Posted on 11/18/2012 10:27:16 AM PST by Steelfish
Primary School Teachers 'Could Face Sack' For Refusing To Promote Gay Marriage
By John Bingham 18 Nov 2012 Liz Truss, an education minister, refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.
Miss Truss said simply that it was impossible to know what the impact of the legislation would be at this stage.
Her admission came in a letter to a fellow Conservative MP, David Burrowes, last month.
Mr Burrowes, a practising Christian, originally wrote to Maria Miller, the equalities minister, raising concerns about the impact on schools of the Coalition’s plans to change the marriage laws.
It followed the publication of a legal opinion by Aidan O’Neill QC, a barrister in the same London chambers as Cherie Blair, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex unions.
Mr O’Neill, an expert on human rights, was asked to advise on the impact redefining marriage to include same-sex couples could have on schools, churches, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings. Among his conclusions was that schools could be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings.
Parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children would also have no right to withdraw their child from lessons, he argued. And, in theory, the fact that a school was a faith school would make no difference, he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
As noted, Ms Camille is one of the most open-minded and even fair-minded scholar of the arts, who is also lesbian. But rules is rules around here.
OK, the weekend is getting short back there — enjoy what’s left. My apologies to any FReeper who might have had a young or impressionable FReepie reading.
I did find her posting history, and only one comment supporting homo-agenda, but very positive support. Not FR material.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:paglia444/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2959500/posts?page=24#24
Ground Broken For Housing Project Intended For Members Of LGBT Community
Ground has been broken in the heart of Philadelphia’s Gayborhood for a housing project that will serve the needs of the LGBT community.
It’s described as the first urban project of its kind — six floors of low income housing for elderly lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders.
It’s being built with a mixture of local, state and federal funds. And that was reflected by the number of politicians on hand for Friday’s ceremony.
So, tax money going to build special housing for homosexuals. And paglia444’s comment about this, pretending to be conservatives (sort of) in other comments, yet finds no problem with using public monies to build housing for homoesxuals only.
Good for them. Nice to see Philly be inclusive.
24 posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:47:39 PM by paglia444
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
That’s why keeping such activities and so on in the closet is really the way to go.
What did you say? Freepmail me if you don’t mind, I’m curious about it since I’ve seen really $(*@(*( language around FR lately and it seems to be more tolerated.
At least I got the poster deleted. Probably wouldn’t have happened otherwise, at least not in this thread. Mission accomplished.
I’m just going to drop it; mission accomplished when the (retread) poster got the ZOT.
Always enjoy your comments and, in many cases, I learn from them.
Thanks for the reply; so it was a retread, then?
Dun?
Methinks the meaning escapes my chase of understanding.
Oh. Kay!
BTW, gays already own huge swaths of real estate in that area, and could easily form apartments for their own elderly without expecting the taxpayers to make a special set-aside. But that's not the point, is it? The point is this:
These heterosexuals have long since adopted the underlying value system of gay marriage: adult gratification via sterile sex.
This is what millions, tens of millions of straight couples achieve via hormones, spaying, and the suction curette.
That's why the LGBT agenda is supported by straight voting constituencies. Straights have been practicing gay marriage for over 40 years.
That reminds me (by way of analogy) of a cartoon I saw decades ago in Punch, the British humor magazine. Two conservatively-dressed Anglican clerics are looking on as myriads of devotees, half-naked and glowing with drug-induced enthusiasm , are prostrating themselves before a huge horned idol, offering It huge braziers of smoking incense, gyrating about in a frenzy, copulating with cult priestesses, and otherwise exhibiting various orgiastic excesses.
The one cleric says to the other, "One more thing, and I'm leaving the Church of England. I swear, just one more thing..."
I'll give you credit for one thing: saying that one should take a principled stand against morality is certainly good for a laugh. Woo hoo! And I'll take a moral stand against principles!
It's like the old joke, "Morality aside, Senator Kennedy, what are your views on ethics?"
“I’ve seen really $(*@(*( language around FR lately and it seems to be more tolerated.”
I noticed right after the election that the number of swear words increased! (In my house as well!)
It's possible to acknowledge the existence of such things --- adultery, sexual kidnapping, servile pederasty --- but only with students mature enough to analyze tragedy and recognize disorder as such, without implying that it is decent and honorable behavior.
