School children will be taught that not all pornography is bad and act out scenes as homosexuals if teachers follow sex education guidance just issued by the Department for Education.
The Times says that it is the first time for 14 years that advice on sex education has been updated. The guidance currently in use makes no reference to issues such as internet safety or “sexting” using mobile devices.
However, rather than just update the advice to warn about those topics, the new guidelines have included pro-gay propganda and taken a sexual libertarian slant.
The guidelines were drawn up by Brook Advisory, the PSHE Association and the Sex Education Forum, all of which are pro-contraception, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and frankly pro-promiscuity.
Although supported by the Department for Education, the new guidelines do not have legal force. But many teachers will assume they come down from authority and those who were already inclined that way will seize upon them to justify their position to worried parents.
One of the resources recommended to teachers, an e-magazine from the Sex Education Forum, advises teachers to “teach in a non-judgmental way” about pornography and tells them: “Pornography is hugely diverse — it’s not necessarily ‘all bad’.”
Last year Ofsted published a report saying that sex education was taught badly (whatever they mean by that) in between a third and half of schools and said that secondary schools should teach about the influence of pornography on students’ understanding of healthy sexual relationships.
It also says that sex education must not deal only with heterosexual relations. “Teachers should never assume that all intimate relationships are between opposite sexes. All sexual health information should be inclusive and should include LGBT people [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] in case studies, scenarios and role-plays.”
The advice ignores the dynamics of the playground. A pupil acting out a gay role-play will have that stigma attached for the rest of his school life. It will give bullies a weapon and could cement the idea in an adolescent mind that he or she might indeed be homosexual.
The guidance is a recruiting-sergeant for the homosexual world and is certain to bring misery and possibly death in its wake.
On 18 May 2010, Dominic Crouch committed suicide by jumping off the roof of a six-storey block of flats near his school in Cheltenham. He was 15. In the note he left his family, he wrote: “Dear Family, I’m so so sorry for what I’m about to do. I have been bullied a lot recently and had a lot of shit made up about me that ain’t true.”
It emerged that Dominic had taken up a dare to kiss another boy on a school trip during a game of spin the bottle. Some participants recorded the game on their mobile phones and the images circulated. Dominic, who was dyslexic and found it difficult to formulate a quick retort, became the butt of jokes when he returned to St Edward’s after the trip.
The Stonewall homosexual campaign group jumped on the idea of ‘homophobic bullying’ and started putting it about that Dominic might have been homosexual, something he and his family always denied. Stonewall even persuaded his father, Roger, to go around schools on a non-bullying mission and made him ‘hero of the year‘ on 3rd November 2011, the night Melanie Phillips was named ‘bigot of the year’ at the ceremony hosted by Stephen K Amos. Weeks later, in December 2011, Roger Crouch committed suicide as well.
Let us pray that the authors of this guidance do not end up with blood on their hands.
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.
I love the way you’re slating Brook for being pro-contraception and pro-abortion. Use of the former will reduce the need for the latter. You can’t have it both ways!
Common misconception (if the expression does not fall too awkwardly in the circumstances).
In fact, an increase in contraception results in a corresponding increase in the abortion rate, not a decrease.
In that case they certainly do need advice on using contraceptives more efficiently.
But Jane is wrong to imply that you must be either pro contraception or pro abortion. Apart from the possibility of schoolchildren producing babies for older childless couples to adopt (which has happened), you could recommend complete chastity to the schoolchildren.
Rox, they have been giving such advice to school-children for decades now.
They won’t recommend chastity to schoolchildren because too many of the organisations involved have either:
1 Financial links to condom manufacturers or
2 People within them who get a vicarious pleasure from the idea of schoolchildren fornicating.
Firstly the phrase ‘pro abortion’ is deliberately misleading; the phrase is ‘pro choice’. Secondly, it’s not just teenagers who are having sex. Are you suggesting that married couples, for example, practice abstinence too?
Oh, so killing your children is being pro-choice, is it?
There is always the choice of carrying on the pregnancy, obviously. That doesn’t answer the question about abstinence in marriage.
The law in the UK does not give parents the right to choose to kill their children after they have been born. Why should they have the right to choose to kill them before birth? It’s the same child, just at an earlier stage in life. There are some ‘choices’ which are not valid options for a civilised society.
The article is about sex education and role-playing in schools, to children. It has no relevance to married couples.
Of course it has relevance to married couples! Married couples may or may not want to engage in sex, but may not be in a position to have children. If you’re going to suggest abstinence as an alternative, then you can’t say it’s not relevant to people who are having sex!
The proper word is ‘chastity’, not ‘abstinence’. Unmarried people are being chaste by not engaging in sexual activity. A married couple are being chaste in their conjugal activity, assuming they leave it open to conception, and whether or not that results in a child.
this is a sad reflection of the state of this place made worse as usual by the likes of “stone wall” who evidently will use absolutely any means to further their unholy agenda
We can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend that young people are not exposed to pornography these days, on the internet and even (if they can get to the family television late at night) on television, on obscure freeview channels which many of your readers may not have chanced on.
Therefore, I do think it is reasonable for schools to deal with this, and to emphasise that for most people friendships with the opposite sex are not really very much like that. Apparently boys do tend to expect something of the sort, whereas girls do not, which results in a mismatch of expectations (but wasn’t that always the way ?).
The famous Chad Varah (who used to carry pornography around with him) once claimed to have attended the funeral of girl who he said killed herself because when her periods started she thought she was bleeding to death. He came away with a mission. Surprisingly, this was not to encourage girls to be taught about periods. No, it was to ‘teach child about sex’.
