Faith schools should say homosexuality is normal..

[daftpunk]

Why can't people just leave us alone

Re a post by Grimma earlier - bit supercilious of you to call me snide, I posted what I thought was a pertinent point about paying taxes in response to a kind of kneejerk 'i don't pay my taxes so people can blah blah blah' rant - however, I agree that personal attacks are unnecessary and somewhat vulgar, so I have reported my own post.

'standing by mp', what are you on about, dp? what's she saying, does she agree with me?

i'm just genuinely disappointed tht you're posting so obnoxiously of late. I've not seen this side of you until recently and have always sought to defend you because of your many good characteristics as a poster. but you are trolling here, this was always going to cause hurt and offence and you were also out to cause trouble on the OAA thread. (i know you apologised when you were pulled up for it, but really, just give it a rest).

i don't think you will get banned, although as i say i can see the arguments that could be made, but i have seen you post a lot lately about getting banned or being driven off mn etc etc. i can't think why you'd want that, tbh, but you seem absolutely determined.

"MIFLAW, faith schools used to be independent until the 1944 Education Act, so to be fair, it's not about rich organisations poncing off the state when they could just be independent. They can't unless the Govt decides they can." And your point is? They now take Government money. In what way does the Act you quote specifically prevent Church schools from being independent and charging fees? If it does, has anyone broken the news to Ampleforth yet?
These schools are now within the State sector, funded by the State which also represents (and taxes) agnostics and atheists, and so are just as answerable to the State as any other State school.

shreikingharpy ooh you so liberal, you just love diversity and opposing views? Then you're cosying up to the wrong person with DP, do you not realise that her and her party are all about being against diversity? Diversity should be either deported or gagged!

I make no secret of the fact that I "delight in chastising", just as DP makes no secret of the fact that she delights in being as offensive as possible (but then runs off all fake shocked and apalled when its pointed out to her)

You are defending the free speech of those who seek to deny others thiers, and failing to see the irony. Let the bigots speak you cry, their opinions are valid and should be heard, even when their opinions involving denying the rights of others to live freely and speak out.

Worst kind of liberal, the type that tries to make everything equal, only succeeds in making everything worthless.

I'm all for DP's right to say whatever she wants, as noone can make her look as ridiculous as she does herself. And my right is to challenge her each and everytime, as is everyone elses. Its not a bandwagon or a mob, the reason everyone jumps on such bigoted views is because they are all appalled and individually want to. I'm not sure why that would irritate any much unless they supported those views?

Taking it right back to the OP, DP said "why can't people leave us alone?" Daftpunk, I just wish you'd let me.

I don't think DP should be banned and I do think that the OP and link could/should have started an interesting debate.

BUT as always with threads like this it turns into a DP bashing and DP herself doesn't seem to want to debate/discuss/open her mind at all, which is a shame, I have learnt a lot from MN. DP feels under attack and the controversy continues.

We are not all liberal lefties, DP, not at all, and there are many very interesting posters who post intelligent and thoughtful posts on this thread. It just seems that you don't want to engage with them and just go for the poor tortured woe is me for having an opposing opinion line.

DP: lol @ Aitch "standing by me"? I'm not sure why you are singling me out. Or think that Aitch is the enemy, when she's saying that she really likes you and is a bit worried about your recent trolling form.

I don't want you banned but threads like this are trolling threads which are normally pulled.

I like you too but threads like this piss all over the work of people who are trying to put forward the case for faith schools having an important place at the table and being able to continue their work while embracing diversity and community cohesion (not to mention obeying the laws of the land).

Condemning what Harpy calls "homosexual behaviour" (FGS who uses terms like that these days ) is not a large part of the catholic faith, and never has been. The obsession with it is embarassing and painful and destructive. It is no more central than contraceptive usage, which catholic schools might also object to. This fixation with (largely) WHERE MEN PUT THEIR COCKS EWWW is the worst possibly testimony to the modern day church.

Those of us remaining in what is basically a dying instition in europe (well except for those thriving communities of Polish catholics that you don't seem to appreciate as much as you should) are left mortified by this image of our faith that "anti-homosexual" arguments present.

And Harpy - liberalism is NOT about tolerating everything and freedom to say whatever you like. When it becomes about tolerating everything, it becomes about nothing, when those on the other side of the argument refuse to compromise. Then it is totally meaningless.

also, dp, to return to your post to me, you said 'did the person who posted about th e pope do so to cause offence?'

i didn't see the post but have heard it mentioned on this thread. going by what you say about the terms used, however, i'd aver that they did so in the certain knowledge that it would cause hurt and offence, and this, imo, makes them a bit of a ratbag too.

hello girlfriend!

it's ok DP, some of my best friends are SAHMs...

'except for those thriving communities of Polish catholics you don't seem to appreciate as much as you should..'

Too true.

Harpy - putting unreasonable words in the mouths of two posters who wouldn't actually say that to defend dp is also nonsensical. Dp is not saying 'homosexuality doesn't feel normal to me as a heterosexual' She is saying it is not normal because it is wrong and the Catholic church supports that. Generations of gay people have suffered persecution at the hands of bigots, often [wrongly] supported by the church . Saying homosexuality is not normal is like saying being black is not normal if you're white and saying being female is not normal if you're a man. It is nonsensical. And the reason society evolves and human rights improve is because people stand up to bigoted/racist/sexist opinions and do not tolerate them. And that is where Jesus Christ is, not in the frenzied homophobia of certain 'christians'. And thank God for that.

