大象传媒

Information on all perspectives and possible lifestyle choices should be fairly and non judgementally delivered in schools. Young people, whether identifying only to self or to others as homosexual must not get the message in school that their personal sexuality is wrong or simply a matter of choice or that the gay lifestyle is inevitably one of promiscuity. In a pluralistic society young people should be taught that stable gay partnerships are achievable and are acceptable,
especially with the advent of civil partnership legislation. Young people should also be taught, whether in sex or religious education or both, that while orthodox religious teaching is that homosexual behaviour as lived out in gay relationships is contrary to God's plan that some religious people believe that it is acceptable to live as Gay religious people. But they must also be taught to respect the authenticity of a religious identity and that it is a perfectly valid option, for perhaps a minority for whom their religious convictions will not permit them to live out their homosexual identity as LGB, to live a celibate life and that some do so successfully 鈥� as successfully as some live in stable gay partnerships. And that some, who may be latently bisexual, choose to live in a heterosexual marriage and control their homosexual attraction because of their religious convictions. This might look something like this.....

Your Sexual Orientation (SO) is OK. Sexual Orientation is not a choice, it just is...... but there is
choice around it.
Your Religious belief is OK. You have a right to your religious beliefs as long as they are important to you.
SO and religious beliefs can clash. This can be painful. When this happens there are options. You can work out which is right for you: here are some options......

1)Accept your SO and practise same sex relationships. LGB organisations support this choice.
2)Accept your SO and seek a monogamous committed same sex relationship. There are religious LGB organisations and some churches which support this choice.
3)Accept your SO and choose to be celibate. There are religious organisations and churches which support this choice.
4)Live as celibate and hope for eventual orientation change (a long term process with uncertain outcome which may be easier if you are bisexual.) There are religious organisations and churches which support this choice.

Whatever you choose to do there are supports available.

Such an approach might help to take some of the controversy out of education on Homosexuality. The polemic only serves to exacerbate homophobic attitudes in schools and society. The Department of Education Guidance (2000) to Schools in England and Wales was that schools should be free to teach about Sex and relationships in a manner appropriate to their religious ethos.
This would seem to be supported by the recent ruling by Mr Justice Weatherup (2007) on the new Sexual Orientation regulations in Northern Ireland. Regarding the regulation relating to the responsible bodies in charge of specified education establishments he stated that 鈥渢he discrimination provisions under (the) regulation concern first of all access by a pupil to an establishment and secondly, for those who are pupils, access the benefits (which includes facilities and services) of the establishment and the absence of detriment. ........I am satisfied that articulating the orthodox religious view on homosexuality in the classroom does not relate to access, a benefit or a detriment under (the) regulation.鈥� It seems that Faith based schools in NI will not be constrained by the recent sexual orientation regulations to teach only one view about the expression
of homosexuality and homosexual behaviour.

Fishy - largely agree with your very reasoned and reasonable post.

Just a few quibbles:

(1) your use of orthodox, I would have thought traditional less loaded;

(2) while orientation may be more or less fixed, many people do engage in sexual activities contrary to their baseline inclinations as a matter of choice - that choice is theirs to make and to do so is perfectly morally acceptable;

(3) promiscuity is also a loaded word - there is nothing morally wrong with sexual activity purely for fun so long as there is the full, informed, meaningful consent of all the parties involved or affected;

(4) there is no reliable evidence which supports orientation change - the process is likely to be damaging for most who attempt it though some may find a way of suppressing a natural part of the self and of living with that suppression.

Portwyne

Fishy

I'm not sure that I'm up for too much debate on the cusp of Christmas, and don't particularly wish to be drawn into the 'gay' debate again, I think my views are pretty well known, but what concerns me a little is that (again) schools become the focus of the debate regarding which might be called 'social' education.

And yes I know that for some students school may be one of the most stable environments in their life, but increasingly teachers are being asked to take on roles for which I do not believe they are properly trained. We, I am a teacher, are primarily 'academic' educators, we are not social workers, counsellors, or medical staff. Yes teachers have responsibility, but if education regarding for example sexuality, sexual relationships, human rights, citizenship, health and so on are to be taught in our schools then I suggest that (1) Only those with appropriate training and experience be charged with this responsibility and (2) that either parents and or students are free to decide not to participate.

These are important issues and it's all very well saying that young people must be taught, an equally important question to ask is, who will the teacher be?

Peter

I would quite agree that such matters should not be taught in history or chemistry but schools today set time aside for personal, social, and health education - the planning of that part of the curriculum, the topics covered, and how the material is delivered (the slant) can be vitally important in giving an adolescent the confidence to explore his/her identity and gain confidence in being him (or her) self.

I recently reviewed such a programme with a friend who is head of pastoral care in a large Catholic school and must say I was pleasantly surprised how broadly-based, supportive and encompassing it was. This is an area where appropriately trained teachers can make a difference in young people's lives and I am glad to say many are doing just that.

None of this crap should be happening in Catholic schools which should be teaching what is in the Catechism - homosexual acts are sinful, and homosexual inclinations are disordered. That'll be a very short lesson requiring no actors, famous or otherwise.

William

I dont want to comment on this post directly but more the issue at large.

Is it possible that 大象传媒 NI religious programming might start to consider the other people groups around the world that are generally considered to be oppressed?

There are of course many NI angles on this topic if we are truly interested in being educated informed and entertained (!) on the subject.

Otherwise the intense focus on homosexual issues seems to be a vary narrow minded one trick pony...

many thanks
OT

I'll echo Peter Morrow's concerns. Schools are being asked to do too much. It's difficult enough to provide a basic education.
We cannot replace family, Church and traditional community ties. Secularisation has eroded the authority of all three - but a rationalised bureaucratic society cannot provide anything comparable to the structures we once used to form moral character.
We can't undo secularisation - and we're just going to have to live with the results. Schools can't undo the damage. Even with Gandalf's help.

GV

OT it sounds like you are not much interested in one of the great ethical and religious debates of our time: the place of gay people within church and society. What other issues would your rather see reported on?

Augustine - don't think OT was saying it's not an important issue - but if you look back at posts there does some to be an unusual interest in the homosexualist ideological agenda.

"homosexualist ideological agenda"

Huh? I only know very few gay people, but I can't say I've picked up on much of an ideological agenda from them as far as gay rights are concerend. As far as I've noticed, most of it is simply about not wanting to be discriminated. So do please tell the people here Smasher, what is the "homosexualist ideological agenda"?

Hi Peter:
Whatever it is, it is infinitely preferable to the homo-bashing, women-bashing, Cruiser-bashing medieval Catholic theological agenda.

Are you trying to sweet-talk me Brian?

I have never "bashed" anyone, nor encouraged anyone to "bash" anyone. I merely represent my views, views shared by many millions throughout the world.

The homosexualist agenda is about the forced equating of homosexual relationships with married heterosexual relationships. It's not hard to understand.