talkFORUM

Reading "gay couple adopt a child" is no more "reading about what they get up to in the bedroom" than it is when you hear that a heterosexual couple has adopted a child. I.e. not in the slightest. Perhaps Hitchens is unable to read about the existence of gay people without being made deeply unhappy by his own fear of accepting himself, and perhaps nostalgia at the gay old times he had as a teen.

Jon Gout wrote:Peter Hitchens there, who participated in homosexual acts throughout his private education. Wasn't that quote from a rant where he objected to a homosexual couple adopting a child who had been previously living with a heterosexual heroin addict?

Remember when churches were campaigning for exemption from the adoption laws.

Jon Gout wrote:Reading "gay couple adopt a child" is no more "reading about what they get up to in the bedroom" than it is when you hear that a heterosexual couple has adopted a child. I.e. not in the slightest. Perhaps Hitchens is unable to read about the existence of gay people without being made deeply unhappy by his own fear of accepting himself, and perhaps nostalgia at the gay old times he had as a teen.

Maybe you should take that up with hitchens, - I merely spotted the quote and felt it summed up my opinion.

Vespa wrote:

Jon Gout wrote:Peter Hitchens there, who participated in homosexual acts throughout his private education. Wasn't that quote from a rant where he objected to a homosexual couple adopting a child who had been previously living with a heterosexual heroin addict?

Remember when churches were campaigning for exemption from the adoption laws.

Is Hitchens in the closet?

kancutlawns wrote:

Vespa wrote:

Jon Gout wrote:Peter Hitchens there, who participated in homosexual acts throughout his private education. Wasn't that quote from a rant where he objected to a homosexual couple adopting a child who had been previously living with a heterosexual heroin addict?

Remember when churches were campaigning for exemption from the adoption laws.

Is Hitchens in the closet?

No idea, he's just a walking bag of foul ideas.

Interesting item given leftist/ secular agenda and anti semitism which relates to this horrible educational directive



https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/rabb ... k-1.459180

I'd ban all RE in schools, so that children can get on with subjects which are going to help them in later life. Some would argue that RE is an excellent way to teach values to children, and because many religions do have strong ethical and moral values in them, and people feel that they are a great place to start for introducing ethics and morals into children's lives.

However, if parents want their children to learn more about their religion, let let them do it, or take them to their houses of God. In fact bring back Sunday school, so the school week can be free of any religious teaching whatsoever. Morals and ethics can be taught separately.

Yes, ignorance of other cultures is often the best way to ensure peace.

That's a whole separate thread . If anything will help them in life, I'd think it was God.

No good wondering why kids stab each other and do all sorts of bad stuff without noticing the connection with the fact that the State has pretty much removed the Christian content of school life.

Compare the all round results of schools which began each day with a Service and hymns with the awful shambles today.

In any case, they haven't removed religion from schools , just replaced it with the secular socialist religion with its fake moralities and accompanying false science. They are taught that sodomy ,violence and envy are fine things, but not our traditional values.

Imagine the widespread increase in paedophilia if Christian indoctrination was to occur in every primary school. It doesn't bear thinking about.

Jon Gout wrote:Yes, ignorance of other cultures is often the best way to ensure peace.

You can teach the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular group of people without going into the details of their religion, which is a massive cause of conflict in itself.

What "details of their religion" are you talking about?

I'm not sure you have any idea what primary school RE involves, because it IS "ideas, customs and social behaviour". It mostly revolves around different celebrations (an easy thing for young kids to comprehend and enjoy learning about) with a bit of basic history thrown in.

Zambo wrote:

Jon Gout wrote:Yes, ignorance of other cultures is often the best way to ensure peace.

You can teach the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular group of people without going into the details of their religion, which is a massive cause of conflict in itself.

Ignorance of ones own culture will ensure that it is dominated by something else .
Ignorance of other cultures will mean that we might not recognise evil and protect against it

Jon Gout wrote:What "details of their religion" are you talking about?

I'm not sure you have any idea what primary school RE involves, because it IS "ideas, customs and social behaviour". It mostly revolves around different celebrations (an easy thing for young kids to comprehend and enjoy learning about) with a bit of basic history thrown in.

Do I really want to get into a discussion with someone who posts shite like 'hands up all those who would felate President of the US' rather than counter the opinion.

Perhaps I'll give it a miss.

Counter what opinion? I was simply asking who here loves the Glorious Leader enough to do that, since it seems many are unquestioning, devoted followers of the leader of another country.

I take it you probably don't know what primary school RE lessons involve then, otherwise you wouldn't have made a post accepting that learning about "ideas, customs, and social behaviour" is fine whereas "going into the details" isn't, while not being able to elaborate on what those details are. Oh well.