Home » Search results for '"buggery 101"'
Search Results for: "buggery 101"
One of the sadly amusing aspects of the way that our society views sexuality is the rather desperate way that so many “gay rights activists want to insist that all aspects of human sexual practice are “natural” and therefore should be absolutely affirmed by society and by extension our education system. Surely it all boils down to precisely how “natural” is defined and its the definition that underlays the piece in today’s Fairfax press that attacks Keven Donnelly for committing the heinous sin of suggesting
‘Forgotten is that many parents would consider the sexual practices of gays, lesbians and transgender individuals decidedly unnatural and that such groups have a greater risk in terms of transmitting STDs and AIDS.”
In the eyes of the “politically correct” it is the worst sin imaginable to be in any way critical of the sexual practices of gay people and the worst possible sin is to claim or imply that such practices are “unnatural” . While I and most other parents are more than ok with the idea that our children should be taught that there is a great deal of diversity in the way that human desire and sexuality is expressed there is no need to pretend that everything done in the quest for sexual pleasure is “natural”. It should be enough for students to learn that the primary consideration when it comes to any sexual activity between any individuals is that it has to be entirely consensual, we don’t have to pretend that there is anything “natural” about some types of sexual congress because homosexuals want to have their desires and sexual practices socially affirmed.
Yet the social engineers of the left just won’t give up on “buggery 101” until it is front and centre in every classroom and they will attack without mercy anyone who might dare suggest that some sexual practices are anything but natural. Thus we find Fairfax dragging out the cudgels to bash Kevin Donnelly just because he points out the widely held belief that not all types of sex are entirely approved of by the parents out there. The politically correct teaching unions of course think that they know better than parents but they forget that its not their place to dictate what is taught to our children. That is the prerogative of parents; teachers are both our servants and proxies in the teaching process not our betters or our masters and they clearly need to be reminded of this fact.
OK lets make one thing very clear from the outset and that is that I have no problem with adults doing what every they please with their own bodies or the bodies of other consenting adults. But I do have concerns with the obsession that certain homosexualist activists have with promoting their ” lifestyle” to primary school children. As is the case in the example cited by the Daily Mail.
Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of ‘creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated’.
The ambition was revealed in documents prepared for the No Outsiders project run by researchers from universities and backed with £600,000 of public money provided by the Economic and Social Research Council.
The stated purpose of the project – which is operating in 14 primary schools – is to stop bullying and prejudice aimed at homosexuals.
However, at a seminar at Exeter University tomorrow, supporters of the group will go beyond the anti-bullying agenda and discuss ‘pleasure and desire in educational contexts’.
A document prepared for the seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: ‘The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children’s bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.
‘The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire – and that it is therefore not about bodies.
‘Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.’
Some people seem to think that public schools should promote a particular view of human sexuality, a view that assumes that promiscuity and everything that can be imagined is OK. Personally I think that teaching our children about sexuality is one of those things that is primarily the role of parents and that our children should not be the focus of leftard social engineering aimed at promoting homosexuality.
Why is it that homosexualists want to go beyond acceptance of their nature, which I can appreciate is reasonable, to active promotion to homosexuality to pre-pubescent children? Sounds like grooming them for sex if you ask me and I think that they should be prosecuted for doing so.
This is really going too far Comrades
If ever you needed a reason to be suspicious of the leftist “equality” agenda this little story should have you very worried.
Businesses bidding for contracts with the London Development Agency, appointed by Ken Livingstone, will have to complete the questionnaire
Furious business leaders last night condemned an “intrusive” questionnaire that requires them to reveal how many gays and transsexuals they employ.
The so-called “supplier diversity development questionnaire” is sent to all bidders for contracts with the London Development Agency.
It asks about the racial origin of a firm’s employees, then about their sexual orientation.
The questions include: “Is your organisation mostly owned or led by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transperson) people?” and “What is the percentage of LGBT staff in your workforce?”
The LDA receives £400million of Government funding each year and its board is appointed by London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
It says it needs the data to monitor progress towards its goal of “maximising the diversity of its supplier base”.
But the director of a company bidding for a contract to refurbish a London fire station said: “I was dumbstruck when I saw the questionnaire.
“I looked at my dignified and proper middle-aged secretary and thought, I’m not going to ask her if she is a lesbian, let alone a transperson. The questions are intimate, intrusive and irrelevant.”
The businessman, who asked to remain anonymous, added: “It says the information will not be used to determine who wins the contract.
Now it is all well and good to be concerned if an individual is discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation but this sort of intrusive social engineering from the Loonie Left makes me think that my flippant jokes about Buggery 101 being a compulsory part of the school curriculum would sadly be no joke at all if the likes of Ken Livingstone were to get into any positions of power here. Frankly I can see no reason at all that a would-be contractor should be required to collect or divulge such information about their employees in order to secure contracts for any public project.
