Marriage Equality

[Rosy]

im still not sure who decides what abuse is though. and who would then decide who takes over guardianship.

........

I know for a fact that babies are often taken from their families in Melbourne. There are many kinds of abuse and neglect. Someone has to look out for the children. The Child Welfare Departments have a massive responsibility to make sure kids are in a safe environment.

 

[Djevv]

Interwebs has different rules Rosy. For some reason you will type something you would almost certainly never say face to face. I know I do.

Very true dat. Lol.

 

[Djevv]

'Shelton incorrectly asserts that the school was not able to teach their version of sexuality and marriage after same-sex marriages became legal in March 2014.[4] Provisions in the Equality Act 2010[5], under which sexual orientation became a protected characteristic, and which predates the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, in fact explicitly states that the school has this right.

The school can’t get away with ignoring the law of the land, as if it doesn’t exist. They failed to meet the standards because they refused to teach about sexuality.'

OK so there were other aspects to this issue but I don't think Shelton is lying about this! He just highlights what this unclear passage says. They breached a standard in the way they teach about sexuality. Sexual orientation is 'protected'. I find this concerning. The government is forcing its moral views on this issue on schools.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'd like to think I wouldn't post anything I wouldn't say face to face.

And that is cool. My online persona is far more argumentative than my real life persona. Online generally doesn't permit the time to develop a rapport and build a conversation. And the fact that I tend use mobile devices means typing long replies gets difficult. That often makes my replies short and abrupt. I could take the time to pull back and tone down some of my more outspoken posts but in truth, I can't be bothered.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

'Shelton incorrectly asserts that the school was not able to teach their version of sexuality and marriage after same-sex marriages became legal in March 2014.[4] Provisions in the Equality Act 2010[5], under which sexual orientation became a protected characteristic, and which predates the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, in fact explicitly states that the school has this right.

The school can’t get away with ignoring the law of the land, as if it doesn’t exist. They failed to meet the standards because they refused to teach about sexuality.'

OK so there were other aspects to this issue but I don't think Shelton is lying about this! He just highlights what this unclear passage says. They breached a standard in the way they teach about sexuality. Sexual orientation is 'protected'. I find this concerning. The government is forcing its moral views on this issue on schools.

Oh my God the irony DJ.

 

[Rosy]

And that is cool. My online persona is far more argumentative than my real life persona. Online generally doesn't permit the time to develop a rapport and build a conversation. And the fact that I tend use mobile devices means typing long replies gets difficult. That often makes my replies short and abrupt. I could take the time to pull back and tone down some of my more outspoken posts but in truth, I can't be bothered.

Fair enough. That's different (imo) to outright trolling and personal abuse.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Fair enough. That's different (imo) to outright trolling and personal abuse.

I truly hope so. I am not shy about getting into it over issues I care about but I hope I don't just resort to baiting and sniping. Happy for the mods to pull me up if I cross the line.

 

[Ian4]

Wowee, who are you to tell parents what they can and can’t teach their children! It is up to parents, as stewards of their children, to decide what’s best for them and what they should be taught. Not you.

what if the parents prevented their own child from seeking medical attention if they were sick, because it is against their religious beliefs?

The government is forcing its moral views on this issue on schools.

lol, just lol.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

...
lol, just lol.

Ummm...yup.

 

[IanG]

im still not sure who decides what abuse is though. and who would then decide who takes over guardianship.

DHS and the Courts, and as someone with a fair bit of personal experience in this area DHS are completely incompetent at it and both parents and children often end up with inadequate representation in court.

 

[Djevv]

So what does it mean to say sexual orientation is protected? If a school believed marriage is between a man and a woman it should be allowed to teach this surely? If the law of the land changes and this is no longer the case there is an obvious conflict which we see here. And so it seems possible that a school may lose its registration for standing on its convictions! This is a serious issue for religious freedom in my opinion. A very good reason to vote no.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Interesting - is religious freedom the right to teach children your religion?

Hypothetically if a religion said apostasy is punishable by death / ‘pick your extreme hate / discrimination example’ and the law says otherwise should you as a parent or as a school be allowed to teach that (kill someone if they are an apostate) to your child? I would think ‘no’ but that seems to be the argument. Completely unenforceable anyways inside a home.

Makes separation of church and state critical but still means someone or group of people chose what is right and wrong.

 

[Djevv]

should you as a parent or as a school be allowed to teach that (kill someone if they are an apostate) to your child?

I do believe in religious freedom - but something like that seems well beyond the pale in a way that teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman does not. In answer to the question I would think such a teaching

1. Breaches the freedom of conscience of the apostate to live according to her beliefs
2. It incites people to commit a crime (murder).

So it is clearly hate speech and should be suppressed.

 

[Djevv]

The separation of church and state was originally formulated to PROTECT religious freedom. It simply means that the government can't force a particular religion on its citizens. It doesn't just protect people who practice a religion, it also protects those who don't so it is a really important concept for everyone.

What separation of church and state does NOT mean is that prayer, bible reading, religious views on morality can be excluded from parliament arbitrarily.

