The Independent has a front page article today promoting a pro-homosexual campaign by the British Humanist Association.
The BHA, a registered charity which regularly engages in political campaigning, has just found out that over 40 schools, mainly academies, are insisting that teachers should not promote homosexuality to their pupils.
Given the levels of disease, the promiscuity, the degradation and the perversion inherent in the homosexual lifestyle, anyone with any sense of care for the young would have thought this was only sensible. A robust child-centred view would see promotion of homosexuality to 13-16 year-olds in the same light as grooming.
Parents send their children to school to get an education, not to be indoctrinated with the personal predilictions of teachers and ‘sex workers’. Most parents would regard ‘pro-gay’ teaching as child abuse.
But no, for the BHA and the Indy, it’s ‘The Return of Section 28’, the measure brought in under Margaret Thatcher at the instigation of Baroness Knight, Sir William Shelton, the Earl of Halsbury and others, to ban ‘gay lessons’. The Indy quoted Peter Tatchell in support of its stance without mentioning his contribution to the notorious pro-paedophilia book ‘The Betrayal of Youth’ in 1986. A leader-writer claimed ‘gay is perfectly natural’.
Wes Streeting, who is ‘head of education’ at the pro-sodomy organisation Stonewall, claimed that Section 28 had a ‘deeply damaging effect on the education and well-being of so many young people’. Actually, it may have saved very many more from being recruited into homosexual practice and the ‘gay’ lifestyle.
Not many parents know that the Equality Act 2010 put an obligation on public authorities to promote homosexuality and that includes LEA schools. Academies appear to be outside that obligation, but are still subject to the Sexual Orientation regulations which say homosexuals should not be discriminated against in the provision of goods and services. There is no evidence of discrimination in any of these schools. Furthermore, there is no national sex education curriculum. School governing bodies have the responsibility of drawing one up themselves.
The Department for Education, the DfE, said: “All schools can draw up their own sex-education policy, but they must ensure they do not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. Our guidance makes it clear that schools should not promote any sexual orientation. The DfE will be looking into these schools.”
Disturbingly, instead of standing up for themselves, the schools immediately began running for cover. According to the Indy:
‘In its first statement of its sex education policy, the Castle View Enterprise Academy in Sunderland could not have been clearer. It said: “The Governing Body will not permit the promotion of homosexuality.”
‘After being contacted by The Independent, it deleted the guidance from its website. The academy said the “incorrect information” was “one of several policy drafts shared by schools and project management companies as examples before the academy opened”. It said the policy had never been approved by its governing body. Principal Janet Bridges said: “We are thankful this administrative error has been brought to our attention and apologise for any upset it may have caused.”
‘An identical phrase was used by Colston’s Girls’ School, Bristol. And it executed a similar U-turn when contacted by the Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, Stephen Williams. He said: “I was amazed when I saw it and assumed at first it was some old policy from when it was a private school.”
‘Other schools are expected to rapidly delete similar guidance.’
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The situation is such that words begin to fail me. What can we do or say when no one in authority seems to be listening!
Why is courage so lacking in today’s society, even among professing Christians? These schools should refuse to capitulate to the demands of wicked Stonewall et al. Sadly, it appears that they are afraid of the “gay” lobby and many or all may capitulate. They should fear rather, for the children who are being recruited into the homosexual lifestyle, and do all in their power to protect children from it. Some years ago, a placard was carried at Belfast “Gay” Pride and these words were printed on it, ” 10% is not enough. Recruit, Recruit, Recruit.” So the homosexual lobby are active recruiting officers for “volunteers” to fight their war on Biblical morality.
I recall the Independent openly promoting, by way of front paging, the legalization of marijuana then eventually admitting they were wrong and apologizing for the error of their ways. I also recall them becoming obsessed with and promoting the banning of nudge bars on 4×4 vehicles on their front page stating that they kill people – which any part of a vehicle will do if one walks in front of it whilst it’s moving. They have made such fools of themselves over the recent years that most intelligent forward think adults tend to treat their newspaper with the contempt it deserves. I see that once again they are promoting what is against against normality which tells me that they simply cannot be trusted and that they are clutching at any old straw. I suppose that one day, in the not too distant future, we can expect to see them printing a story about the good side of Jimmy Saville including childhood pictures of him with his dear old mum – now there’s a story that will catch the public’s eye!