Shaking my head in sad disbelief here Comrades
Just a quickie this morning and it concerns the Faux rancour being produced by Penny Wong over the the claim from the Australian Christian Lobby that Gay marriage could lead to a new stolen generation:
Obviously when it comes to Same sex couples making children there has to be the intervention of a third party to supply the gametes that are necessary for conception and this means that any child thus created is going to be, to a greater or lesser extent, alienated from one half of their biological heritage. There is a great deal of evidence that most children who are adopted or created by donor insemination suffer a great deal of angst about who their missing biological parent is. Enlightened Gay parents should be aware of this issue but as homosexuals are just like everyone else in their diversity I expect that there will be a variety of way that this issue will be felt with from the pretence that the children they create are theirs alone to total openness about who the absent biological parent is and even some sort of continuing involvement of that person in the life of the children thus conceived. Only time will tell if this becomes a real problem and I hope that those who make children with the “help” of people outside their pair bond do the right thing by the children they make and that they keep their persona vanity in check.
On the issue of teaching the mechanics of “gay sex” in schools I am hardly surprised and I certainly expect that if we are going to become an even more liberal society that considers homosexuality as just another page in the book of human sexual expression that we will at some point have to make its practice part of the lexicon of sex education. Now in the past I have made jokes about “buggery 101” being taught to our children but if we are to “normalise” homosexuality in our society then we won’t be able to make the mechanics of sex between people of the same gender “Secret Gay business”. In any event I very much doubt that any same sex attracted young person won’t have seen enough online pornography before they attend sex Ed classes to know the basics anyway.
So on balance I think the ACL and Wong are each partially right the former are correct to be concerned about the children created in same sex unions being alienated from one of their biological parents, but they are wrong to be absolutely horrified that our children might have the mechanics of gay sex discussed in our schools. The latter is wrong to dismiss concerns about the children like the one that she and her partner are nurturing as nonsense.The thing that we must ensure above all when it comes to Sex education is that anything that children are told is entirely age appropriate and that no matter what nut and bolt stuff they are taught it is essential that such things are accompanied by some exploration of the value of enduring pair bonds over sex being just another sport devoid of a reproductive or social purpose.
What is it with the socialists in the teaching unions when it comes to empirical measurement of their students abilities to read or to add up?
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has refused to rule out supporting action against teachers if they go through with their threat to boycott the tests, saying industrial action taken outside the enterprise bargaining period is not lawful.
Teachers covered by federal laws in Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory could have their pay docked by a minimum of four hours if Fair Work Australia deemed the boycott unlawful. Teachers in other state jurisdictions also face penalties, although these would probably apply to the union rather than individuals.
“Action that’s taken not within the context of bargaining is unprotected and there are sanctions and penalties under the workplace relations law to deal with unprotected industrial action,” Ms Gillard, who is also Education and Workplace Relations Minister, told ABC radio.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry said it strongly supported the national tests in numeracy and literacy.
Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne said the Coalition did not support the boycott, but also did not think the website would be useful.
“The government is creating the information publicly that will allow schools to be criticised and allow school communities to feel bad about their particular school but they are not giving principals the autonomy to act to change those bad results,” he told ABC radio.
Anyone would think that the chalkface warriors are afraid that they will be judged upon the results that they manage to achieve in the classroom, you know that they will actually have to successfully teach our children trivialities like mathematics and English, rather than focusing on the issues that really matter like the green religion (praise be to Gaia), “progressive” sexual morality (buggery 101) and how to praise Brother Number One for all that is good in the land…
Personally though I think that Chris Pyne has a point that the government website does not provide much help when it comes to principals improving their school’s performance, but then this government has always feared ceding control of indoctination education to either parents or school principals who don’t follow their approved ideology….
Don’t you just love the result of the PC brigade in action?
They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.
But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.
Vincent and Pauline Matherick: Face being struck off despite fostering 28 times
To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.
The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.
The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.
There is a big difference between being tolerant of difference in matters such as sexual orientation (which I endorse without reservation) and the big time promotion of homosexuality this story presents. Really it seems like the ideologues in power in the UK won’t be happy until “Buggery 101” is a compulsory subject in all of the schools. In a time when there is an almost desperate need for foster parents this sort of thing is just ridiculous beyond belief. Even if we accept the most generous assumption that 5% of the population bat for the other team the sort of regulations that this story talks about amounts to a very small tail dictating how the dog will wag.
Utter madness Comrades
Where do we draw the line when it comes to the promotion of homosexuality in schools? Pro homosexual activists like Arthur Vanderlay would have us believe that every school should be insisting that “Buggery 101“* be part of every child’s education. This report from Der Spiegel shows us just which way the wind is blowing in the UK.
School children in Britain learn about sexual diversity and alternative family structures from an early age. A state-supported pilot scheme run at 14 elementary schools — attended by children from the age of four to 11 — is stirring up trouble with its sexually liberal message.
Conservative parents and religious groups fear that stories like the one of the two princes in love could morally corrupt the children and promote homosexuality.
“I don’t mind what adults do in mutual consent”, says Andy Hebberd, founder of the Parent Organisation group, “But I’m not sure if this should be imposed on children.”(source)
Do parents want this sort of social engineering imposed on their children? Sadly I think it may be too late to object if you live in England but over here in Australia I think that we stand a chance of stopping this sort of madness because tolerance of homosexualality and measures to stop discrimination does not require that homosexuality be promoted in our schools with books and programs such as this.
* Exaggeration for dramatic effect