In the same way, sex educators will go further than what is needed to prevent children accessing porn. They will chew over the subject, ask if this is porn or if that is porn, give the idea that ‘porn’ is wider than the children thought, sow the seed that ‘if that advert is porn, then maybe some porn is ok?’ and even teach that there is ‘bad porn’ and ‘good porn’.
That’s how it works, regrettably. Who let these people loose on other people’s children?
Thank you for highlighting the fact that people who are thought to be gay, as well as those who actually are, are subject to abuse and violence. The anti-gay rhetoric on this site contributes in its own small way to this treatment.
Nonsense. There is no abuse on this site, and no violence. But there is much of both in the homosexual world.
In fact, it is talking up homosexuality which gives school bullies a weapon to use against someone who isn’t actually homosexual.
But if, as a result of some trauma, some sexual interference, some bullying, or whatever, someone thinks he (or she) might be homosexual, then if this site can show that person that:
1 You must never self-identify as ‘gay’,
2 An adolescent crush is not an indicator of a permanent dis-orientation,
3 The Lord Jesus Christ has power to save and forgive sins,
4 His shed blood also has the power to heal emotional trauma.
5 No-one has to ‘stay gay’.
Then we might contribute, in our own small way, to someone’s release from Satan’s grip.
I didn’t say there was ‘violence’ on this site (how can there be violence on a web-site?) but there is ‘anti-gay rhetoric’, as well as vitriol, unfounded allegation – like that in your reply – and verbal abuse of gay people. This contributes, whether you can see it or not, to the notion that it is okay to condemn and mistreat LGBT people.
So, it’s not nonsense, unlike your five-point plan for rescuing gay people. which is, in points 1, 2 and 5 at least, unbiblical and of man, not God.
You know so little of the scriptures and the power of God, Jeff.
Point 1. I said: ‘You must never self-identify as ‘gay’’
The Bible says: Prov 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith
The ten spies who said they could not enter Canaan didn’t. The two who said they could, did.
Point 2. I said: ‘An adolescent crush is not an indicator of a permanent dis-orientation’
The Bible says: Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Point 5. I said: ‘No-one has to ‘stay gay’’
The Bible says: Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
1John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
[…] « Porn and gay role-play for school sex-ed […]
Let’s not get too complex over such issues. Some sex education is essential as is the need to know what age of consent really means. Let us not forget that the God given pleasures of sex are to encourage us to procreate which is something same sex relationships will never be able to do. Man and women fit – man and man do not fit and never will. Pornography simply degrades sex and it should never be even considered as part of societies right to freedom. Excessive freedom eventually breaks down the barriers of morality so we need guidelines which is why the bible was the formation of western societies law & order. We all need to look around us and notice that every city, town, village and even hamlets still have thousands of cathedrals, churches and chapels which were not built as a fad or fashion but as a way of reminding us of our creator and what he expects from us in order to live a decent life and secure our place in eternity.
well said Ray!
I think the phrase ‘age of consent’ is the root of the whole problem as it breaks the link between sexual activity and marriage. As soon as sexual activity outside of marriage was approved and condoned, the downward spiral started. Without Biblical morality and an external Lawgiver, how can people justify their ideas of what is right and wrong?
The problem with this is that if there was no age of consent, it would be impossible to punish a man who had sex with a girl of 14 except under the same law by which you would punish him for having sex with a girl of 19, or a woman of 35 . So anybody who had any sex at all outside marriage, even consenting and not necessarily with somebody who was married to somebody else, would be hunted down and punished. Is that really what we want ? If not, then age has to be taken into consideration. If you are going to discourage sex with young girls, you have got to state an age limit. You can’t gave it both ways.
Interestingly, the Bible knows no such thing as an ‘age of consent’ only a state of consent, which is marriage. But that depends on society valuing virginity and families looking after their daughters’ chastity and inculcating chivalry in their sons.
Unfortunately, the only section of our community which is anywhere near that stage is the Muslim section. It is interesting that while condemning Muslims quite often, you do actually share quite a few of their values.
However, the chivalry of Muslim sons is not always impressive.
That is because they despise unbelievers. And yes, if you are going to make a counterfeit religion, you make it fairly like the orginial. If you make a counterfeit bank-note you don’t put ‘Bank of Toyland’ at the top. But also, Islam arose from the Arab pagan world which had picked up quite a lot from Christianity.
Actually, if you wanted to make counterfeit 50p coins, there are so many different designs that you would do best to make a completely new design. Then nobody would have genuine ones to compare it with, and would not see that it was false. I bet you would get away with this for long enough to make a good profit out of it.
The nearest religion to this might perhaps be Scientology.
Stephen has replied for me! You say I can’t have it both ways….well, there are not two ways to be had. As Stephen points out, the ONLY Biblical way is the state of consent which is marriage. Any sexual activity outside of that is wrong and where the values of virginity and chivalry are cast aside, everybody is a victim.
As one of our great hymnwriters says, “Oh thou hideous monster sin, What a curse hast thou brought in.”
The tragedy of this is that a) no-one, as Stephen points out, has to stay LGBT; b) there would surely be far less so-called ‘homophobic’ bullying if only Peter Tatchell and his cohorts were to stop forcing their message down society’s throats and allow different views.
I suspect that somebody who seemed to be a homosexual but could be persuaded to become a heterosexual might feel that he had stayed B, which means (in the jargon) that he had stayed LGBT , because you aren’t expected to be all four at once.