Homosexuality in the Classroom.

[Darcey1]

My daughter is nine. Yesterday she came home from school and said that her teacher had told the class that she was a lesbian. The teacher is about to have one of these civil partnerships and according to my daughter told the class that girls could marry girls and boys could marry boys if they wanted to.It was according to her entirely natural. This seems like corruption to me. I don't want my daughter exposed to this kind of lifestyle.

I am very upset about this and don't know what to do. Am I over reacting? Should the school have warned us that the teacher was going to do this? Do you think I should make a complaint to the school?

"Actually homosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom.Animals live by instinct.They have sex because they have the need to reproduce hard wired into them.They have no anticipation of sex,no concept of physical attraction.They have no knowledge of sex as an abstract.They have no terms of reference and no concept of morality.When the sex urge is upon any animal it will go through the motions with anything to hand ,hence dogs trying to copulate with your leg or whatever.Those monkeys are not homosexual,they go on to mate with females and have offspring.If the only justification you can find for this behaviour is the actions of poor dumb creatures then your argument is rather slly."

that one? yep I did
then I saw the one where you insulted LG

"There is only one type of ligitimate sexuallity-heterosexual.All the rest are willful deviations from the norm.There are two sexes Male & female.Homosexuals of either sex function in exactly the same way biologically as any other male or female.For some unknown reason,and it is unknown,some men and women have a desire for carnal knowledge with the same sex" \

or that one?

you can try to be patronising if you like, but you do bigotted much better

"I should have known by the silly childish nick-names that a reasonable debate wasn't possible."

Actually, until you joined in it was a reasonable debate - however misguided daftpunk's views are, she doesn't resort to insulting other posters as you did from your very first post. But then you presumably didn't bother to read the thread very carefully (at all?) if you didn't gather that daftpunk was in fact on your side....

The BNP is ----> thataway. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

Buh-bye!

Earlier post from daftpunk: 'violence towards children was acceptable in alot of catholic homes...i would have been taken into care by todays standards'

Sorry to hear that.

PS: My comment relates to daftpunk's on Fri 27-Nov-09 14:13:30.

And I meant I was sorry to learn that dp would have been taken in to care 'by today's standards'.

Nemowho, you seen to have a lack of knowledge of biology, or more precisely of basic evolutionary processes.

Homosexuality is not maladaptive in evolutionary terms. We do not measure an organism's fitness by calculating how many offspring it produces. We measure evolutionary fitness (or possibility of dying out as you put it) by measuring an organism's inclusive fitness.

Inclusive fitness is equal to the ability to survive long enough to invest care in offspring that share genes with you until the time when that offspring is itself able to reproduce and/or support further offspring.

Example of poor inclusive fitness: 3 straight couples have 4 kids each. They 6 adults cannot between them acquire enough resources to support the 18 people; only 2 of the children survive to adulthood.

Example of high inclusive fitness: 2 straight couples have 4 children each and 1 homosexual couple who have a genetic link to the other two couples have no children. The 6 adults between them can support 14 people; all 8 children survive to adulthood.

Some of the genes of the homosexual couple survive through their nieces and nephews.

Another evolutionary adaptation is for an individual to reproduce through a one off heterosexual act and then to turn to homosexuality for the rest of the time. This reduces the likelihood of further offspring, giving the one offspring born a better chance of survival. This is more adaptive than a straight woman having 4 kids with small birth spacings, which will, in many situations in the past or in other cultures, lead to all of the offspring dying.

Cultures all over the world find ways of increasing infant survival by decreasing births - celibacy, delaying age of first pregnancy, adoption of children by the parent's siblings, contraception, non-reproductive sex acts amongst straight people etc. Homosexuality and the menopause are nature's way of increasing infant survival.

I apologise to anyone on here who thinks this is irrelevant because as a society our ethics have moved beyond mere biology, but some people are still putting forward this myth that homosexuality is unnatural. It is not.

