Gay Education

One of the debates lying under LGBT politics is whether it is right to teach young children about homosexual relationships.  The left say that teaching about homosexuality will promote tolerance and inclusion for gay children, and help to reduce the power of the stigma that still exists around homosexuality. The right say that it will degrade the significance of the traditional family, and undermine the rights of religious conservative parents to be opposed to gay rights.
Admittedly, this debate is a lot more significant across the pond in the US than in the UK. But there are voices in Britain (such as my very favourite political party, who produced this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roDGIwWT77Q ) who agree with the American Republican party in saying that the existence of homosexuality should be denied during primary-level education.

It’s been less than a decade since Section 28 was repealed, a Thatcherite introduction which forbade teachers from talking about homosexuality “in a positive light.” It’s perhaps unsurprising then, that no-one my age (I’m aware of) heard about homosexuality through any sort of official education. It wasn’t mentioned during sex ed, or any lessons that talked about relationships or health. We always assumed that we would marry a member of the opposite gender, and didn’t even consider that might not happen. The only time you heard the word “gay” at that point was as an insult. It was something terrible, something you denied being even if you weren’t quite sure what the word constituted. It was impossible to come to terms with the fact you might be “gay” one day, sometimes even until the end of secondary school.

Since I’ve finished GCSEs less than a year ago, I doubt it’s changed very much.

Including lessons about homosexuality at primary school, even so much as saying “some people are attracted to members of their own gender, and cannot help this,” would make such a huge difference. If the first time I heard about “gay” was from a teacher rather than a older student trying to insult me, coming out would have been so much easier. The way things are now, it takes forever to get over the internal stigma that “gay = bad.”
By leaving out lessons about gay issues, we isolate those children who grow up to be gay, and those children who are raised by gay couples. We don’t make it any more likely for children to be gay, as certain religious and political conservatives would like us to believe. No fewer people are going to get married and raise children. It will just allow people to be accepting if they, their relatives, or their friends turn out to be gay.

Maybe you believe homosexuality is wrong or a sin. I don’t really have a problem with that, you are entitled to believe what you happen to believe. But children are also entitled to experience a range of opinions as they grow up, so that their overall experience of something is neutral, and they can form their own rational opinion when they are older. Which leads me back to my previous argument- children should be provided with a neutral-to-positive description of homosexuality to counter all the negative stigma they will be exposed to from a very young age.

You cannot say you support homosexuals/oppose homophobia if you want homosexuality to remain a stigma subject in schools. Allowing this will only increase stigma and discrimination against homosexuals, and will do nothing to counter the increasing gay suicides that have been in the news.

If you are gay, then you are wonderful the way you are.
If you are a teacher, you have a responsibility to be including towards all your pupils/students, including those who are gay or are being raised by a gay couple.

Love be with you all!   

Islamohysteria

Recently, lots of people have been coining terms about Islam and attitudes towards Islam with the prefix “Islamo-“, and I’ve decided I want to join in. So here goes:

Islamohysteria ( n): a state of hysterical or irrational Islamophobia, characterised by the belief that the presence of openly practising Muslims is a threat to Western freedom and culture.

Sound good?
Right-wing organisations and individuals in Britain, continental Europe, and the USA have been expressing Islamohysteric points of view for a while now. Nick Griffin of the British National Party has used the phrase “huge numbers of Muslims shouldn’t be in Britain trying to convert Britain into an Islamic society.”  The ironically named Party for Freedom in the Netherlands wants to ban the Qua’ran on the basis that it explicitly teaches its readers to commit terrorist acts.  Fox news in America has released extensive reports claiming that Europe is being “Islamified”.

Islamohysteria basically comes down to two claims: the majority of Muslims are terrorists, and/or the majority of Muslims want to convert Western civilisations into Islamic ones, via the so-called process of “Islamification.”

Both of these claims are baseless and unjust. There are millions of Muslims who were born in America and Europe, and don’t want to terrorise or the West or disestablish West democracy any more that the average white Christian does. Also, consider the vast majority of the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. These are ordinary working and family-raising people who have seen their homelands devastated by war and violence from Islamist extremists, and the Western responses. Do you really think these people want any more violence? Do you really think they are likely to join forces with terrorist organisations who have made their lives hell?

Also, Islam really isn’t very different from Christianity.  Both are monotheistic, both are Abrahamic, both place much value in prayer and missionary work. Is there much difference between the aims of the Red Cross and the Muslim concept of Zakat? Of course, people like to contradict this by pointing out the violence that has been committed in the name of Islam, but by doing this, they turn a blind eye to much of Christian history. Why are the actions of the Taliban so much worse than the crusades, the Northern Irish troubles, and the persecution of Jews in the Middle Ages?

There is no reason for Western culture to antagonise Islam. It is very much related to the Juedo-Christian heritage that European tradition and culture is largely based on, and there is no proof, none whatsoever, of an organised Islamification movement.

Islamohysteria is irrational, discriminatory fear-mongering. It must be countered by rational voices in politics and the media, in the same way that we counter sexism, homophobia, and white supremacy.