Christian and Christian's views on Sex Education

Greaney

I see. Okay to answer your question. I believe the case in England is on discrimination grounds. So the couple in question are suing because they're being discriminated against because they're gay. This is not allowed in other areas of secular life.

But say a church discriminates against a couple because they're both divorcees. Well, they are discriminating because of church teaching on the matter. That is to say, someone who's divorced cannot remarry. (Just of the sake of not arguing in circles about divorce, by the way. some churches (denominations) will marry a divorcee who for example, was abandoned by their first spouse etc.). So that's a form of discrimination if you will but it wouldn't 'make' a secular case of discrimination. The focus would be on the church teaching and not the couples civil rights.

And just by the way, I'm not Catholic so my comment on divorce would be more likely to relate to other denominations etc. and not to the Catholic Church.

Delirium

Greaney wrote: »

I see. Okay to answer your question. I believe the case in England is on discrimination grounds. So the couple in question are suing because they're being discriminated against because they're gay. This is not allowed in other areas of secular life.

But say a church discriminates against a couple because they're both divorcees. Well, they are discriminating because of church teaching on the matter. That is to say, someone who's divorced cannot remarry. (Just of the sake of not arguing in circles about divorce, by the way. some churches (denominations) will marry a divorcee who for example, was abandoned by their first spouse etc.). So that's a form of discrimination if you will but it wouldn't 'make' a secular case of discrimination. The focus would be on the church teaching and not the couples civil rights.

And just by the way, I'm not Catholic so my comment on divorce would be more likely to relate to other denominations etc. and not to the Catholic Church.

Churches can refuse to marry a couple where one or both are divorced from their previous spouse. Refusing them the religious sacrament doesn't mean they still can't get married in the civil sense.

The same applies to a gay couple in the teaching of the religion.

From what I can read, the problem is that the Church of England can't have canon law that conflicts with a government statute. This is because there isn't separation between Church and State.

This is why the case is being brought against the CoE.

Greaney

Yes. Indeed. So even though they were told they would not be affected, and the government believed it, they might be mistaken after all.

katydid

Greaney wrote: »

They do survive not marrying straight couples, indeed, but then straight couples are less likely to bring them to court over it. I think that the litigation issue will not be with churches alone.

Why would a straight couple be less likely to go to court?

The bottom line is that churches can marry who they want, and refuse who they want, for whatever reason they want. It's not an issue.

katydid

Greaney wrote: »

Oh, okay then
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

There is nothing in that article that suggests that heterosexual couples are less likely to go to court.

It's an interesting article though - it specifically points out that clergy can not be forced to conduct marriages against their beliefs.

katydid

SW wrote: »

I can't find anything in that link about churches being sued by couples for not performing a wedding ceremony. and it definitely doesn't show that same-sex couples sue more often when compared to male+female couples.

It actually says that whatever else might be the case, clergy can NOT be sued...

katydid

Greaney wrote: »

I see. Okay to answer your question. I believe the case in England is on discrimination grounds. So the couple in question are suing because they're being discriminated against because they're gay. This is not allowed in other areas of secular life.

But say a church discriminates against a couple because they're both divorcees. Well, they are discriminating because of church teaching on the matter. That is to say, someone who's divorced cannot remarry. (Just of the sake of not arguing in circles about divorce, by the way. some churches (denominations) will marry a divorcee who for example, was abandoned by their first spouse etc.). So that's a form of discrimination if you will but it wouldn't 'make' a secular case of discrimination. The focus would be on the church teaching and not the couples civil rights.

And just by the way, I'm not Catholic so my comment on divorce would be more likely to relate to other denominations etc. and not to the Catholic Church.

And church teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman, so...

Greaney

Katy, go back a couple of pages to find the answers to the questions you're asking. There are links etc. there.

katydid

Greaney wrote: »

Katy, go back a couple of pages to find the answers to the questions you're asking. There are links etc. there.

I did. I didn't see any link that answers my question.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

And church teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman, so...

. . . stop being a hypocrite by going

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

. . . stop being a hypocrite by going

Going where?

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

Going where?

to church . . .

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

to church . . .

I'm not a Roman Catholic.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

I'm not a Roman Catholic.

Well at least that Church has the balls to tell the truth regarding Christianity.
Is that the only Christian church ? I thought Christianity taught marriage is between a man and woman, well news flash, after today, it isn't and its time to stop being a hypocrite by following a religion or church that says it is between a man and woman.