MIFLAW of course the Act doesn't specifically prevent faith schools from being independent and charging fees, any more than it prevents any private school from doing so. My point was that since ultimate Church control over certain schools was ceded to the State, the State would have to be in agreement for this control to be removed, therefore the phrase 'poncing off the state' is unfair. I also never suggested at any point, in any of my posts, that they should not be answerable to the State. They're already answerable to the State and they already have to deliver a State-approved curriculum. Even should they become independent, and no longer had to deliver that curriculum, they would still be subject to the same anti-discrimination legislation as the rest of us anyway.

Surely one of the most basic principles of liberalism is the concept of freedom of speech? Surely one of the hallmarks of a democratic society is the right to speak one's mind?

?If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.? (John Stuart Mill)

Once you start imposing limits to free speech, then it is, by definition, free speech no more. We already have a society where certain thoughts simply can no longer be voiced, for fear of being deemed "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" or "islamophobic"... Some of you may see this as a good thing. I see this as the first step along the road to a totalitarian state and a dangerous curtailment on personal freedom. (Thoughtcrime?) Who knows what might become the next "-ism" or "-phobia" that may no longer be voiced openly?

Daftpunk has every right to express her opinion, as long as she is not inciting murder or violence. Likewise, posters have every right to tell her why they disagree and think she is wrong. If people are so convinced as to the inherent "rightness" of their argument, then surely they should have confidence that their rational arguments will prevail? It is through argument that we develop our own ideas and learn from each other. When we are protected from argument, we are in danger of stewing in our own complacency.

"Think for yourselves, and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so, too?. (Voltaire)

I, for one, think Mumsnet would much diminished if posters were to be discouraged or prevented from posting on "contentious" or "potentially offensive" issues.

does the op and people who feel the same way not realise that being gay is not a life style choice, their children willnot become gay just by being taught about it, but it might make them more tolerant of others(something they can then hopefully teach thier parents)

"heaps of folk post that they are upset/offended by the things that you put on MN

do you like upsetting people, what do you get from the constant negative feedbackyou receive?"

So what if heaps of folks are offended? It's a relevant news story their reactions are irrelevant as long as DP sticks within the guidlines of the forum. I remember a thread re: the israle palestine conflict in which many people took offence and both sides were being accused of anti-semitism or being anti-muslim, there was no calls for bannings or suggestions that such a thing shouldn't be discussed because people might take offence.
And as for her motivations I don't see how they are relevant.Lets suppose for a minute she is only doing it to wind people up (which I don't believe she is) lots of posters here will post with an agenda,some blatantly some not, but no one suggests that someone who only posts pro-breastfeeding articles should be banned even though they are only posting one sides opinion and know it will get contentious. Surely ditto people who start their thread with a sycophantic "Apologies for the DM link, I normally don't read it because I'm a good person like the rest of you but lets all get involved in some collective handwringing" when lets be honest a more blatant ttempt to wind people up could not be seen, but in this case it's ok because they're winding pewople up in collective agreement? And such a thread seems to be fine in everyones eyes as long as no poster goes against the consensus?

pofarced- Catholics don't (or certainly shouldn't) hate homosexuals. Being gay isn't 'wrong' in the eyes of the church. The fact is, the Church's teaching is that sex outside marriage is wrong, and that the primary function of sex is procreation, therefore any sex that doesn't take place within these narrow constraints is wrong. Which plenty of people don't agree with, which is fine. But IMO, it's hardly a homophobic point of view. It simply precludes anyone who is having any sort of sexual relationship outside these rules from full communion.
FWIW I think it's really sad that ANY school should feel the need to bring up homosexuality and go 'look at this kids, it's normal'. For me, it's a bit like 'look kids, some people's skin is a different colour from ours'. It's really sad that people's diversity has to be pointed out in order for them to be accepted as human beings. Can't we just accept that some people are some things and others are others? And that some of us want to live our lives according to a religion's code of practice and that some of us don't? And that none of that makes us necessarily better or worse than anybody else?

Well there you go then.

These schools - which in my opinion have no place in State-funded education, but that is another debate entirely - nevertheless do accept State support.

As such, it is unthinkable that they should have the right to say that homosexuality is not "normal" because the State's position is that it IS - and all the time these schools accept the duty of teaching children who have not themselves independently professed the faith (which is the majority, I would say) there is no excuse for them to teach anything other than the accepted secular position on this, except as the minority opinion it is.

I am sorry if you are uncomfortable with the word "poncing" which, of course, originally means what is euphemistically called "living off immoral earnings." And yet, hypothetically, if a school or group of schools wants the "earnings" (the State's money) without doing the "work" (delivering certain key messages to its pupils), well, that's dangerously close to wanting money for someone else's labour or for no labour at all, which is at least a part of what defines "poncing", no?

scarletlilybug I couldn't agree with your post more. I've said it before on this site that I'm not sure if I could any longer class my self as a liberal. Because to my mind being a liberal always revolved around everyone being entitled to their own beliefs as long as they obey the laws and don't infringe on the rights of others. Now however liberals and supposed left-wing people seem to be the most right-wing and facist when it comes to matters of belief, it appears to be everyone is entitled to their own beliefs as long as it is the one which we say is right and fits our agenda.

But MIFLAW they DO have to teach that it's normal to be gay. They certainly aren't allowed to teach that it isn't. They also have to teach sex ed (they even did that back in the dark ages when I was at school), they have to provide access to Connexions. They ARE delivering those key messages.
And if you think they have no place within State-funded education, you're in agreement with a lot of people at the time the legislation was brought in

To clarify my previous post, (sorry ). Yes sure, they're allowed to say that it's wrong to have any sort of sex outside a marriage, since they'e allowed to deliver PSHE within faith context, but since the church stance on homosexuality is that some people just are gay, and to be so is not inherently bad, that hardly conflicts with telling people it's normal.