Is it illegal to promote homosexuality in schools?

(93 Posts)
Reality Fri 08-Mar-13 10:21:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

motherinferior Fri 08-Mar-13 10:25:50

It must be specific to the school. Surely?

Or my nephews' primary head, who told them all how happy he was that he and his (male) partner having a civil ceremony that weekend, because they loved each other, would presumably have been doing something illegal.

Trills Fri 08-Mar-13 10:29:04

Schools shouldn't especially "promote" any lifestyle, should they?

They shouldn't promote marriage above being single, shouldn't promote living on your own vs living with others, shouldn't promote having relationships with people of your own sex above having relationships with the opposite sex, shouldn't promote keeping cats above keeping dogs shouldn't promote having children above not having children.

Or vice versa.

Reality Fri 08-Mar-13 10:30:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YouTheCat Fri 08-Mar-13 10:30:55

There are plenty of lessons about acceptance at our school. Acceptance that people are different, including some being gay, some being disabled, others having different religions, etc.

In order to promote homosexuality they would have to be saying it was preferable but they won't be. They will be just pointing out that it is perfectly normal with in the bounds of relationships and that there are all kinds of families.

Trills Fri 08-Mar-13 10:32:34

You're in Sussex, right, not Kent?
Wikipedia says that Section 28, a law saying that homosexuality should not be "promoted" in schools, was repealed in 2003.

"This passed the Lords, received Royal Assent on 18 September 2003, and the repeal became effective on 18 November 2003.
The Conservative-run Kent County Council, however, decided to create their own version of Section 28 to keep the effect of the now repealed law in their schools.[25] This was replaced on 16 December 2004 with provisions stating that heterosexual marriage and family relationships are the only firm foundations for society.[26] The statement now says: "We will ensure that sex education values family and marriage as the foundation of a civilised society, and a firm basis for the nurturing of children."[27]"

Ilovesunflowers Fri 08-Mar-13 10:33:00

Agree with trills. It's not a discriminatory thing. It's because schools shouldnt promote lifestyle choices related to sexuality, religion, marriage etc.

MooncupGoddess Fri 08-Mar-13 10:33:56

Sounds very much like a Section 28 hangover to me... quite concerning that they haven't updated it. Do email them.

Trills Fri 08-Mar-13 10:34:58

You don't agree with me then, sunflowers, because I do think it is discriminatory to explicitly say "we do not promote X" and not say "we do not promote Y, or Z, and in fact we do not promote anything".

MooncupGoddess Fri 08-Mar-13 10:35:00

Bloody hell Trills, I had no idea about the Kent thing! Am appalled.

Eebahgum Fri 08-Mar-13 10:35:03

Hmmmmm. Not too sure whether it's illegal or not but unsure about the wordingof the policy. Does promoting not imply "come and be gay - it's brilliant!"? I'd like to think that most schools nowadays teach children that there are different kinds of relationship which are all equally valid. I kind of read this policy as a reassurance to homophobic parents that just because the school teaches about homosexuality doesn't mean they're going to 'turn' them.

Trills Fri 08-Mar-13 10:36:11

The repeal of Section 28 means that schools don't have to have a policy of "not promoting homosexuality", it's no longer a legal requirement for them to do so, but they can write it into their rules if they like.

Reality Fri 08-Mar-13 10:36:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ScottyDoc Fri 08-Mar-13 10:43:05

Question: does NOT being in favour of homosexuality define a person as homophobic? Although that person does not discriminate/treat a gay person in a bad manner and has friends who are gay?

Yes.

Fallenangle Fri 08-Mar-13 10:54:53

They just haven't bothered to update their very old policy. It must have been reviewed several times and, depending on which policy it is from, should probably have had a root and branch review when the Equalities Act was introduced.

Eebahgum Fri 08-Mar-13 10:54:59

I would say so. I don't see homophobic as necessarily discriminatory, but more a mindset that homosexual people are not equal to heterosexual people in some way. For example that they shouldn't be able to do certain things that heterosexual people are allowed to do.

I don't really understand why anyone should be 'not in favour of homosexuality'. Why? Some people are homosexual; so why would anyone need to be in favour of it or not? It's like asking if you are in favour of giraffes.

Eebahgum Fri 08-Mar-13 11:02:50

A fabulous point well made arbitrary user name.

kim147 Fri 08-Mar-13 11:03:38

This is an interesting video on "acceptance" vs "tolerance" when it comes to homosexuality.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxs78C3XGok

FierceBadIggi Fri 08-Mar-13 11:03:52

Where I live, schools have re-written equality policies (in line with equality act) and they have to include reference to the protected characteristics that apply to children, which include sexual orientation.
I can discuss the "specific nature of homosexual sex" if I want, though outside of sex ed I'd want to avoid the mechanics, and focus far more on relationships.

Earthymama Fri 08-Mar-13 11:05:57

I am definately in favour of giraffes!!

FierceBadIggi Fri 08-Mar-13 11:06:12

Arbitrary, but you're forgetting all the people who could be zebras but willfully choose to be giraffes because they like the colours and the giraffey lifestyle better. Plus, it's ok to be a giraffe but you don't have to actually indulge in giraffe practices such as eating leaves from tops of trees.

Trills Fri 08-Mar-13 11:11:17

Trills, I'm pretty sure there's no LEGAL requirement to not promote/advocate/represent homosexuality?

Yes that's what I said.

Prior to the repeal of Section 28 schools were legally required to have a clause like the one you quoted in their rules.

Now they do not have to have that clause, but neither are they prevented from having one.

OxfordBags Fri 08-Mar-13 11:11:28

EehBahGum, did you actually just say that homophobia is not discriminatory?!?!?! Like racism and sexism aren't, eh? hmm

FFS, thinking that someone is not equal to others and shouldn't be allowed to do things those other people are allowed to do is the exact description of discrimination. Jesus wept.

Homosexuality IS the norm. For gay individuals and for society in general. All sexuality is decided in utero by the end of the first trimester.

I also don't see how you can be not in favour of homosexuality. It's not like it's an option or a choice, or anything wrong in any way. As Arbitrary says, it's like saying you're not in favour of giraffes. Or clouds, or shoelaces. It makes you sound incredibly immature and thick to say such a thing, and as though you have the emotional and intellectual capacity of a toddler who unreasonably expects the world to be solely how they want it to be, like wanting a pear to be cutted up and untouched simultaneously!

OP, this is really shitty and possibly/probably illegal. Or legally dubious. It is certainly morally dubious and I would bring it up with the head in very strong terms, personally. I don't think I could allow my child to be at a school with a specific policy of hatred. Yes, homophobes, that's what it is.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now