Delirium

barretsimpson wrote: »

Well at least that Church has the balls to tell the truth regarding Christianity.
Is that the only Christian church ? I thought Christianity taught marriage is between a man and woman, well news flash, after today, it isn't and its time to stop being a hypocrite by following a religion or church that says it is between a man and woman.

MOD NOTE

Please remember this is the Christianity forum and as such posters are not required to defend their faith.

Please bear this in mind in any future contributions.

Thanks for your attention.

barretsimpson

I didn't ask then to defend their faith, just to explain their cognitive difference of pretending to be for equality and yes on one hand and then going to a church that only performs marriage between men and women, which after today is against the state, bigoted and homophobic.

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

Well at least that Church has the balls to tell the truth regarding Christianity.
Is that the only Christian church ? I thought Christianity taught marriage is between a man and woman, well news flash, after today, it isn't and its time to stop being a hypocrite by following a religion or church that says it is between a man and woman.

It's your OPINION that the RC church is the only church that tells the truth regarding Christianity.

I am an Anglican; my church allows me to exercise my freedom of conscience. which I do.

And it's all irrelevant. Church teaching has nothing to do with this issue, and won't change whatever happens after today.

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

I didn't ask then to defend their faith, just to explain their cognitive difference of pretending to be for equality and yes on one hand and then going to a church that only performs marriage between men and women, which after today is against the state, bigoted and homophobic.

There is no cognitive difference. Religious belief is one thing. Secular rights and secular law is another.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

There is no cognitive difference. Religious belief is one thing. Secular rights and secular law is another.

So how can you exclude two men from getting married in your church and call it equality under the disguise of religion ? Marriage is between a man and woman - That's pure hypocrisy, bigotry, and hate speech. Churches should not be allowed to teach and promote inequality.

Delirium

barretsimpson wrote: »

I didn't ask then to defend their faith, just to explain their cognitive difference of pretending to be for equality and yes on one hand and then going to a church that only performs marriage between men and women, which after today is against the state, bigoted and homophobic.

MOD NOTE

You asked the poster if it wasn't time to stop being a hypocrite by following a religion that says marriage is between a man and woman.

This is challenging the poster to defend their faith. This prohibited by the charter.
Challenging a mod instruction on-thread is also (use the PM facility if you wish to discuss a mod instruction).

Thanks for your attention.

barretsimpson

Yes has won, they are fecked now anways.

tommy2bad

barretsimpson wrote: »

I didn't ask then to defend their faith, just to explain their cognitive difference of pretending to be for equality and yes on one hand and then going to a church that only performs marriage between men and women, which after today is against the state, bigoted and homophobic.

It's actually simple, people as moral agents should be free to make their own choices. The states job is to facilitate and support those choices. That's why I as a Christian voted yes.
As a Christian I exercise my choices and freely accept or reject the discipline of the church. The church has no role in facilitating my choice if I reject its discipline, nor does it collect tax from me.
See how it works? It's called socity .

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

So how can you exclude two men from getting married in your church and call it equality under the disguise of religion ? Marriage is between a man and woman - That's pure hypocrisy, bigotry, and hate speech. Churches should not be allowed to teach and promote inequality.

I don't exclude it. My church is a democratic one; there is debate currently on the issue of same sex marriage, and many members, both lay and clergy, do not have a problem with it. I am happy that there is open debate and that my opinion is valid.

Churches can teach what they want. The secular realm doesn't have to pay any attention. Secular law is for everyone, religious adherents or atheists.

Two totally different realms.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

I don't exclude it. My church is a democratic one; there is debate currently on the issue of same sex marriage, and many members, both lay and clergy, do not have a problem with it. I am happy that there is open debate and that my opinion is valid.

Churches can teach what they want. The secular realm doesn't have to pay any attention. Secular law is for everyone, religious adherents or atheists.

Two totally different realms.

So your church will marry two men, or are you telling porkies ?

barretsimpson

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's actually simple, people as moral agents should be free to make their own choices. The states job is to facilitate and support those choices. That's why I as a Christian voted yes.
As a Christian I exercise my choices and freely accept or reject the discipline of the church. The church has no role in facilitating my choice if I reject its discipline, nor does it collect tax from me.
See how it works? It's called socity .

A bit like claiming I'm Irish, I demand to be called Irish, but I reject all things Irish. lol

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

So your church will marry two men, or are you telling porkies ?

Did I say it would?

