Richard Drax, a British Conservative lawmaker, now counts himself among politicos discovering the foibles of the Internet. Namely, that when you press “submit,” everybody can read your blog post. Including the one about how plans to teach kids about LGBT historical figures, as part of February’s LGBT History Month in the U.K., will force kids to learn about “questionable sexual standards.” Now he’s very sorry!
“Yes, if you can believe it, homosexuality will be on the curriculum for students studying maths, geography and science,” Drax wrote in response to the curriculum that will feature LGBTs in all subject areas, including math, science, and language. “This plan is ludicrous and pushes political correctness to new bounds. I would have thought raising educational standards and teaching our children to read, write and add up is far more important than imposing questionable sexual standards on those too young to understand their equality czars.”
Except that blog post is gone, replaced by one where he says he’s “decided to re-write my comments to ensure there is no misunderstanding. My point was not intended to be homophobic, but sprang more from a concern that young children should not be taught a subject they simply would not understand. I believe more effort should be focused on the teaching of maths, geography and science. Currently, in international league tables, we rank 25th for literacy, 28th for maths and 16th for science. This is a lamentable state; improving it must be our priority.”
So now teaching kids about LGBT history is going to make them stupider than they already are. Great job, gays!
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
ChicagoJimmy
They always go right to the sex. It’s so weird.
scott ny'er
@ChicagoJimmy: because that’s all THEY think about.
Kev C
A british guy complaining about questionable sex standards? Hey, don’t eat that sweet biscuit, it may rot your teeth.
JUSTICEONTHEROCKS
@ChicagoJimmy: You find it weird that a straight person defines a gay person according to his sexual practices? I find it weird that you find it weird.
Francis
@JUSTICEONTHEROCKS: Actually, it’s perverted. It’s perverted to base your entire being or the entire being of a group of people, on sex acts. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
JUSTICEONTHEROCKS
@Francis: Yeah, I wouldn’t expect you to know how to use a dictionary:
World English Dictionary
homosexual (?h??m???s?ksj??l, ?h?m-)
— n
1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex
Wow, sexual attraction is the essence of the definition…waddaya know! SHOCKING!
Francis
Sexual orientation=An enduring emotional, romantic, sexual and affectional attraction towards others.
If your mind only focuses on the sexual, and then you reduce a persons’ entire being, their entire livelihood, solely on that, you’re a pervert in my eyes and in the eyes of many.
JUSTICEONTHEROCKS
@Francis:
Yeah…cuz the rest of the world hears “gay” and their immediate thought is affectional attraction.
You’re right. All the evidence suggests that it is a world full of very nuanced and thoughtful people who can reflect and see the shades of grey rather than black and white.
I’m happy to say that you’ve changed my mind. A straight British MP really should be expected not to think “dude who has sex with other dudes” when he hears the word gay.
Question there, uhhhh, Yoda.
When you hear “Republican,” do you think nuanced thoughts?
How bout “Christian.”
How bout “patriotism.”
Oh…and “priest.”
Do you have nuanced thoughts about the word “military.”
Lemme guess: you’re just super…
…DUPER…
nuanced.
di99340e
Francis wrote:
“Actually, it’s perverted. It’s perverted to base your entire being or the entire being of a group of people, on sex acts. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand.”
However, your interpretation above does not reflect the lives of GLBTQ people any more than it reflects the lives of heterosexuals.
Bear in mind, that many of the arguments of homophobes do value – “base the entire being” people based on sex acts. When heterosexuality is preferred because it can lead to reproduction, that is basing its value on the sex act.
And one of the most common positions of homophobes is that of defining homosexuality by sex acts, and flat out denying the emotional, spiritual, and intellectual component of same-sex intimacy and relationships.
Additionally, the call, by homophobes, for homosexuals to act out heterosexually – to engage in heterosexual sex acts against our own nature, again is what you call perversion – defining people by sex acts, rather than by the totality of their sexuality, including not only the physical, but the emotional, spiritual and intellectual components of attraction and intimacy.
“If your mind only focuses on the sexual, and then you reduce a persons’ entire being, their entire livelihood, solely on that, you’re a pervert in my eyes and in the eyes of many.”
If you judge people as perverts because they do not see sexuality the same way you do, you run the risk of being judged a pervert in someone else’s eyes. Ironic, eh?