Academics: Ban the promotion of heterosexuality
In 1988 the Thatcher government passed into law the famous Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools. This legislation was repealed by the Blair government in 2003, as a result of which homosexuality can be, and is, promoted in schools.
Now, in a bizarre twist, the University and Colleges Union, whose anti-semitism was discussed by David yesterday, is calling for the promotion of heterosexuality in schools to be criminalised. By a unanimous vote, delegates at their annual conference have given their backing to a motion which reads:
All negative characterisations by teachers of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, identity and lifestyle should be outlawed and classified as an act of discrimination and an incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation.
It should be noted that this motion is not simply calling for acts of discrimination and victimisation directed against homosexual individuals to be prohibited. They already are. Rather, the motion is calling for teachers to be prevented from even suggesting that heterosexuality could in any way be superior to the homosexual lifestyle. Alan Whitaker, of the Oxford and Cherwell Valley College, who proposed the motion, feels that a particular injustice is done by allowing teachers to express the view that heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual "civil partnerships".
So, there you go. If these liberal academics have their way, then it will become unlawful even to tell children that the institution of heterosexual marriage, which is - or should be - the very bedrock of our society, is the best kind of relationship. This would be disastrous. Marriage has been continually undermined for many years now, and is more than ever in need of protection and promotion. But it seems that, for these academics, the demands of whining homosexuals take precedence over the needs of society.
Cross-posted at my own blog
The Fulham Reactionary
7 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (7)
Heterosexual relationships, inc. marriages, are perfectly capable of self-destruction without any outside influences. What has this to do with the desire of homosexuals to enter civil partnerships and so create a stable unit in society?
I have been married for nearly fifty years - to the same woman - and we have children. I support marriage (the heterosexual kind) and I think it is special.It is certainly superior to a homosexual civil partnership.
Why is it now considered perverse to express such a sentiment? It is the expression of the opposite that is perverse. It is time for heterosexual married couples to demand recognition of their rights.
In my 60+ years I have seen every standard that I was brought up with turned upside down. It is time to stop.
I have been married for nearly fifty years - to the same woman - and we have children. I support marriage (the heterosexual kind) and I think it is special.It is certainly superior to a homosexual civil partnership.
Why is it now considered perverse to express such a sentiment? It is the expression of the opposite that is perverse. It is time for heterosexual married couples to demand recognition of their rights.
In my 60+ years I have seen every standard that I was brought up with turned upside down. It is time to stop.
One further question - just what percentage of academics are members of the UCU?
UCU reps yesterday:
"Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to discuss and debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme.
I guess the enthusiasm for discussing 'challenging, offensive and even extreme' ideas has waned since then.
Their website is a bit... fruity!
http://www.ucu.org.uk/
:P
But this isn't an argument about whether homosexuality is good/bad, moral/immoral. It's one of free speech. These people are not calling for a ban on people calling for 'death to homosexeuals', or even for a ban on people saying they 'hate' homosexuals (not that an emotion like hate should be prohibited anyway). They're calling for a ban on ANY negative portrayal of homosexuals. So even a genuine academic showing off his research into, say, the effects of single-sex parents on their children, would be illegal, if the results lead him to a conclusion that there was a negative effect.
I wonder, will this be coupled with a ban on the negative portrayal of hetrosexuals?
Peter T,
The UCU website says that they have 120,000 members and are the "largest post-school union in the world".
What about the non-moral facts that basically if you engage in homosexual practices you are much more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases - are you allowed to point this out?
I couldn't believe it that in the new SORs it even had a part saying you couldn't discriminate re the donation of blood - unless of course there were clinical reasons for doing so, which is exactly why historically anyone who has engaged in homosexuality has been prohibited from donating blood.
The promotion of homosexuality and the promotion of Islam are the twin weapons at the forefront of ideological terror against traditional thinkers in our society.