LGBT school lessons protests in the uk

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,415
A

And given the difficulty of having anal sex without artificial lubricant or amyl nitrate it's fair to say that it's unnatural as well as dangerous.
Full manual in PDF form will be supplied as part of sex ed under livingstone's guidance.
 


A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,415
Why would the different sexual health risks, factor into how kids are taught about relationships.
Good question. If people have a problem with sexual practices that are unsafe and which they view as unnatural, then they might not want to see relationships formed around those practices being set on a par with relationships built on less dangerous and more natural physical intimacy.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
753
Good question. If people have a problem with sexual practices that are unsafe and which they view as unnatural, then they might not want to see relationships formed around those practices being set on a par with relationships built on less dangerous and more natural physical intimacy.
So basically you want your own personal view on relationships, which has nothing to do with the legal position of the state or with how most of society's accepts relationships to be taught to kids just because you don't agree with it. Also how do you come to the view that a same sex relationship is unnatural.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,415
So basically you want your own personal view on relationships, which has nothing to do with the legal position of the state or with how most of society's accepts relationships to be taught to kids just because you don't agree with it. Also how do you come to the view that a same sex relationship is unnatural.
Are you saying a person can't have a personal view on relationships? Or one that differs from the position of the state? As for "unnatural", this obviously refers to the anus and rectum - neither of which are sex organs. They are concerned with excreting poo.
 

Myler

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
115
When that child is then adopted, they are added to the adoption register, which functions just like the register of births. Their birth certificate is reissued with the names of their adoptive parents - technically what is issued is a record of their entry on the adoption register, but it is described on paper as their birth certificate so that a child doesn't have to find out they are adopted by happening across their birth certificate, rather than by their parents developing the right approach at the right time to telling them.
My understanding was that while there is an adoption certificate, the long form birth certificate was amended as well, so that a child is not exposed to the fact of their adoption before their parents tell them etc.
But you seem to be just wrong on a point of fact.

An adopted child can get a "Short Form" cert that just state sex, place & date of birth. But their actual "Birth Certificate" is replaced by an Adoption Certificate, which clearly identifies the fact that the child is adopted.

It identifies the adoptive parents as adoptive parents - i.e. as legal parents of the child - but it never confuses the fact that they are not the child's natural parents.

And that makes sense for obvious reasons.
The key point though, is that it would be absurd to tell anyone who has adopted a child that they are not the childs mother or father.

And that applies whether they are gay or not.
Although the key point also seems to be that, whether gay or not, adoptive parents are always clearly identified as adoptive parents. They are never certified as if they were the natural parents.

And the situation is same here as in the UK. An adopted child - at any age - gets a certificate that clearly states they are adopted.

So, I'm afraid, you just seem to have the wrong end of the stick if you are under the impression that, up to age whatever, this will be hidden from a child who sees their actual certificate.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
753
Are you saying a person can't have a personal view on relationships? Or one that differs from the position of the state? As for "unnatural", this obviously refers to the anus and rectum - neither of which are sex organs. They are concerned with excreting poo.
In this case, your personal view one same sex relationship is irrelevant because we are talking about whether the state position should be taught at a young age in school, it is not about peoples personal views on if those relationships are acceptable.

Plus you keep trying to link those relationships to anal sex, when this is only about the status of the relationship and not about sexual health.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,553
But you seem to be just wrong on a point of fact.

An adopted child can get a "Short Form" cert that just state sex, place & date of birth. But their actual "Birth Certificate" is replaced by an Adoption Certificate, which clearly identifies the fact that the child is adopted.

It identifies the adoptive parents as adoptive parents - i.e. as legal parents of the child - but it never confuses the fact that they are not the child's natural parents.

And that makes sense for obvious reasons.Although the key point also seems to be that, whether gay or not, adoptive parents are always clearly identified as adoptive parents. They are never certified as if they were the natural parents.

And the situation is same here as in the UK. An adopted child - at any age - gets a certificate that clearly states they are adopted.

So, I'm afraid, you just seem to have the wrong end of the stick if you are under the impression that, up to age whatever, this will be hidden from a child who sees their actual certificate.
OK. I don't think any of that actually affects the substance of the argument that I am making: adoptive parents are parents. An adoptive father is a father. An adoptive mother is a mother. An adoptive father and mother are a father and a mother. An adoptive father and father are a father and father. An adoptive mother and mother are a mother and a mother.

