Totally shocked!!! Need help please!

[danceswithdeath]

Okay so. My son goes to a private school; they do pray etc but we are not religious at home. There are obviously other parents who do not follow a religion too.

I am on a group WhatsApp with the fellow parents of my sons class (just gone into year three). Someone has just put a link for us to sign, and it is regarding not teaching our children about LGBTQ in class....

Now, I get it. Everyone has their own personal opinions. But I find this really shocking!! No one has replied expect myself, where I have asked if it was a mistake or not. They said no and to read it.

Well I really want to put something, but I'm not sure if I should... it's pissed me right off though!! I am so open with my son! He knows about a lot.

Has anyone any advice on what I could say that is calm and to the point?

‘NanDad‘ I love that!

This bit breaks my heart "contrary to the Christian faith and other religious groups in a bid to “normalise” LGBTQ in the consciousness of Children whose families hold a different view"

Imagine being the poor little token gay kid growing up full of fear and shame 😢

Never understood why the feelings of LGBTQ folks, who definitely exist, should be proritised above God's who definitely doesnt

@itson so should we not allow kids to call their adoptive parents their parents? Do only biological parents count?

And again with the lifestyle choice BS.

It astounds (and angers) me still that schools will allow a Chinese whispers/story book/hallucination* dictate their education policy, but discriminate against people who are in REAL life LGBTQ+
People are being attacked and murdered for being gay, we need to normalise sexuality and teach that being in a same sex couple is as normal and accepted as being in a straight couple (if you don’t agree with that, you’re wrong)

Religion is an (unproven) choice, sexuality is a not.

If your religion, or own personal prejudice allows you to treat others differently based on their sexuality then you’re a bigot and should be ashamed of yourselves.

*if you talk to someone who isn’t there, who you think will allow 1000s if children think starve to death everyday but hears you thank him for providing food, you’re hallucinating, and delusional.

I like your reply danceswithdeath I think it is important that children see all the different types of families and gradually learn more about different relationships in more detail as they get older. In this day and age we shouldn’t have a right or wrong family or love.

Sex education, same sex relationships etc. My son has an appropriate understanding of this and he is 5. He knows babies are made using a seed from a man, and an egg for a woman as he asked when I was pregnant and I wasn’t about to tell him babies are made with a special cuddle or some other stupid shit designed to make sex some dirty secret. We also use the terms penis, vagina etc.

He knows that sometimes, men love woman, and woman love men. He knows that sometimes woman love woman and men love men. We saw two men kiss in London and he asked why two men were kissing. It took literally 3 minutes to tell him that they loved each other the same way mummy and daddy did. He asked if two ladies can love each other the way mummy and daddy do and I said yes, and he said ‘that’s why my friend Ava has two mummies then’.

Transgender- we haven’t discussed. I will answer all his questions on any topic honestly, and in an age appropriate way. But I prefer for the questions to come up organically. I’m not going to address Something that isn’t an issue for him but I also won’t lie or refuse to answer anything he wants to know the answer to. It will just be answered in an age appropriate way.

I think year 3 is a bit young for ANY sex education of any type. Let kids be kids. However, if they are teaching sex ed. and specifically excluding LGBTQ+ then they may be in breach of the law.

@itseasybeingcheesy Then people shouldn't be quoting Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality.

Also, Jesus himself never even commented on homosexuality either way. Nor did the word even appear in the Bible until 1946. Jesus was not against homosexuality. The sin though, was not procreating we know this from the story of Onan. Not homosexuality itself.

@SaraNade I agree that Leviticus is a poor choice to use as a discussion point in homosexuality.

However the reason that the word didn't appear in the bible until then is partly because a newer translation was brought out then and the word had become more commonly used and therefore relevant to vocabulary at that time.

I disagree on your thoughts regarding the sin being a lack of procreation. There is a great deal said in the bible on the value of singleness and how that is the right path of life for a great many people so childlessness is not seen as a sin at all. Jesus affirms marriage as being between a man and a woman and that sex outside of marriage (regardless of who you are having sex with, male or female) being a sin. So it's the act of sex outside of a marriage that is sinful.

It's also important to take into account what the apostles said on sexuality too as they received much more direct teaching from Jesus on the matter and the epistles all echo that sex outside of marriage is a sin and same sex attraction should not be acted upon. If it has been a long time since you read those epistles then it could be well worth a re-read as the New Testament has a lot to say on the matter.

This is such an interesting topic. I moved to the states 5 years ago to a progressive state. I didn’t see the need to teach religious education in schools until we moved here where it isn’t taught and the only teachings is from parents and churches. I now understand the phrase educate not indoctrination as many children from religious families are taught that their way is the only way and it’s quite shocking what some children come out with.

Similarly, sex education is not compulsory and with these kind of things it is down to the parents and therefore the education is so narrow depending on the parents beliefs.

Not sure that this is totally relevant to the thread

@itseasybeingcheesy

Exactly, people decided to add a translation that was not there in the first place. How do we know this latter translation is accurate? Remember that the Bible was written by around 40 different men, most of whom had never even met Jesus. So it is not supposed to be taken literally. And again, I stand by what I said re the sin being not procreating. This is stated in the Bible, itself. It is very clear on that. It was a sin not to procreate.

