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It’s been less than a decade since Section 28 was repealed, a Thatcherite introduction which forbade teachers from talking about homosexuality “in a positive light.”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!   

Democracy ≠ violence

I couldn’t decide whether to blog about the American midterm elections, or university fees. Then I saw this article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822, and the decision was made.

Raising the cap for university fees is a bad idea on a number of levels. Obviously it’s bad for students- prospective and current undergraduate students may be forced financially to drop out of or not go to university, which will lead to a decrease in job prospects and quality of life. This also has the effect of increasing the rich-poor divide, as better-off students will find it much easier to study and get better-paid jobs, and not-as-well-off students will find it much harder to study at higher education, leading to not-as-well-paid jobs.
 It will also affect everyone else, too. A decrease in uni students means a decrease in professional workers (doctors, lawyers, teacher, etc), which means the services those professionals provide will be less abundant. As well as the obvious disadvantage, this also means the economy is eventually going to suffer- which right now is the last thing we want.

So the government’s cut on university funding is a bad thing. We get that.
But is starting fires and breaking windows really going to change anyone’s mind?

So, you’re marching to make a statement. Marching is good. I like marching. Marching, in its’ best form, is a way of peacefully objecting to the government’s actions, and it ensures said government can be held accountable by the public between elections.
But when it amounts to vandalising the Conservative and Lib Dem part headquarters, something’s gone wrong.

Firstly, this instantly creates the image of “sensible, coherent people making a decision” (the Coalition Government) being attacked by “incoherent, selfish thugs” (the students involved with the vandalism). There are sensible arguments against the cuts (more, I dare say, than sensible arguments for the cuts), but this image is going to induce the gut reaction in the floating/moderate public that the only people against the cuts are violent, unintelligent and have no reasonable objection to the cuts. Therefore, support for the student cause will go down.

The government must be seen to not be compromising with violent protests such as these- imagine if they decided to legalise gay marriage, then changed their mind because certain right-wingers lit fires outside registry  offices. If any MPs change their vote because of the protesters, they will forever be labelled as “cowardly”, and even “unworthy of office.”  It’s also a personal issue- you wouldn’t want to change your mind because someone threatened you with violence, as a matter of pride. So not only will the vandalism not convince anyone to vote against the cuts, it may even stop people amongst the Coalition voting that way who may have done so before.  

In conclusion, if you are going to object to the rise in fees, you have my full and enthusiastic support. But please, for the sake of everyone who stands against the cuts, prevent yourself from becoming violent during your objection.