MillyR superb post! I think I love you.
;)

I have a zoological background and that post is sooo something along the lines that I wanted to write except pregnancy brain means I couldn't remember the science to get it right!

**

Yes you should report her to the school,ignore these oh so politically correct twits.Why would your 9 year old be interested or need to know about this teachers sexual preferences?It is not a subject to be dealt with in this manner and certainly not without your permission.If some one told me such a thing I'd say "why are you telling me?"Your daughter can't say that.Actually it's a damn cheek.What right has she got to use her position to try to convince little children that homosexuality is normal?If it was normal we would all be doing it.If this is her chosen way of living then she should keep it to herself,especially in the classroom.You're not "homo-phobic",just a normal caring mum who is concerned for her childs wellfare.Actually "homo-phobic" is a silly non word,it translates as "fear of things of the same type"Children of 9 years have no interest in sex and probably she doesn't fully know what this teacher is on about.You have the right to bring your child up as you want.No one has the right to try to indoctrinate your child,not yet any way.You are not over reacting.Too many people are intimidated by the militant homosexual lobby.Now it's not enough to tolerate it,they want us all to agree with it.Women are made for men and men made for women .This is the default position of nature.

**

I notice you going straight for the name calling - that puts you in leading position straight away [irony emoticon]

Please advise why simply stating you are getting married etc. is not a 'subject to be dealt with in this manner' and why anyone should need a parents permission from stating you are joining in a legally recognised contract.

What is abnormal about homosexuality?

If 10% of the population are homosexual then in what way is this abnormal?

Sureley the meanint of homophobic depends on weather you are using the greek or latin root word?

I wasn't aware the teacher was talking about sex in the classroom I thought she was talking about a civil partnership.

No body has said you can't bring your child up the way you want to - that's a non sequitur.

Please advise how I can contact the militant homosexual lobby - do they paint their guns rainbow colours?[slightly sarcastic emoticon]

The default position for the propogation of dna is definately m+f, however there are many, many examples of genetics being present in a species that don't help propogate them for that time and place which makes your argument specious at best.

**

badiebuddy,Calm down,don't get so excited.You can't beat up every one just because they have a different opinion to you.Can't you debate politely and play nicely?.Swearing is not clever and it's not big.Now take a deep breath,compose yourself ,think,engage brain.You haven't stopped taking your medication have you?Play nicely or you'll be sent home

**

you started name calling and then go back and call somebody else for it - have you met my friend Mr Kettle?

**

Daftpunk--I can see why your called "daft punk"You seem to be daft and have the attitudes of a punk.But why are you proud of it?.If Darcy1 thought Sapphism was desirable she would more than likely engage in it and normally wouldn't have children.There seems to be a lot of very confused people out there.There is only one type of ligitimate sexuallity-heterosexual.All the rest are willful deviations from the norm.There are two sexes Male & female.Homosexuals of either sex function in exactly the same way biologically as any other male or female.For some unknown reason,and it is unknown,some men and women have a desire for carnal knowledge with the same sex.It is obvious that if this was a normal state of affairs A) we would all feel quite happy with it and doing it,B)the human race would die out very quickly.If as some say it is not about sex,then it is not a homosexual relationship,is it!But of course 99% of the time it is about sex.A lot of people have lost the ability(or the courage)to think in the last 12 years or so.

**

Please back up your claims, you posited them, you get to back them up.

**

tethersend.i think your logic is faulty here.Firstly do you seriously believe that heterosexuality is not the default position?All the other things you mention are improvements brought about by mans intellect to make life easier. Homosexuality on the contrary is counter to mans intellect because it does not improve life in any way.It actually involves a poor substitute for the natural method of copulation,relying on using either representations of the male sex organ or using a completely inappropriate orifice for penetration.Also of course it cannot add anything to the sum of human acheivement or knowledge as it is a biological dead end.You are probably an evolutionst.If homosexuality was a natural occurrance,evolution would have wiped it out long ago as a dead end.Homosexuality won't die out because it is a willful deviation.We don't have to agree to proselitising by committed homosexuals.

