26 comments on “If Scottish schools should teach safe gay sex then why shouldn’t they teach the safe way to have sex with a prostitute?

  1. Remember all the lies we were told when they abolished Section 28 – “oh no, we’re not doing this so we can propagandise bum sex to children!”

  2. Btw:

    However, the National Secular Society said that the curriculum would be merely “window dressing” if it did not teach about safe homosexual sex, particularly in religious schools. It said some Catholic schools taught that homosexual acts were “morally wrong or disordered”.

    The National Secular Society used to be a homosexual activist called Terry Sanderson who has a creepy obsession with Catholic schools. Since 2017 it’s now run by his boyfriend.

    Leave them kids alone.

  3. ‘However, the National Secular Society said that the curriculum would be merely “window dressing” if it did not teach about safe homosexual sex, particularly in religious schools.’

    It will still be window dressing. The intent is to attack religious dogma. Nothing to do with queers.

    There is an upside, though.

    The earlier children can learn that adults can be weird, stupid weird, the better off they will be. The younger they teach this absurdity – and that’s is what the children will see this as – the better off the kids will be. Excessively graphic, IMO, but still an important lesson for the kiddies. Shattering the kids’ impression of the school; revealing the people they admired are weird.

    IBN

  4. However, the National Secular Society said that the curriculum would be merely “window dressing” if it did not teach about safe homosexual sex, particularly in religious schools

    Looking forward to this being forced onto Islamic schools in Scotland. Whoever makes the visit had better hope the school is a bungalow, and has no high points to be thrown off.

  5. That’s already taught in schools though. It is exactly the same way as having safe sex with anyone who isn’t a prostitute, unless I’m really missing something!

  6. The intent is to attack religious dogma. Nothing to do with queers.

    Sort of, I reckon.

    When you realise the intent is to humiliate, it explains much about the progressive Left and its behaviour – scouring the country for Christian bakers to be offended by, deliberately importing violent, bigoted savages to “rub your noses in it”, exposing children to drag queens (while daring parents to object), etc.

    The Left is a coalition of genetic freaks, sex perverts, and born losers raging against normal, happy people.

  7. “It is exactly the same way as having safe sex with anyone who isn’t a prostitute, unless I’m really missing something!”
    Yep
    There’s keeping an eye on your wallet & most importantly, ensuring she fucks off at the end of the trick.

  8. Isn’t “safe sex with a prostitute” just a subset of “safe sex”*? So, just teach “safe sex” and you have it covered.

  9. “When you realise the intent is to humiliate, it explains much about the progressive Left and its behaviour…”

    The intent is to get a *violent reaction*, to prove their claim that their enemies are all dangerous bigots, and so to justify their seizing power in order to protect people.

    (“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”)

    No chance of that unless it’s something they expect you to fight. Humiliation is merely a happy side-effect.

  10. @ NiV “to prove their claim”

    The Left have no interest in proving their claims, any more than the Pope has an interest in proving the existence of God.

    In fact less. If God were to appear, the Pope would be pleased. “Told you so”.

    But the Left “know” that they are right with a fervour that the most maniacal religious cult can only dream of. You either believe as they do or you do not count. They have nothing to prove. They “know” they are right.

  11. Oh god. It’s a fundamental thing about being a child is that you are not good at sex. We shouldn’t expect schools, teachers and examiners to assume the burden of addressing that.

  12. “The Left have no interest in proving their claims, any more than the Pope has an interest in proving the existence of God.”

    The left are trying to prove their claims to the median voters and the politicians who implement their wishes, not themselves. (The ‘populace’ in the quote.) That’s who they’re trying to persuade to give them power.

    “In fact less. If God were to appear, the Pope would be pleased. “Told you so”.”

    I’m pretty sure that if God appeared the Pope and all his Cardinals would be horrified, bearing in mind what’s recently been going on in the Catholic Church! Eternal hellfire for enabling child-sodomy might turn out to be real too!

  13. ‘They should teach children safe drinking . . . and safe gun handling.”

    That’s what fathers are for.

    It would be pretty good if schools would successfully teach maths, history, geography, English, French, German, physics and chemistry. Maybe they could fit a bit of sexy into biology classes.

  14. A cardinal bursts into the Pope’s private study: “Holy father, I bear good news and bad news!”

    “What is your good news my son?”

    “Jesus Christ, the son of God has returned to earth.”

    “That is indeed wonderful news and the fulfilment of two millennia of prophecy. And what is the bad news?”

    “He’s in Salt Lake City.”

  15. “if schools would successfully teach maths, history, geography, English, French, German, physics and chemistry.”

    Ditto: Everyone with a specialism in adult life has a tendency to think it should be taught in school. I understand the feeling, but something needs to be dropped first. And that’s a high hurdle as most of the stuff is there because it’s a building block you need for other specialisms. I;’d want the hurdle to be even greater on the cultural side because people not able to win the discourse with their peers will try to bypass them and go direct to their kids.

  16. @NiV “The left are trying to prove their claims to the median voters and the politicians who implement their wishes, not themselves.”

    Read what I wrote ” You either believe as they do or you do not count.”

    The Left are not trying to ‘convert’ anyone. They are not trying to ‘convince’ anyone. They are peaching at them. To the Left you are either a believer or you are not. Stalin did not try and convince anyone of his arguments. He shot anyone who disagreed with him. This is a mentality whole-heartedly adopted by the modern Left in the UK today.

