Yep, down to social liberalism and other factors we could mention.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

With your stated attitude here that the local council or government are there in part to serve and cater for the specific social and religious attitudes of the Muslim community in Birmingham, aka this LGBT issue, would you also be happy then for them to eat halal food? Or would you instead elect to ignore the volume of protest? There might be increasing anger and placards after all if we didn't cave in, which can be taken as a sign that we should 'compromise'.

You posit that going against deeply held teachings and beliefs (in this case by teaching something they profoundly disagree with) can 'make things worse' due to the reaction to it, so with that in mind are you in favour of Halal food being available for those within the area too? And if not, why not?

Edited by dollardays (27 May 2019 2.03pm)

It would only 'mess with their heads', if they had already been indoctrinated.

Also it's hyperbolic to talk in those terms over a class removal. This has been done many times over the years. Even talking about taking a child out of a school has the same potential for 'messing with their heads' as does changing a child's school permanently......Something we do several times with all children, some far more than others.

It is not 'messing with their heads' in anything like the same way as the state teaching a child one thing while a family will be teaching them something else entirely.

That's the state proactively messing with those family's children.

That's what would happen.....and that's not going to help five year old children.

My children don't need to be taught by a primary school that gay people exist at five years old. I've tackled this identity politics issue previously.

They just don't need to be taught how to feel about same sex relationships by a primary school at five.

I find your argument that I'm being dictatorial in having an issue with that as over the top.

While most parents would like their children to be reflective of themselves to an extent. I have always believed in independent thought and in not believing just what you are told just due to authority figures.....that's how religion got started in the first place.

So you aren't right about that. My children are raised my way but won't be forced to live my way. They must find their own, whether it resembles mine or not.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2019 3.34pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Not really, saying that I won't listen on some laws and will listen on others is actually how society works.

Some laws are pretty direct, like laws on homocide and other laws are highly nuanced with plenty of exceptions.

This is simply the latter. Each society makes choices as to what those are so you accusing me of playing it both ways doesn't take account of how society actually works.

In terms of the situation I think you are just ignoring the differences and nuances between these situations to make the same point.

Also it isn't just about religion but social conservatism. I don't hold my opinions down to religion as I've stated.

I will repeat myself again.

There are laws of the land.

Then there are how you feel about those laws, whether you agree with them or not.

When the state mandates....forces the promotion of same sex relationships onto children from socially conservative backgrounds, expressly against the wishes of its parents.....Well, I'm on the side of the parents.

This is why I support a compromise. There are several ways this could be achieved.

When it comes to halal meat.....Again you just ignore the differences.

This is not promoting the policy of eating non halal meat to them....I'm not showing their five year old children books about how non halal meat deserves consideration as well.

I'm stating that halal meat will be banned at such and such date and not sold in the country. I would give them a lead in time...years in fact, to adapt or leave.

I am not indoctrinating their children into feeling better about non halal meat.

What will be interesting if the government and....well basically the left refuse to compromise (I think they will, but just pretend they didn't).

If I'm wrong and they don't compromise then the result will be interesting......violence is a possibility but however rather than that it's probably alternative religious schools....which is a worse outcomes.....though in the long term it's of little difference.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2019 10.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Who would be teaching anything 'entirely different'?

If a school was solely teaching kids about gay people, couples and parents, then yes that would be exceedingly strange and inappropriate, and indeed what they would need to be taught elsewhere would be very different. However, as I've said, highlighting at some point during school life, that while most people will wind up in heterosexual relationships and family units that some will not, and that they deserve to be treated with respect, is a simple reality, it's not something entirely different than what you would be teaching them.

Saying that there's no way your intended path could mess with their heads is as off kilter as saying that if I close my eyes nobody can see me. The reality will still exist, in that if they end up gay, they will have had a Father who tore them away from school and their friends to be home schooled, rather than let them attended a class that addresses gay people and their relationships, and will have taught them that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle I don't like' all in the face of reality of other gay family members trying to make their way in life. If they're straight, they will likely perpetuate the behaviour shown here and towards others, so there is no gain, just the likelihood of treating other families and people they come across as lesser.

You keep calling this truism 'indoctrination'. It's a term you readily throw around. You also cried government 'indoctrination' at a baby being put in care due to parents who 1) were members of an extreme neo-Nazi group 2) were plotting acts of terror and 3) called their baby Adolf. It appears that your threshold for what reaches a point of concern within the family structure of which you approve is extreme to put it mildly. And yet with gay families, your threshold is a total personal rejection of them raising kids at all, OTT drastic upheaval of kids lives if a school so much as broaches the subject, and the cliched 'lifestyle choice' mantra. It's unnerving that in this pairing, it's the dreaded default 'gay family' that provokes a reaction from you rather than a couple of dangerous neo nazis. [Link]

The indoctrination I'm afraid is coming from you. Anyway, I'm a libertarian, so as far as I'm concerned ultimately you can do as you wish. Clearly you think you're doing a fine job. Your freedoms-lite approach to life, which sees you wanting the government to 'lend a brutha a hand' in keeping certain teachings away and using the government to attempt restrict or complicate parenting on the grounds of sexuality is unfortunate, but so be it.

I am a big supporter of freedom of speech and expression no matter how nuts.. you'll be relieved to know. I'm also a staunch critic of censorship, from both left and right, and basically any government interference in peoples lives unless there is no other option. This is because the political tides go this way and that and I have a full appreciation of that fact. You could do with taking that on board too, rather than a 'my' freedoms approach with a selective, self interested authoritarian bent.

Edited by dollardays (28 May 2019 1.32am)

I'll look at this longer post in the morning.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2019 10.14pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)