**

Please advise why a default position as you put it should be the only postion?

if so then the default position of The Pepered Moth shouldn't change should it? Or in cases where there is a high concentration of soot you would never find one that was mostly white.

In what way does homosexuality not improve the life of people who happen to be homosexual?

As for inappropriate orifices there are a lot of straight people out there who are inappropriate on a regular basis.

Please advise what you base your postion for this on:

Also of course it cannot add anything to the sum of human acheivement or knowledge as it is a biological dead end.

In light of the fact the following people were gay:

Tchaikovsky
Gertrude Stein
David Gerrold - who is a fantastic dad btw.

There are more but they will do for now.

**

You incredibly illiberal "liberals" badietbuddy.Isuppose you would like people who disagree with you sent off to the Gulag,or perhaps you could bring out the stocks,how about burning people for "heresy"against your not -so -liberal liberal agenda.I should have known by the silly childish nick-names that a reasonable debate wasn't possible.Jan Moire in the Mail was right.

**

Actually, I'll fight to the death for you to hold your views as i would mine, but, I will challenge every single one of them. Just because you get to hold views doesn't mean you get to sit smuggly and not have people point out your logical fallicy or challenge you to provide proof of your claims.

MillyR addressed the correct evolutonairy fitness with you so I'll leave that there.

LookingForwardToYourAnswerTiggaxx

Blimey. Missed a great troll (again). But thanks everyone who quoted it, so I get a rough idea of what I missed

And great post MillyR - great to see things spelt out so clearly.

Did anyone mention bonobos yet?

LeninGrad, in answer to your question, I don't know what determines sexuality. Although there are clearly some things that are real and are not socially constructed, like turnips and cows and pregnancy, humans can only interact with all of the real stuff through socially constructing ways of behaving that have an impact on the things that materially exist.

So if the same applies to all forms of sexuality and emotional bonds, there may be genes that predispose an individual towards certain traits, but they are then subject to socially constructed ways of mediating human survival through altruism and reproductive behaviour.

So there may be:

1. A gene that causes homesexuality in some individuals, and they will always feel that they are homosexual, regardless of any social constructs.
2. A gene in the mother that causes changes in the pre-birth environment of younger children to make homosexuality more likely. The gay child may not inherit that particular gene; a sibling might inherit it.
3. A gene that leads to some individuals ending up homosexual when born in some social environments but not in others.

Sorry if that is a bit of a garbled answer. I would not claim to know a lot about how people develop and express their sexual and emotional behaviour; I just know something about the evolutionary and ecological consequences of behaving in certain ways.

I think that the discussion of sexuality always becomes skewed because of people having an axe to grind.

Seeing homosexuality as a positive thing is not only good for people who are gay, but is positive for the lives of everyone in society. Young straight women who socialise with gay women seem to develop a more positive and fulfilling sexuality because their ideas about what can constitute an appropriate sexuality are not as narrowly defined by ideas about women's sexuality being passive and about pleasing men.

I suppose it is all the usual reasons about different generations and changing values, people being intolerant of any kind of minority and people feeling that anybody living life differently is a criticism or a threat to them.

But I also think it is envy. I think a lot of people do not have a very positive attitude to their own sexuality and have not managed to develop it in a way to make it an integral part of their personality. There seem to be quite a few people (in society - I can't make any judgement about MN people as I don't know them) who repress their sexuality, or develop it in a stereotyped way or have grown up so surrounded by consumeristic versions of sex that they have no idea how to develop a heterosexuality of their own making.

I think Female Chauvinist Pigs is interesting on this because although it can identify the problem - women seeing their sexuality as being about being attractive to men, but fails to provide a solution. What is female heterosexuality apart from being found attractive?

So you will never get people to stop being angry about homosexuality until they start being positive and comfortable with their own heterosexuality.

Female Chauvinist Pigs is a book by the way! I don't know why I'm was presuming you would know.