?
I watched a debate on BBC1 Morning news this morning concerning as to whether it was a good idea for children as young as four to be taught about gay relationships, lesbianism etc. Naturally the BBC had a few pretty militant gay lobbyists to press for this systemic desecration of childhood innocence and to provide balance there was one sensible lady from the Campaign for Real Education who simply asserted that it was entirely inappropriate to be teaching such issues to young kids. However the thing that struck me was the wild-eyed look that entered the presenters eyes when the lady who opposed the teaching of gay propaganda to pre-primary school children stated that, as a matter of fact, gay relationships were “not the norm”! My goodness but they look startled. She said the unspeakable – doubt she’ll be invited back on!
Yes a lot of beebers really do seem to be genuinely surprised when they stumble across people who think differently to themselves.
They spend too much time inside the bubble.
We’re all gay now.
Didn’t see it so not sure to what extent this is a Daily Express-esque skewing of what the discussion was actually about but why anyone needs to “educate” a 4 year old on any form of relationship is beyond me. That’s at least 2 years before even chav kids will become sexually active after all.
Every BBC discussion on homosexuality seems to involve dragging out London’s only unfashionably dressed gay person with bad hair (i.e. Peter Tatchell) and the country’s last remaining Ian Paisley doppelganger to shout at each other. That’s not “the norm”. “The norm” is that people sit down and agree that homosexuality is a perfectly reasonable sexual preference but doesn’t need shoving down kid’s throats (ahem), before going to the pub/disco bar for a beer/Blue Lagoon.
Why are BBC producers the only people under 45 in the country (at least in London and Manchester) who still think this is an issue to be sensationalised.
Most telling, when the lady from the Campaign for Real Education said homosexuality wasn’t normal, the queer accused her of wanting to “exclude” all opinion alien to “white, middle-class” norms.
This is the nitty-gritty truth of all PC efforts, to destroy a particular racial group and its cultural defence mechanisms.
Dick 9:11
“We’re all gay now”. What, even Martin ?
99% of the gays I’ve ever met have been white and middle class???
Martin is an obvious case – nobody can obsess that much about homosexuality unless he’s hiding something.
99% of every middle class guy in the media I’ve ever met strikes me as being gay anyway. Or at the very least self-loathing misandrists who take every opportunity to denegrate their own sex and bang on about women’s issues. They can’t be men because they’ve deserted everything associated with being male.
Do male Beeboids actually have sex with women, or do they just lie in bed apologizing?
Cockney: I concur.
Now, statistically speaking, you can’t really say whether gay relationships are ‘the norm’ or not, because relationships are straight or gay, there is no analogue quantity across which a normal curve can exist (unlike, say, height). If instead you take the often quoted ‘10%’ of people are gay figure, then you can compare that to the proportion of other types of relationships to determine significance. For instance, what proportion of marriages are someone’s fourth marriage? Less than 10% I would guess, and yet you wouldn’t begrudge them for the many marriages (well, I suppose if you’re Catholic or they’re polygamous you might). Also consider the proportion relationships where the difference in height between partners is something silly like 1.5 feet – again, likely less than 10%, but not something you would consider completely awful.
ipreferred 12:21
I don’t quite get your drift,but I like the idea of “normal curves”. Maybe, in your next post , we can discuss “standard deviation”.
Mustn’t confuse their little heads (the B’oids,I mean) with concepts such as the norm, must we:
Check it out! How fab is number 4:
(from Webster’s):
Main Entry: norm
Etymology: Latin norma, literally, carpenter’s square
Date: 1674
1: an authoritative standard : model
2: a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
3: average : as a: a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b: a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group c: a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom
4 a: a real-valued nonnegative function defined on a vector space with value analogous to length and satisfying the conditions that the function is zero if and only if the vector is zero, the function of the product of a scalar and a vector is equal to the product of the absolute value of the scalar and the function of the vector, and the function of the sum of two vectors is less than or equal to the sum of the functions of the two vectors ; specifically : the square root of the sum of the squares of the absolute values of the elements of a matrix or of the components of a vector
b: the greatest distance between two successive points of a set of points that partition an interval into smaller intervals.
————————————–
Ratass Shagged:
99% of every middle class guy in the media I’ve ever met strikes me as being gay anyway. Or at the very least self-loathing misandrists who take every opportunity to denegrate their own sex and bang on about women’s issues. They can’t be men because they’ve deserted everything associated with being male.
Do male Beeboids actually have sex with women, or do they just lie in bed apologizing?
Ratass Shagged | 25.02.09 – 12:14 pm | #
————————————–
Male homosexuals delude themselves that they are some sort of authority on women. God knows why. For all that, they are often terrible misogynists. Obviously not all (I generalise) but it is common enough among them.
Ratass Shagged:
99% of every middle class guy in the media I’ve ever met strikes me as being gay anyway.
As Del Boy once said in Only Fools and Horses:
“You gotta watch your old ‘deaf and dumb’ in that game, they’re all ‘Stoke on Trent’.”
They shouldn’t be teaching 4 year olds any sex education at all – whether its gay, straight or Australian. Why can’t the lefties just let our children be children – no wonder the UN report singled out the un-happiness of Britains children.
Why does every perversion have to be drummed into childrens minds – let them play with toys for Gods sake.
or watch Balamory ?
If I had young children at this time in this country, I wouldn’t let them within a mile of a school in England, (or the BBC either), but would take them off to a country such as France or Italy or Ireland, where I think they still like children enough to allow them to be children and not turn them into laboratory subjects to be experimented upon and indoctrinated in every adult daftness going.
Honestly, I don’t understand this susceptibility of adults in this country to every latest idea – ill conceived though it may be – that somebody has dreamt up. I was a child once – weren’t they? – and I would want children to have that kind of freedom too. Freedom from being bothered about sex at the age of four.
The freedom a child needs is the freedom to develop and to discover the world little by little. It’s a long and natural process that shouldn’t be forced. I never felt pressured by this sort of programming to concern myself with things that were of no interest to me at a particular time or age – such as sex (what’s that?) at pre-school age. So I was free to inhabit the magical world of childhood, the place and the space that belonged to children and where we belonged, not some forced parody of adult world and adult concerns. When I did want to know things, I could find them out. And no one deprived me of the journey of growth and discovery that should be a child’s to enjoy.
Maybe it would help children learn at their own pace if they were all taught to read properly.
Cockney,
There’s nothing Daily Express about me.
The question that should have been asked – are any groups of children (lets say from certain demographics) exempt from this policy.
Because I think we all know damn well one group is not going have its children subjected to this. They wont even have to protest, it wont apply.
Certain Christian groups otoh may fight some sort of rearguard action (no pun intended) and face vilification by much of the MSM.
David – true. There’s a distinct lack of posts on Princess Diana.
Millie Tant | 25.02.09 – 5:16 pm |
4 a: a real-valued nonnegative function
That leaves out BBC Social Cohesion programming, then.
What’s all this B******S about homosexuality being ‘normal’.
A sphincter,(arse), is a ‘one way valve’ ie.substances come out………they aren’t supposed to go in.