I said it's a democratic church and there is a healthy debate on the issue. That's good enough for now.

And, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, NOTHING to do with the issue of secular marriage. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my belief that citizens of this country, whatever their religious beliefs or none, have a right to access civil marriage on an equal basis.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

Did I say it would?

I said it's a democratic church and there is a healthy debate on the issue. That's good enough for now.

And, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, NOTHING to do with the issue of secular marriage. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my belief that citizens of this country, whatever their religious beliefs or none, have a right to access civil marriage on an equal basis.

Stop being such a bigot and hypocrite.
Either marriage is between a man and woman, or equality is for everyone, which is it ?

Delirium

barretsimpson wrote: »

Stop being such a bigot and hypocrite.
Either marriage is between a man and woman, or equality is for everyone, which is it ?

MOD NOTE

Carded for personal abuse.

Please refrain from such posts in future or further cards and/or bans may be issued.

Thanks for your attention.

barretsimpson

Ok lets not call it for what it is, lets call it "cognitive dissonance" , or wanting to try and pretend you're playing for both sides.

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

Ok lets not call it for what it is, lets call it "cognitive dissonance" , or wanting to try and pretend you're playing for both sides.

There aren't two sides. They are different issues.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

There aren't two sides. They are different issues.

Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or its equal and open to all, which is it ?

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

Stop being such a bigot and hypocrite.
Either marriage is between a man and woman, or equality is for everyone, which is it ?

Which bit of "Religious belief is different from secular law" don't you grasp?

Ad hominem insults don't change that fact, and only show you up.

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or its equal and open to all, which is it ?

Ok, last time. If you don't grasp it this time, try reading my responses a couple of times; religious beliefs and secular law are DIFFERENT.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

Which bit of "Religious belief is different from secular law" don't you grasp?

Ad hominem insults don't change that fact, and only show you up.

We're talking about your belief, not the State's or a Churches.
Either your belief about marriage equality is the same, and you've got the honesty to support that, in Church and out, or you've got cognitive difference, which is it ?

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

We're talking about your belief, not the State's or a Churches.
Either your belief about marriage equality is the same, and you've got the honesty to support that, in Church and out, or you've got cognitive difference, which is it ?

I refer you to my previous posts.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

I refer you to my cognitive difference again

Yep.

katydid

barretsimpson wrote: »

Yep.

Very smart...not.

barretsimpson

katydid wrote: »

Very smart...not.

There's that cognitive dissonance again . . .you want to get that looked at.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Back on topic please.

Greaney

Just spotted a consent form from a school in East Galway.... It's got three options.

It's causing a bit of consternation

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153430493844758&set=a.10151507917774758.500004.519314757&type=1&theater

Shrap

Greaney wrote: »

Just spotted a consent form from a school in East Galway.... It's got three options.

It's causing a bit of consternation

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153430493844758&set=a.10151507917774758.500004.519314757&type=1&theater

https://www.healthpromotion.ie/hp-files/docs/HPM00478.pdf - Busy Bodies

This is the entire HSE approved booklet that is being taught in schools for under 12's. There is not a word about anal or oral sex in it. It is entirely factual. Kate Bopp (of mothers and fathers matter fame, and professional rabble rouser) is talking through her proverbial.
Here is what she says in the facebook status you link to:

From the primary school today.... "sexual intercourse, conception and birth within the context of a commited, loving relationship."

INTO members have (in confidence) described the educational materials eg diagrams and text explaining the sex acts that correspond with different kinds of "committed loving relationships". The three types of sex are described for school children as "vaginal, anal, and oral". Taoiseach Enda Kenny has endorsed this for 11 year olds. There can be no distinction whatsoever between opposite and same sex relationships. No educative materials and no family law/social policy can reflect any form of "distinction as to sex".

Whereas the photo she has uploaded in relation to this rant contains no such thing, and clearly references the HSE approved booklet I have linked to above. Suggest people read it themselves. I am actually going to contact the school in question (by the phone number supplied by Ms. Bopp on the consent form she has photographed) and suggest that they look into the possibility that they are being slandered.

lazygal

Greaney wrote: »

Just spotted a consent form from a school in East Galway.... It's got three options.

It's causing a bit of consternation

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153430493844758&set=a.10151507917774758.500004.519314757&type=1&theater

Wow, the usual suspects there, a noted few of whom opposed marriage equality recently. The Conroy crowd too-I thought they were big into homeschooling anyway?

