Faith schools should say homosexuality is normal..

[daftpunk]

Why can't people just leave us alone

How on earth can it be Christian to think it's OK to bully people on the grounds they are gay?

whydobirds - that is all very well, if the people having sex are strict catholics. But leaning on an entire country to make its AIDS policy about abstinence rather than condoms, for example, could maybe be said to cause suffering? No?

Anyway, I'm kind of wishing I hadn't posted on this. I'm in no way bigoted, but it does make me really when people think it's ok to attack wholesale one group of society. Whoever's doing the attacking. Whether it's someone saying 'all Catholics are bigoted or hypocritical and as a faith it's outdated' or someone saying 'gay is wrong'. I realise that there's a major difference between the two in that you can actually CHOOSE to be a Catholic, but if you have made that choice, it tends to mean quite a lot to you.
So I'm off to clean the house and do the ironing. Have fun

Hey daftpunk, why not use some biblical references to back up your horribly bigoted attitude?

Because that worked out really well for Iris Robinson.

Love how intolerant folk are usually entirely hypocritical.

Homosexuality IS normal, you daftwit.

no it's normal to you theoldestcat.

sorry didn't mean that to sound like it's not normal to large parts soceity in general. BUt when you are talking in matters of belief and what is normal you can only express personal beliefs rather than whole sale definitives as for large parts of soceity and the world homosexuality is not normal.
FWIW it's also normal to me

theheathen link for you
People's actions, and attitudes to women, are more at fault here than the Catholic church.

Thanks for answering for me, Heathen.

In this context, the other problem with 'no sex without possibility of conception' is that it logically precludes homosexual marriage. If homosexuals were simply allowed to marry then they could (if they wished) conform to the ideal of faithfulness within that marriage. As it is, the catholic church leaves them with no alternatives except abstinence or 'sin'. Not many people can do abstinence - its quite unnatural for humans (though 'normal and harmless', I hasten to add!)

well it is a matter of statistical normality vs. behavioural/moral normality (or neutrality)

Ah good point, mayorquimby.

Should be a societal norm and thus apply to state schools though?

And yes, if people aren't practicing Catholics, fundamentally they should be able to live how they like. But it shouldn't stop Catholics from wanting to do it their way. It is the Pope's job to evangelise, to spread the Church's teaching. If people don't like it, they shouldn't have to listen.

Condoms are not a panacea. But they are useful in programs such as ABC which (I think) is something like:
A) Abstinence
B) Be faithful
C) use a condom (if you can't do the above)

If you can do A or B, great! But if you can't, then no-one should imply its better to have unprotected sex than to use a condom.
Certainly not the Pope who (unfortunately, IMO) has huge influence

"Should be a societal norm and thus apply to state schools though? "

State schools should be completely devoid of religion in my opinion. I was talking with regards to private schools. I'm not familiar with the UK system but do you actively choose to go to faith schools over there or could you end up with one by a coincidence of geography?

Also I think you're being a little too generous to societal norms there. While it might be a soceital aspiration for homosexuality to be accepted as the norm I think it's a long way off and would not feel confident in betting my mortgage on over 50% of soceity being ok with homosexuality.I'm not sure how i feel about the way in which the schools should educate and if they should only be responsible for enforcing an anti-bullying policy and nothing more. On the one hand I can see the argument that schools are their to teach my kid maths,history etc and their nurturing and social education is up to the parents and their beliefs. But I can see why others might feel that it is an imperitive for the good of soceity that these issues are addressed with young people before they become toop entrenched in certain views.

Noddyholder;

Most of my friends think the same way I do, but as they're all catholic hardly suprising.

I'm pretty laid back really, I just don't want my rights as a catholic parent taken away.

Leave catholic schools alone, Let us get on with our lives.....that's all I'm saying.

I knew who the OP would be as soon as I saw the thread title.
I should know better to stay away because these threads anger me so much but I never learn.

Re: societal norms, legally you can't discriminate against people in terms of their sexuality. So surely schools must reflect that? And if they fail to teach it, then at least they shouldn't say it ISN'T normal?

Answering your earlier post, Grimma, it only precludes gay people who wish to be practicing Catholics from having sex. It also precluded me from being a practicing Catholic when I was living with my ex boyfriend. It precludes absolutely anybody from having sex unless they're married and not using contraception. It means I can't do a whole bunch of stuff that's actually rather fun. I totally accept that that's not a set of rules that most of society would want to conform to. However, people do have a choice. If you don't want to, or physically can't, conform to the set of rules a religion lays out, don't join the religion. This is why we have separation between church and state; so that people have the freedom to live how they like.

It's normal to have to arms and two legs but it's not normal to be blonde, for example. But being blonde is natural. Children need to know it's natural, I'm not sure why they need to be told it's normal, unless we are trying to change the meaning of the word to "acceptable".

By all means explain that it's natural and acceptable but to claim it's normal is lazy.

I'm pretty sure that all schools, faith schools included, actually already have to teach that it's normal tbh. They're allowed to do it 'in the context of the religion' but they have to teach it as normal. Which, for Catholics would be 'well there's nothing wrong with being attracted to someone of the same sex, but you can't have sex with them and be a Catholic'.

It would hardly be a major impingement on your life, DP, various posters have said their Catholic school manages to not preach homophobia, to tackle homophobic bullying, and retain a Catholic ethos. So it's clearly possible.

Unless you wish to argue that the right to propagate bigotry is fundamental to faith schools?
I would be interested to hear that debate laid out...

mayorquimby - in some areas the only state school, or the only 'good' state school is one with religious entrance requirements which teaches a doctrine. In some villages for example the choice is either to send your child to the school in your village (and possibly lie to get a place) or drive to another village in your area for your child to take a place at one of the worst local schools which is so unpopular that they still have spaces to accept children from further away.

If catholic schools were funded only by the catholic church or the catholic parents then I wouldn't object to them teaching intolerance (although I would still object to the intolerance in itself). It's the fact that these schools are funded by the state to provide for local communities and they use this funding to divide those communities and encourage hatred that botheres me. I think schools should teach more than just maths and English etc, but if religious schools can't bring themselves to not activly damage communities then maybe it should not be mentioned at all.

Daftpunk: Why don't you go and talk to your friends about it then, if they all agree with you? How do you think it furthers your cause to upset people on here? Sorry, but faith schools are funded by the state so they have to abide by the law. You can't break the law just because of your beliefs.

'Normal' is in this context not being used with its statistical meaning - its disingenuous to try to do so. Its used as the opposite of 'abnormal'.

I'm a natural blonde and I'm not abnormal.

In what sense is homosexuality "normal"? Surely that depends on one's definition of "normal"

normal: "conforming to a standard, usual, typical or expected" (OED)

Surely heterosexuality is "normal", as it is the "usual" or "typical" form of sexuality. As an earlier poster said, homosexuality may be natural - but that doesn't make it "normal". I don't accept that it is.

This is not to say that it is acceptable or fair to discriminate against people purely because of their sexuality. And I don't think any form of bullying in schools should be tolerated.