  17. Andrew C is right and NiV is wrong about this (though wrong in an interesting and original way).

    No, I don’t believe that New Labour forced the Catholic adoption agencies to either betray their faith in Christ or shut down because they were hoping to provoke militant Catholic suicide bombers or whatever.

    I do think it was intended to humiliate them, and as Andrew points out, Progressivism is a totalising belief system (ironically not unlike medieval Catholicism, but arguably less open to changing its mind on the basis of new information, scientific or otherwise.)

    The way gay weddings were rammed up the nation’s collective law-hole is another case in point.

    (And tbh I’m not that interested in gay marriage itself and it isn’t even a top 20 issue in my opinion, but this episode was and remains extremely relevant to the problems of the Westminster-media bubble, the disconnect between ruled and alleged democratic representatives, the rise of virtue-twirling in place of real debate, etc.)

    David Cameron wasn’t trying to convince anyone of the merits of Adam and Steve tying the pink knot. He didn’t even try to convince his own party. Social conservatives suddenly found themselves being anathematised by the Tories instead.

    This was a social reform arguably far more significant than Brexit or Scottish independence, because it radically redefined the core institution of society, an institution that predates the State itself. But we didn’t get a referendum. We didn’t even get a manifesto commitment people could choose to vote for or against.

    This wasn’t aimed at median voters IMO, it was an expression of, if you like, class power by the ruling elite, who then loudly congratulated themselves on their enlightened tolerance.

  18. Hallowed Be,

    “I;’d want the hurdle to be even greater on the cultural side because people not able to win the discourse with their peers will try to bypass them and go direct to their kids.”

    This is why you have to take education away from the state. They’ve become about indoctrination.

    Oh and it’s also why private education is a waste of money. They’re now ruled by OFSTED and so, as always occurs, the private players end up being those that dance to the regulator’s tune.

  19. BoM4- “They’re now ruled by OFSTED” – that may explain the otherwise difficult to explain house name for a British school kid, Keller, as in Helen Keller.

  20. For the same reason the government funds charities to hand out free condoms t9 gay men whilst heterosexuals have to buy them – it’s a smaller community which has a far, far higher level of HIV and STIs and it’s far cheaper to do so than the eventual cost to the NHS in antivirals etc.

    Pragmatism at work – follow the money.

  21. “Read what I wrote ” You either believe as they do or you do not count.””

    That’s *not* how the electoral or legislative system works. If you want laws, you’ve got to persuade the lawmakers, which means you’ve got to persuade a very large fraction of the voters.

    “No, I don’t believe that New Labour forced the Catholic adoption agencies to either betray their faith in Christ or shut down because they were hoping to provoke militant Catholic suicide bombers or whatever.”

    They don’t need suicide bombers. They just need Catholics to complain loudly about stuff the public think they are being unreasonable about.

    And while I agree Catholics have a right to their beliefs – in this case it plays straight into the hands of their opponents.

    “The way gay weddings were rammed up the nation’s collective law-hole is another case in point.”

    Most normal people nowadays don’t care one way or the other about gay marriage. They’re not particularly for it, or against it. They see no particular reason why not, but they’re not going to go to the barricades over the issue.

    However, if someone was to make an exhibition of themselves being over-the-top, frothing-at-the-mouth against the possibility, regarding it as a big deal and the end of civilisation as we know it, they’d react the same way they would to someone who called for the death penalty for anyone who put the milk in before the tea, rather than after. They don’t care about the issue itself, they *do* care about the sort of bugfuck nazi who thinks they can order other people around, banning stuff they don’t like for no logical reason.

    So even though they don’t care about gay marriage, they now care about gay marriage because of the nutballs trying to stop it, and they understand why laws are needed to shut down such evil fascist bansturbators before they can influence public opinion in their own support.

    SJWs persuade the public that the right wing are homophobes, and to protect gays from their evil we need to control the internet. The public are persuaded, and vote for SJWs to have the power to ban homophobic websites. The SJWs get the power to shut down their opponents. Which is the aim.

    SJWs probably consititute less than 10% of the population, which is not enough to get a law passed, but people who dislike homophobes are about 70% of the population, which very much is. Hence, if SJWs can make the right wing look like homophobes; job done. They win.

    They might well enjoy ‘humiliating’ you, but that doesn’t give them power. Persuading the general public that you’re evil and need to be stopped might well do.

    “This was a social reform arguably far more significant than Brexit or Scottish independence, because it radically redefined the core institution of society, an institution that predates the State itself.”

    The divine right of kings, and the absolute duty of obedience of all individuals to the elite hierarchy long predates the state! It goes back to pre-monkey times! Are you in favour of that?!

    Lots of stuff is old – it’s not necessarily thereby ‘good’.

    There was ‘gay marriage’ long before we had proper States – it was only since Moses and all the many authoritarian States that inherited his moral code took over that it was banned. Moses himself even said so (Leviticus 18:1, 18:24-28, 20:22). Society no longer believes in all those lunatic OT rules.

    This is what you always get when people think that they can tell other people what they are and are not allowed to do. Telling them to stop is, they believe, an abridgement of their freedom to order society as they wish.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.