As a parent of two children, I have no issue whatsoever with those in fifth and sixth class being taught anything that I could see on that form. In fact, this should not be optional. Parents shouldn't get to decide that their children remain ignorant of the facts of life, any more than they should insist on them not learning maths or spellings.

If teachers can't teach what's on the curriculum because of their belief systems, maybe they should reconsider their career choice.

Shrap

Ah ha. She corrects herself further down the comments:

Kate Bopp Just to clarify, the 3 types of sex mentioned are only in the educational materials for secondary school, from 1st year on. But that still includes some 11yr olds & many 12yr olds.

And then goes on to say:

Kate Bopp The most important point here imo is not whether sex ed is discussing same sex or hetero intercourse, it is that the discussion seems to have become unnecessarily detailed and graphic. Instructive, in fact.
1 · 3 hrs

Kate Bopp Scanner not working. Have taken a photo of the form & will fwd it to those who requested. Also, don't forget to speak to your local schools. Ask to see their individual educational materials on this topic. Ask them in particular about the topic of "sexual intercourse, conception and birth within the context of a committed, loving relationship" means in real terms.

So in other words, after rabble rousing the crowd to believe that primary school children are being taught about anal sex with diagrams and all, she is now really only talking about the factual diagrams in the Busy Bodies hand book which show how babies are made and is calling them "unnecessarily detailed and graphic" and "instructional" (as if that's a bad thing).

lazygal

Why are parents so iffy about their children learning about sex? I was told all about it by the age of ten and a more buttoned up teenager you would be hard put to find. We're already teaching our small children the correct names for their body parts, and will continue with telling them the facts in an age appropriate manner so there's no need for getting all huffy and embarassed when they get older and we all of a sudden need to have A Big Talk About Sex. Do some parents think children don't need this kind of information?

Shrap

Greaney wrote: »

Just spotted a consent form from a school in East Galway.... It's got three options.

It's causing a bit of consternation

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153430493844758&set=a.10151507917774758.500004.519314757&type=1&theater

Greaney, I'm just wondering if you support the kind of insidious misinformation that Kate Bopp clearly deals in? Her status (which I previously quoted since you hadn't) has been shared 40 times to date, with no more evidence than her word that this appalling slur against the HSE approved sex-education curriculum is true.

I have emailed the school that she has revoltingly linked to teaching 11 year olds about oral and anal sex using diagrams, and have suggested that if they get a cohort of concerned parents through their door, that they'll now know why and who misinformed them. What have you done to stop the flow of this tripe? Or are you happy to pedal it around the internet without any context or factual content?

Greaney

Actually, I was just focusing on the picture of the form that I linked to. Everyone else is entitled to their own opinion on how they interpret it.

Shrap

Greaney wrote: »

Actually, I was just focusing on the picture of the form that I linked to. Everyone else is entitled to their own opinion on how they interpret it.

Whatever you intended (and that is certainly unclear), your link directed us to a photo of the standard consent form from a named Irish primary school to 5th and 6th class parents containing three questions. These questions seek permission from parents to let their children be taught about a) The physical and other changes in boys during the onset of puberty and the Male Reproductive System, b) The physical and other changes in girls during the onset of puberty and the Female Reproductive System, and c) Sexual intercourse, conception and birth within the context of a committed, loving relationship.

The entire point of the sex education curriculum is to provide children with the facts and the correct terminology around these areas so that there is less room for misinterpretation, misinformation and ignorance about their own bodies.

If a person interprets these questions as indicating that a school will be teaching 11 yr olds about oral and anal sex using diagrams, then that person's opinion is wrong and if that person knows that their interpretation is wrong and they make their interpretation public, then they are lying. If they do not know their interpretation is wrong, then they are themselves stupidly misinformed and should have made it their business to become better informed (as is the responsibility of any parent).

Kate Bopp has caused the spread of misinformation. As she has claimed that "The three types of sex are described for school children as "vaginal, anal, and oral"", and has linked a named school to teaching this, that provides a strong case for defamation of the named school, and I imagine that a court would have a somewhat different interpretation of people being "entitled to their own opinion on how they interpret it".

As far as I am aware, you can be entitled to hold whatever opinion you like, but when you promulgate that opinion as truth and it is proven to be untrue, and if your opinion is damaging the good reputation of another person or business, then you could find yourself in a good deal of hot water and rightly so. Hopefully, whatever comes out of this will find Kate Bopp being very much more careful about what she says, but somehow I doubt it