the best way, teachers not talking on the subject atall seems the best solution to me.
Neil
Re: Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-17 09:42 am (UTC)From:However, my school nor any teacher in it has ever conveyed a "Homosexual is bad" impression to me. Do anyone else's experiences differ from this?
If there is bullying then that should be dealt with in the same way as all bullying, the point agianst bullying is not whether what is being bullied over is true or not (Bullies my claim the victim is fat, and the victim may indeed be fat, but this is no reason for the school to cringe and avoid the fact (although they may as well when someone tried calling me fat ... hee hee, there's an insult that's going to work)) the point is that it doesn't make violence threats etc right.
Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 10:46 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 10:55 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 10:56 am (UTC)From:(sheesh, trying to clean up someone else's sentence I give a non-parsing one...)
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-18 04:42 am (UTC)From:Do you think the same is true of heterosexual experimentation?
Insofar as people who are perceived to be homosexual are often persecuted by the other children, and can also see that the teachers refuse to discuss their difficulties, then yes.
Would you support such a restriction on discussion about, say, drugs, the occult and sex in general? Or is this subject special in some way?
Re: Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-18 04:56 am (UTC)From:Consider your example of children calling someone fat; as you say, it's irrelevant whether the victim is in fact fat. However, the bullies are able to use "fat" as an insult only because fatness is commonly accepted to be a bad thing among their peers. Now it follows that the victim will know that fatness is considered a bad thing too. If the victim has any reason to believe themselves overweight, they will either feel resentful that other people hate them, or begin to go along with it and hate themselves too, or of course both. Hence the alarming levels of eating disorders in our society.
In this particular example, it is indeed a bad thing to be overweight, since it's damaging to health. But that's beside the point. When someone taunts you for being overweight, they're not doing so out of love, out of concern for your bodily well-being. They're doing so out of hate, to put you down.
And (this is the point it all hangs on) whether or not actual physical or verbal bullying was going on, the very fact that fat people were seen in that way would be enough to let people who saw themselves as overweight feel persecuted.
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-18 05:09 am (UTC)From:Re: Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-18 09:36 am (UTC)From:You are just assuming here, that "drugs" are in fact Class A or B types. Caffeine, Alcohol, Nicotine are all legal. The latter has a high chance of killing you, the second really will screw your life up if you take too much, i've seen it happen to ALOT of people and the first can make you a manic depressive and so kill yourself. So should all these be made illegal? You really have zero chance of at least two of those becoming illegal within the next decade.
Ady,
Re: Any chacne of you not contradicing yourself?
Date: 2001-06-21 11:57 am (UTC)From:homosexuals
Date: 2001-06-27 12:44 am (UTC)From:-Derek
no subject
Date: 2001-08-26 08:50 am (UTC)From:The problem is, that by note talking about it, and in fact, not being able to talk about it means that young people with serious questions are being ignored by teachers for fear of losing their jobs (and - potentially - going to jail). This is a real issue because young people often see teachers as neutral authorities. They know stuff, are trusted, and they aren't biased like parents are. So who else does the kid talk to that they can trust?
Maybe the kid isn't gay at all; I know a lot of people who've spent years of their life trying to figure out their sexuality, but their grades will suffer, they can become depressed, or worse.
Now I'm not saying that teachers should give advice on sexuality. Most people are biased one way or the other, and most have no idea what to say to a kid who's got doubts about which side (s)he's batting for. I sure as hell don't. But teachers should be encouraged to give a worried/confused child support contacts, LEA-approved leaflets, or whatever.
There's no reason why schools should have classes on sexuality. Promotion of alternative lifestyles isn't the issue; the issue is that teachers are being stopped from helping children to grow up and make their own decisions, which is surely what education is all about. And teachers are being stopped from preventing the persecution of confused youths. Surely that's wrong in any book?