It can be observed, acknowledged as a factor in human suffering, and allowed to inspire its natural reactions: horror and pity. Most of of us think it ought not to be presented without comment as if it were acceptable: we don't want it taught to our children as a "perverse normal".
Grazie mille.
I agree, but there are some who prefer to forget the abuse ever happened, or that it played any role in their later behavior.
Actually the figure 80% has been found among homosexuals in studies, from reading articles a few years ago. Of course, homosexuals who “like” being one, often think fondly of the older homosexual who “initiated” them into the gay life.
The abuse often involves grooming, gaining the trust of the child/adolescent, use of drugs and/or alcohol, and “gay” porn.
It’s sick, sick stuff.
Yes indeed.
Why are hets putting up with it? Because they keep getting these cockamamie promises from homs that they won’t do something... until they do do it. Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
Do they raise kids to recruit? Dunno. I think they’re too egotistical about their own selves really to care. They might grow up het by accident.
What is the underlying premise here? That the purpose of marriage is for the satisfaction of the emotional and sexual needs of two adults who are committed to each other. And of course the presumption that their sexual connection will be invariably sterile. (For straights, make that "almost" invariably sterile.)
It's egotism for two. In that respect, "spayed" marriages are indistinguishable from gay marriages.
That's why contracepted straights have no problems with the LGBT agenda. They've been living it most of their lives.
I agree. Where did the 70% statistic come from? My homosexual brother was 100% molested by a priest, may God forgive the priest and rest my brother’s soul.
A couple of lesbians made a pass at me when I was 19. Ewwwww!
Well, I was more polite than that when I turned them down, but they must have been dang tired of each other if they were willing to cheat in each others faces.
Dun is a brownish color, dun breasts would probably mean that she is tanned, or it is a black woman.
Dun has a LOT of meanings on Dictionary.com.
Cheat, what’s that?
The more the merrier, is my guess as to what was going on in their beady little brains.
Also, Shakespeare might pen verses intended for an actor portraying a woman to speak, as well as those intended to be spoken to a man by way of advice. Just because they address a man does not necessarily imply hanky panky.
Also, Shakespeare might pen verses intended for an actor portraying a woman to speak, as well as those intended to be spoken by a man to another man by way of advice. (Hey buddy, here’s how to win the chick.) Just because they address a man does not necessarily imply hanky panky.
Yeah, I wouldn’t know. All I know is that their moves on me held absolutely no attraction, and they left me cold, grossed out, and disgusted at their lack of exclusivity to each other.
I was getting ready to marry Hubby 1.0 at the time.
So that whole situation was one excellent decision about them, and one mistake.
However, my current Hubby and I have been happy together for 33 years now.
You’re just as well that you couldn’t get into their heads. If you had, it would feel like you had visited a sewer, naked.
that’s a cool hot horse
No gay people are walking into my room.
Well, bye then.
Figured this one was for the grill.
Very true, and almost completely this goes under the radar.
Be my guest. I share.
They use terror tactics. If a person or a business speaks out against them they rally and apply pressure on that person/business.
They also do not use homos in their ads on TV, they use normal actors or atheletes so as to appear non threatening.
We have to fight back by letting everyone know that they are after the children. Use these articles to email everyone you know.
IMost people are unaware that this is happening. The first they will hear is from their kids when it is already to late and laws are already in place.
Pretty blatant on this thread. He or she came “out of the closet” apparently, after lying low for a couple of months.
Rumor has it that you’re the only person to have surrendered offering no resistance whatsoever in the “How many Justin Biebers could you take in a fight?” test.
In fact as the story goes, you are said to have rum and hid at the very mention of a single, slightly irritated Bieber approaching and that you were rejected as an applicant for the role of “Surrogate Bieber” in his Fighting Bieber Swarm.
The only regrettable thing about your zotting is that now we can only torment you in absentia, rather than watch as you wither and cry your little girly tears.
Okay, Gunner, Sir!
Oh Lordy! I used to like Aquaman!
Well, I can beat 30 Biebers!
I bet Gunner can beat 50.
Not YOU, dammit!
I got a 34.
It appears the upper limit on the Bieber Swarm is around 35 - 40. But we could give Gunner credit for five or six Biebers fleeing the scene before actual contact.
LOL! OH! Okay. It was pretty easy though... Not being gay...
Awww... Justy wants a kiss. Poor little guy.
Don’t hit him too hard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.