Child Molestation & The Homosexual Movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAMWhVd0StI
The BHA, which campaigns for discrimination against religious schools and Christianity in general, must be considered experts in discrimination.
Stephen Williams: ‘‘Other schools are expected to rapidly delete similar guidance.’
In George Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ the citizens of Oceania (Airstrip One) were also expected to behave as totalitarianism expected.
May the Lord Jesus give us our daily bread against the nihilist derisor. Discrimination is the Ability to Say NO! What ideology can withstand The Sovereign GO(O)D other than His Own Spirit in us.?!! Until we just desire to be Born Again ANYTHING WILL GO because just like the Jews trying to maintain adherance to Teachings without Grace is Impossible! “Seek ye first The Kingdom and His Righteousness and All Shall Be Given.” We CAN ONLY SERVE ONE MASTER (Mt 6:24). Only Judas’ s a-p-o-s-t-a-s-i-s-e !
Does Christian Voice oppose the notion of rape within marriage?
I think it interesting as an indication of your attitude to sexual morality.
Did you once say: “”The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994] also introduced an offence of “marital rape,” drafted by the Law Commission, unknown in the Law of God, and in conflict with the marriage service of the Book of Common Prayer, where the promises given by a man and woman to each other establish a binding consent to sexual intercourse”?
That is a quote from our 1998 publication Britain in Sin which analysed legislation in the light of Biblical principles.
I believe the problem which led to the law change was a succession of estranged husbands having been served with divorce papers turning up on their soon-to-be-ex’s doorstep demanding with force their conjugal rights. Obviously something had to be done. This is the way we live now. It’s all part and parcel of the way the law now allows marriages, formed with solemn promises in front of witnesses, to just be set aside because one party says so and makes up some ‘unreasonable behaviour’ accusations. Imagine if the laws of conveyancing were subject to the same whims. ‘Yes, I know I said I would sell you the house, I know we have a solemn contract, but I’ve changed my mind.’
Here is what the Bible says about promises and sexual relations within marriage. Even if what I say is rubbish, this is God’s word:
Eccl 5:4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
1Cor 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 1Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
So is the above a quote from Christian voice you now regret or not?
I regret that our opponents are so shallow they simply rush to judgment and refuse to think matters through.
So to help me think things through, you may consider answering the question
Which I did above.
Could you clarify for me where you actually answer this question, from which you clearly want to shy away?
Oh dear, Huw, I sense the problem is that I believe people should keep their promises and you think they don’t matter. The Bible quote I gave above goes on to say:
1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
So if a couple are to refrain from the conjugal expression of their marriage it should be by consent.
As it happens, I don’t believe a man should force himself on his wife (or vice versa), and although we can see why the law was changed, the change struck at the heart of the promises made at a marriage ceremony in front of all those witnesses.
I should invite you to agree that it would be equally as wrong for one of the parties (of whatever sex) in a marriage to deny the other party conjugal relations as a bargaining tool or out of spite.
There is no shying away on my part, but let’s see how you do.
I say deny if you want to deny. Each to their own. And however you dress it up I still find the stance you adopted in that initial quote a bit barbaric.
So I was right. For you, promises – and for that matter, simple human decency – mean nothing.
I am interested that you use decency as a criteria and feel so compelled to attack, when my actual question is quite simple. Did you say that quote? I wonder why you are so fearful when it comes to answering.
What is your problem? The quote is from Britain in Sin, which I wrote. That is explained above. So is the reasoning behind it.