Regardless, men can marry men now, and with the aid of medical technology (or adoption), can have a family.

Lastly, marriage pre-dates Christianity so is not from Jesus anyway.

@itson "And just to point out, teaching kids that two mummy or daddys can have children is as scientifically wrong"

Perhaps you've missed that with scientific technology, it is indeed possible for two mums or two dads to have children.

Does anyone know if there REALLY are plans to disallow parents to remove their children from these lessons from 2020? Does this have any factual basis? Because I did a quick google and came up with nothing at all except links to that petition, and religious articles. So, is it perhaps, manipulative scaremongering, which the fundamentalist Christians are well-known for? It's not at all out of character for them to deliberately lie and deceive.

@SaraNade your understanding of the bible doesn't appear to be very thorough at all from what I can tell so it's not really appropriate for you to argue on it's basis. If you want to stand on solid ground to argue with people about the contents of the bible then you really have to inform yourself better.

Marriage does indeed pre-date Jesus' life on earth due to the fact that he didn't invent it, he affirmed God's scripture which taught about what marriage should look like.

The whole matter about translation merely means that until the point "homosexuality" was used other terms that means the same thing but were probably deemed less politically correct were used. It doesn't mean that the translation is less valid.

The bible was written by many people, many of whom lived more than 400 years before Jesus life on earth, their writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and reflected God's will on earth. Those who wrote in the New Testament did so after spending time with Jesus and decided to document his life and teachings. It is a complete work, to be used and read in context with itself and people are not meant to select small parts of it out of context to use above other parts of it. But let's step back from this a bit as I feel like the thread is derailing.

I feel truly sorry for @Eli38 it must be hard living in her skin with such brainwashing and hate. Her views are morally repugnant to any Christian, even the fundamentalists. I truly hope she does not have children, because I fear for them being brought up in such an evil, hate-filled and toxic atmosphere.

@itseasybeingcheesy Sorry but it seems that it is your knowledge that is not through. Jesus (God) didn't invent Christianity. There are many articles from Biblical scholars that have showed how the 'previous words used' were not, in fact, remotely to do with homosexuality. The Bible was deceitfully changed in 1946. Until then, there was no reference to homosexuality any where in the Bible, and the previous terms did not translate to homosexuality either. Just do some research.

"400 years before Jesus life on earth, their writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit"

My point. 400 years before they God's life on earth, and truly, common sense says they cannot be 'inspired' by a holy 'spirit'. Come on, that is pure nonsense, and you know it.

itseasybeingcheesy
This is an informative link that goes in depth to debunk the 'homosexuality was always in the Bible' myth.
www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27?fbclid=IwAR3ZALmXmIt09Lk_OoNlIPOm_U3olOmMeXjySsa1RK3oa0E4EAbHJectQ_c&sfns=mo

Well done OP. I think you handled that very well indeed.

To anyone who says schools shouldn't talk to kids about sex before they are ready to understand, the OP's child is in Year 3, not 3 years old. At age 8 it is entirely appropriate to say that men can marry men and women can marry women if they want to. They are seeing the corresponding straight message all around them, so there is nothing inappropriate about saying that families can look different from yours and they are also good families. I promise you the teacher is not going into what goes where - between straight couples or gay - with a year 3 class.

I hope that the kids whose parents don't think they can handle the information that not all families look like theirs don't have any gay children in their classes. Or children with gay parents. Or adopted children. Or children of divorced parents. Or children with just one parent. Or children who live with a grandparent. Or any other non-normative family. Because those kids are going to be confused if their teacher doesn't tell them those are all good kinds of families too. And they may turn into homophobic bigots like their parents.

These kids aren’t 3, they are just going into year 3

Perhaps you've missed that with scientific technology, it is indeed possible for two mums or two dads to have children.

Actually, even with 'technology', it's not possible for 2 dads to have children.

@Propertyofhood Yes, it is. Haven't you heard of IVF, or surrogacy, or adoption?

When explaining to children you can t say two men can have children , simply because its not true. Same for two women. You can say two men can adopt, or two women can take a men sperm, but it is factually incorrect to say two of the same sex can actually have children.

Surrogacy is not 2 dads having children. It's 2 dads plus a willing incubator (sorry I mean 'woman').

Am not counting adoption because you said 'scientific technology'.

I think the next generation will grown with a very skewed idea of biology !

While I don't agree with the link postedat all I am alarmed at the way the new PSHE curriculum incorporates LGBTQ issues, as many aspects are misleading and inappropriate.

For example, absolutely children should be told about how babies are made using age appropriate and accurate language, as soon as they ask. And absolutely they should know that families come in all shapes and sizes and have strong familial behaviour modelled to them.

However, I don't know how that can be achieved by schools as such, and I think with this current programme they're getting it wrong and putting the cart before the horse. In addition some elements of this particular part of the curriculum are either factually incorrect (that sex is a spectrum and that you can choose where you are on it) or introduced at so early a level as to make a nonsense of the matter (eg telling kids that two men can "have a baby").

As far as I'm concerned, certainly pre puberty, the information given to children should be a) helping them understand their bodies (eg how reproduction works, same as digestion and circulation etc) and b) helping them understand society and how they fit into that (eg how families and peer groups work, carers and the different roles they play, the importance of being kind to each other). And just leave it at that.