The point of this discussion was to point out that it is not guff for anyone to refer to a child having two fathers or two mothers if that is, in fact, what their legal parenting arrangements are (or indeed, frankly, if it's what their social parenting arrangements are).
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,553
It was a question I asked, and you responded to it.
I did.

It remains utterly irrelevant to the no outsiders programme. It has a relevance to sex education, but if you continue to insist on it being relevant to the education we provide to 7 to 12 year olds, then I will continue to point out its irrelevance.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,553
Good question. If people have a problem with sexual practices that are unsafe
But we've established that anal sex is not unsafe in itself.

and which they view as unnatural, then they might not want to see relationships formed around those practices being set on a par with relationships built on less dangerous and more natural physical intimacy.
Sure - you're basically explaining the existence of homophobia. Now tell us why it should form the basis of how children are educated.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,069
Are you saying a person can't have a personal view on relationships? Or one that differs from the position of the state? As for "unnatural", this obviously refers to the anus and rectum - neither of which are sex organs. They are concerned with excreting poo.
Of course the anus is a sex organ, it's been used for sex for thousands of years to avoid pregnancy and losing ones virginity, and of course it's natural, why do you suppose there are pleasure centers there?
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,686
Of course the anus is a sex organ, it's been used for sex for thousands of years to avoid pregnancy and losing ones virginity, and of course it's natural, why do you suppose there are pleasure centers there?
As a way of avoiding pregnancy, using hormonal contraception is far more unnatural. By that logic presumably these children should also be taught that taking the pill is even worse than anal sex?
 

peader odonnell

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
3,556
Never mind the moral scruples, as far as I'm concerned it's a disgusting and dangerous practice, surely that's pretty obvious
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,069
As a way of avoiding pregnancy, using hormonal contraception is far more unnatural. By that logic presumably these children should also be taught that taking the pill is even worse than anal sex?
Contraception is very recent, and obviously preferable to anal sex if pregnancy is the main concern.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,686
Contraception is very recent, and obviously preferable to anal sex if pregnancy is the main concern.
Hormonal contraception is recent. Other forms such as pessaries and various sorts of "barrier" contraception have existed since at least the ancient Egyptians.

And yes, obviously I wasn't suggesting that it should be proposed as an alternative form of contraception, I was simply saying that this notion of natural vs unnatural doesn't stand up to much examination - there's nothing "natural" about simulating pregnancy using hormones, so a couple choosing to have sex thanks to that artificially-induced state are not having "natural" sex either. But that battle has been lost in the court of public opinion so the antis don't like to talk about it any more.
 

Myler

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
115
The point of this discussion was to point out that it is not guff for anyone to refer to a child having two fathers or two mothers if that is, in fact, what their legal parenting arrangements are (or indeed, frankly, if it's what their social parenting arrangements are).
But, hang on, your understanding of the legalities in the situation was completely bug-eyed, yet you seemed to believe that bug-eyed understanding underwrote whatever point is close to your heart on this. You said
Their birth certificate is reissued with the names of their adoptive parents - technically what is issued is a record of their entry on the adoption register, but it is described on paper as their birth certificate so that a child doesn't have to find out they are adopted by happening across their birth certificate, rather than by their parents developing the right approach at the right time to telling them.
That purportedly detailed description is complete nonsense.

The Adopted Children's Register is a public record. Anyone, at any time, can obtain the certificate that shows the child to be adopted.
Birth, marriage, adoption, civil partnership and death certificates are public records, meaning anybody can access or apply for them.
You quite obviously have no appreciation of the legal framework around such things. You are just trying to pass off your fluffy fantasies of how you think things should be, as if you actually had some knowledge of the subject.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,415
Of course the anus is a sex organ, it's been used for sex for thousands of years to avoid pregnancy and losing ones virginity, and of course it's natural, why do you suppose there are pleasure centers there?
A sex organ (or reproductive organ) is any part of an animal's body that is involved in sexual reproduction. The reproductive organs together constitute the reproductive system. The testis in the male, and the ovary in the female, are called the primary sex organs.[1] The external sex organs – the genitals or genitalia, visible at birth in both sexes, and the internal sex organs are called the secondary sex organs.[1]
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top