Being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice. It is an identity, one not consciously chosen by the mind but an identity that is written in the very fabric of our person and soul. One cannot “promote” such a personal and deep characteristic in the same way that one cannot promote having blue eyes, or red hair, or the abscence of such hair. What section 28 achieved was the singling out of individuals who (for reasons unknown to and not chosen by them) happened to be gay. When the government passed legislation aimed at “not allowing the promotion of homosexuality”, what it’s actual result was in the discouragement of young people from learning more about or exploring their own sexuality. Human sexuality (however it may be so inclined) is a gift from God and is a very precious component of human nature. As such, in order to respect our neighbours we have to be able to respect ourselves and this respect extends to our sexuality, as much as it also includes our ethnic identity, faith, etc… All these are components that make up our self esteem. When we are robbed of our self-esteem, so lessens the strength of our own free will. God gives man free will that man might choose to follow God, rather than simply do what he is forced to do, like an automaton, a robot. True faith is belief and true belief is chosen freely by the individual. As such blind faith is useless and worthless. Does the good book not say that one must be true to oneself? In the Gospel, Jesus said: “Do not swear by oaths […sic…] Let your yes be yes and your no be no”. Relating this back to section 28 and its repression of homosexuals, does not everyone have the right to be true to his/herself? Then does the very ideology of section 28 not bar young homosexual people from being able to access adequate information about their sexuality – information that would help them to fully understand and respect themselves just as their heterosexual peers would?
Tibbles, as a former homosexual myself I can say that I believe that you are wrong on a number of points. Firstly, you compared homosexual behaviour with immutable characteristics such as eye colour but they are not the same thing at all. That’s like the old argument comparing ‘homphobia’ to racism. The difference is that eye colour or sking colour are immutable physical characteristics that one is born with, homosexuality isn’t about who you are it is about what you do.
We all struggle with sin, some people seem to struggle more with a certain sin than others. Some people are drawn to stealing, fornication, adultery or homosexuality. But feeling like one wants to commit adultery does not make one an adulterer by birth nor does it mean that one cannot control their behaviour. The struggle of the homosexual is not one of acceptance but one of sin, plain and simple. The Bible is completely clear on this issue and only by reinterpreting passages which are black and white to say that which they do not can one come to the conclusion that homosexuality is morally acceptable.
I know from my own experience growing up as a young person who believed myself to be a homosexual what the struggle is that many young people face. The problem is that telling young people that it is ok, to embrace their feelings because that is who they are actually encourages them and reinforces in their mind the view that they are a homosexual when it may just be that they were confused about how they feel. More and more young people today seem to be embracing homosexuality, bisexuality is becoming fashionable. Why do you think that is? As far as I can see it’s because they are bombarded with homosexual propaganda left, right and centre.
I know that people are not born gay and I know people can change because God changed me. That’s the message that today’s youth need to hear.
Not only is antiquated legislation such as this a harrowing reminder of how Thatcherism dealt a series of blows that have lessened and devolved this country (the miners strikes and the Falklands conflict being just two other such examples), it is also saddening evidence of how certain viewpoints (the persecution or discrimination of those who are gay) try to find footholds in religious doctrine to increase their credibility. Look on, England: Archbishop Desmond Tutu prefers no heaven to anti-gay heaven, more countries worldwide legalise the marriage of same-sex couples. Discrimination is the right to say no to discrimination. “Heterophobia” is non-existent, just as is mysandry. If the way somebody is offends you, don’t you think your rejection of what they are also offends them? Allowing homosexual relationships to be discussed in schools is not grooming. Such an idea as that is biased, unfounded and quite irrational. Catholic priests abused children of both genders. Straight people can be just as bad as gay people can. I don’t think children or adolescents should be spoonfed with any ideas about sexuality. Give them the facts, what they need to know to be safe and healthy, and give them the opportunity to ask questions for themselves, and let us have the resources to provide suitable answers.
I would also just like to add that I find the branding of stonewall being “wicked” as an immature and nonsensical response to a matter that does require some reasonable thinking.
Goodnight, God bless and may we all love one another, however long that will take.
You would find that. But reasonable thinking is not something upon which the ‘gay’ agenda thrives.
And loving one another does not mean we have to accept what is unacceptable and encourage others in degrading activities.
Our guidance makes it clear that schools should not promote any sexual orientation. The DfE will be looking into these schools.”