|
David Cameron has today apologised for Section 28, a law that banned the teaching about homosexual relationships in schools. The actual law - as summarised by the Daily Mail (accuracy warning) is as below:
What is interesting is that this is another James Chapman article and the language he uses in the headline is designed to get homophobic Mail readers frothing: 'Cameron apologises to gays for Section 28: Law to ban promotion of homosexuality in schools was wrong, says Tory leader'.
The word I have a problem with is 'promotion'. It has the connotations of selling something, pushing something. In reality education that deals with homosexuality is more concerned with making people aware that homosexuality exists and that it is nothing to be ashamed of. It is essentially about acceptance, tolerance and understanding.
I've made the argument a few times on this site already and don't want to keep repeating it so skip this next quotation if you want:
[homosexuality is not] something we can be forced into or converted to by interacting with gay people, or by attending diversity or awareness sessions. Therefore, can it be concluded that as sexual preference is not a result of nurture, it must be the result of nature? This conclusion would mean that homosexuality is perfectly natural and must be biologically determined...
...The point I am trying to make is that gay people are not making a choice about their sexuality anymore than a straight person is. What equality is trying to achieve is the freedom for a person to be comfortable with whatever biological attraction they are born with. The message that being a homosexual is normal is being delivered because as a society we do not want people wandering around suppressing their nature in fear that they will be victimised or ostracised for simply being who they are.
In particular the issue is important in schools because we want to let children know that whatever they are feeling is OK. If they have an attraction to the same sex they should not feel like a freak, and hey should not feel scared. Instead they should be given the opportunity to understand and embrace their biology, embrace what is for them natural and normal.
So, again, Section 28 (according to the Daily Mail) tried to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality, but it has never been about promotion, merely an open, fair understanding and acceptance of difference. Why James Chapman puts promotion into the headline and into the information box is to make it sound crazy that the Conservatives now appear to be in favour of promoting homosexuality in schools, when the issue has never even been about promotion, just education.
Naturally the comments on the article - and the ratings - demonstrate just how homophobic some Mail readers are:
Sorry Mr Cameron you are wrong, Gay or homosexuality should not be promoted in schools.
- hjarta, falkirk stirlingshire, 2/7/2009 1:09
Accept and recognise but there is no need to promote it.
- Paul f, N London, 2/7/2009 1:00
Is he mad?
- June, Calgary Canada, 2/7/2009 1:01
Promotion of homosexuality should NOT be part of the school curriculum. Preferences will be decided by the individual in later life.
- Peter, Lincolnshire, 2/7/2009 0:35
Notice how many commenters argue that promotion is wrong, as if somehow their is an agenda to promote homosexuality as better than heterosexuality. The reason that promotion holds such fear for Mail readers is that some of them are under the impression that sexuality is something that we choose, hence why the perceived choice to become a homosexual makes that individual perverse and his choice a perversion.
Peter makes this point in his comment: 'Preferences will be decided by the individual in later life' - as if people suddenly get to a certain age and decide whether they want to be straight or gay. People are born gay, sometimes they only 'come out' later in life because they feel under pressure to conform to heterosexuality or simply don't want to be bullied in school. Hence the whole point of educating children about the issue so that they don't feel the need to bully children who have a different sexual preference to them.
Naturally the above comments are the 'top-rated' comments, no guessing the general content of the 'worst-rated':
Good for him. It takes a big man to apologise at any time. The Tory party, in certain respects, seems to have come a long way.
- Steve Payne, Leicester, 2/7/2009 1:07
Click to rate Rating 854
Good for David Cameron. He has brought the Tories into the 21st century. He should go on to abolish lots of other laws under which no one has ever been prosecuted.
- duncann, London, UK, 2/7/2009 0:16
Click to rate Rating 543
Well done Sir.
- Geoff, Bedford, 2/7/2009 0:22
Click to rate Rating 540
A Tory leader displaying some common sense? Whatever next.
- Andrew, Durham, 2/7/2009 0:15
Click to rate Rating 530
Bloody good of him. Mister Cameron is, apparently, the first pro-tolerance leader of the Conservative party, and that's encouraging. Gordon Brown, too, is a tolerant and progressive man on this issue.
However, the Tory party does retain some intolerant elements-- such as Miss Widdecombe, who voted against the existence of civil partnerships (which guarantee basic human rights).
- Brusco, King's Lynn, UK, 2/7/2009 1:37
Click to rate Rating 416
And a final point, the last line of the information box seems a little bit sinister: 'No one was ever prosecuted' - as if somehow this makes things even worse. It seems to say: 'Not only is the law now being scrapped BUT even when it was in force 'loony left' councils didn't enforce it!'. Certainly you would have thought that with all the promotion of homosexuality of schools that Richard Littlejohn rages against someone would have faced charges.
Unless of course, no one has actually been guilty of promoting homosexuality in schools because no one actually does. Schools educate children about the holocaust, does that mean that they are actually promoting the mass-murder of Jews, Gypsies and the mentally ill? This may seem to be a silly argument, but then it is a silly perception I'm arguing against.
The enemies of reason has more on this story here: Mail & Telegraph: More conservative than the Conservatives
|
The free distribution provided by BA will increase the DM's circulation figures, thus increasing the value of their advertising space. Are we to assume that this alignment means BA shares the fascist, racist and homophobic views of the Daily Mail?
http://www.petitiononline.com/bastopdm/petition.html
Click the link below to view a fascist history of the DM. You will see references to archived DM articles not dissimilar [some much worse] to the ones authored by the infamous Jan Moir. The DM’s historic opinion that the Jews simply got what they deserved at the hands of Hitler’s Nazi Germany is particularly disturbing to stomach:
http://www.suffolkhands.org.uk/node/1031
Please sign the petition and forward to your friends. We are ordinary people who can make a difference…
Also, if you're going to use the old 'the gays = the AIDS' argument to support telling kids it's not okay to be gay, what about the lesbians? Lowest risk group in the population for HIV or, indeed, other STDs, but still gay. Hmmm.
teaching and making children aware that some people are attracted to the same sex is not sexualising them, as it is not about sex at all, it is about relationships.
the fact that many people remain unable to seperate gay relationships from gay sex is a very good example of how far we still have to go.
if we can reach a point where we are able to collectively regard same sex relationships with the same level of normality as straight relationships then we can detatch the subject from the related yet seperate issue of hiv aids, and approach both issues from a more helpful standpoint.
As a health care professional, I work and treat gays on a regular basis. However, to normalize the pratice of homosexuality, I find somewhat irresponsible. It remains a "high" risk lifestyle. (e.g. 76% of the newest HIV infections are among gay males) The next highest risk population are teenage girls. There are many other examples. But my greatest concern is the early "sexualizing" of our youth, without the benefit of learning about the responsibilities and respect for others that should co-exist. All people have the right to make their choices, but the facts bear out. The knowledge about sex without learning about the responsibility and character that should accompany it, is unhealthy for children.
A tight circle, are we Mail haters.