 

[Brodders17]

So what does it mean to say sexual orientation is protected? If a school believed marriage is between a man and a woman it should be allowed to teach this surely? If the law of the land changes and this is no longer the case there is an obvious conflict which we see here. And so it seems possible that a school may lose its registration for standing on its convictions! This is a serious issue for religious freedom in my opinion. A very good reason to vote no.

A religious school can teach what its religion believes marriage to be, whilst also teaching what the legal definition is. It can then teach why it has different views.

 

[Djevv]

A religious school can teach what its religion believes marriage to be, whilst also teaching what the legal definition is. It can then teach why it has different views.

I agree Brodders that this would be appropriate for high-school age children, but the girls in this school are aged 3-8!

Not sure how sex education except a most basic kind is appropriate for students of this age. In the Australian Curriculum students don't start learning about puberty until Years 5&6 - let alone reproduction & relationships. Valuing diversity is mentioned. Do kids of this age really need to be taught about homosexuality?

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/British-Jewish-school-risks-closure-for-refusal-to-teach-LGBT-issues-498177

 

[Brodders17]

I agree Brodders that this would be appropriate for high-school age children, but the girls in this school are aged 3-8!

Not sure how sex education except a most basic kind is appropriate for students of this age. In the Australian Curriculum students don't start learning about puberty until Years 5&6 - let alone reproduction & relationships. Valuing diversity is mentioned. Do kids of this age really need to be taught about homosexuality?

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/British-Jewish-school-risks-closure-for-refusal-to-teach-LGBT-issues-498177

ill back out of this discussion around schools teaching gender re-assignment etc because i dont know what they are expecting.

but back to topic, this school did not get into trouble cos the UK introduced same-sex marriage. it got into trouble because it contravened the Equality Act, brought in 4 years (I think) before same-sex marriage came in in England.
it is irrelevant to the debate in Australia. (except that it is another diversion from the 'no' camp.)

 

[1eyedtiger]

I agree Brodders that this would be appropriate for high-school age children, but the girls in this school are aged 3-8!

Not sure how sex education except a most basic kind is appropriate for students of this age. In the Australian Curriculum students don't start learning about puberty until Years 5&6 - let alone reproduction & relationships. Valuing diversity is mentioned. Do kids of this age really need to be taught about homosexuality?

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/British-Jewish-school-risks-closure-for-refusal-to-teach-LGBT-issues-498177

Should kids this age be taught about sexuality full stop? Then again, maybe in Islamic schools, girls that age need to taught since they'll soon be married off.

What happens if a gay de-facto couple sends their kid to a religious school? Would the school deny that child an education based on the sexuality of his/her 'parents'? And if they did accept this child, what happens in class when they're taught about marriage and mothers and fathers and all that and they come out and say they've got two mothers? Is that blasphemy and is the kid going to hell? Or just the two mothers are going to hell? Is that something you think kids should be taught? It's our way or the hell way! How do they explain why altar boys often have sore bums? If the church is so against gays and all that? Do religious schools adequately teach why they can be hypocritical asses whilst they preach to others how the world should work? Does the church still believe the world is flat and imprison anyone who can prove otherwise? How can the pope fly around the world when it's flat?

What there also needs to be is a separation between EDUCATION and RELIGION.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The separation of church and state was originally formulated to PROTECT religious freedom. It simply means that the government can't force a particular religion on its citizens. It doesn't just protect people who practice a religion, it also protects those who don't so it is a really important concept for everyone.

What separation of church and state does NOT mean is that prayer, bible reading, religious views on morality can be excluded from parliament arbitrarily.

As Brodders points out this another Red Herring. Nothing to do with recognising the relationship status of same sex couples. Homosexuality has been part of all human communities for millenia.

Separation of church and state is a U.S. constitutional issue generally referring to the establishment clause which essentially precludes the state from sponsoring a particular religion. It was about trying to avoid the perceived errors of European and British states that linked the religion of the monarch to the their rule. Making all 'subjects' adherents to the state religion or heretics and traitors.

In most other countries it is simply shorthand for keeping religion out of politics. When it comes to schools it is about the fact that the state pays for schools, even private schools so there is a potilential conflict there. If schools want to stand on principle (a principle of discrimination, great lesson for young minds) then they should be excluded from state money and tax breaks. Simples.

 

[Coburgtiger]

I agree Brodders that this would be appropriate for high-school age children, but the girls in this school are aged 3-8!

Not sure how sex education except a most basic kind is appropriate for students of this age. In the Australian Curriculum students don't start learning about puberty until Years 5&6 - let alone reproduction & relationships. Valuing diversity is mentioned. Do kids of this age really need to be taught about homosexuality?

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/British-Jewish-school-risks-closure-for-refusal-to-teach-LGBT-issues-498177

There will be kids in the age bracket of three to eight who are gay, and already know, and might have a crush on someone of the same sex. There will be kids who have gay parents, gay siblings and gay friends. You don't need to be teaching them about penises and vaginas and the various ways in which they interact, to be able to teach love, of which marriage is considered to be the ultimate expression.


You seem to be holding to a misconception that homosexuality is something people just choose to participate in once they're taught about it.

It would be pretty confusing for a kid with two mums to go to school and be told his parents can't get married, because they're already going to hell because they love each other.