Most Parents And Teachers Support LGBT Lessons For Children, Says LGBT Survey

With every sin there are multiple levels of why it’s offensive to God and to be avoided. The simplest is clearly to say the Bible says it is. And we should start there; and if we can go deeper, that’s good.

I think it’s implied clearly and spoken clearly in Romans 1:24-29 that homosexuality is wrong and to be avoided. And I think Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 lists a very unusual phrase about homosexuality where he says, “Those who do such things”—and he lists it along with greed and covetousness and other sins, so it’s not unique by itself in this—”those who do such things will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”, Free will and choice are gifts from God, unfortunately for the homosexual, transgender the choices are destruction, and a sin in God’s eyes , if you have a problem with God’s blueprint take it up with him-not with HNewsWire….

Parents and teachers overwhelmingly support children learning about LGBT+ issues at school, according to a new survey.

The survey—which was published today by TES, a teaching publication—was carried out by Professor Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones of the Carnegie School of Education.

They surveyed 366 teachers and parents following protests at Parkfield Community School in Birmingham against the school’s LGBT+ lessons.

Strong majority support children learning about LGBT+ people
94 percent of those surveyed said they thought it was important that children learn about LGBT+ identities in school. The same number of people said schools have a responsibility to promote LGBT+ inclusion.

88 percent of those surveyed said parents should not have the right to withdraw children from lessons about LGBT+ people.

The same number said that schools who taught children about LGBT+ issues were not promoting a sexual orientation or gender identity.

However, support for teaching younger children about LGBT+ issues was slightly lower. 76 percent said schools should teach children about different types of relationships from the age of 4.

Meanwhile, 73 percent said same-sex marriage should be taught to children from that age, and just 50 percent said children aged 4 and up should learn about transgender identities.

One of the researchers told TES.com that some parents may feel that children of that age are “too young” to learn about LGBT+ people.

“The data suggests that there might be a view that exposing young children to different kinds of people and relationships is somehow harmful.”
– Researcher

However, they pointed out that many children have LGBT+ relatives and same-sex parents.

Stars You Didn’t Know Were Gay Or Bisexual The Stars You Didn’t Know Have An LGBT Sibling The Straight Stars Who Went Gay For Pay
“They are aware of same-sex relationships and they may have brothers, sisters, aunties and uncles in their family who identify as LGBT,” they said.

The researcher also pointed out that children currently learn about opposite sex marriage in schools and learn about opposite sex relationships from a young age.

Most parents and teachers support LGBT lessons for children, says survey Pexels “The data suggests that there might be a view that exposing young children to different kinds of people and relationships is somehow harmful,” they said.

“The findings also suggest significant resistance to teaching children about transgender identities, which indicates negativity towards the transgender community.”

Protests against LGBT+ lessons at Parkfield school have sparked a media frenzy. The research comes after weeks of controversy following protests at Parkfield school in Birmingham over LGBT+ lessons for children.

The school found itself at the centre of a media storm when the protests began against classes being taught by Andrew Moffatt, the assistant headteacher who developed the No Outsiders programme.

Speaking to TES last month, Moffatt said the protests were “very hurtful.”

“I think the worst part for me was when adults who weren’t actually parents were getting children to chant ‘Get Mr Moffat out.’ Now that was awful.” Source

HNewsWire:Fewer Americans support the LGBT agenda, survey shows,

February 4, 2018 (C-Fam Turtle Bay) – A couple of recent news items reinforce the perception of a backlash against the LGBT agenda. Even in the U.S. and Europe it seems support for the homosexual and transgender agenda is waning. At the very least there are signs that contestation of the LGBT agenda is not going away anytime soon.

A survey commissioned by GLAAD suggests LGBT social acceptance may actually be declining in the United States.

This year’s survey reflects a decline with people’s comfort year-over-year in every LGBTQ situation, losing ground that had been gained during the last four years. Three of the most personal interaction scenarios experienced significant declines with more people reporting discomfort with “learning a family member is LGBTQ”, “learning my child’s teacher is LGBTQ” and “learning my doctor is LGBTQ”.

The survey also found a decrease in Americans who identify as strong supporters of the LGBT agenda in all situations, as opposed to only qualified supporters of LGBT issues in certain situations. This may be a reaction to the intransigence of LGBT extremists in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before the Supreme Court.

You can find the survey here. Of course, GLAAD conveniently blames this on Donald Trump, even though Trump has expressed support for LGBT advocacy and the Trump administration is still promoting LGBT rights internationally.

In Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) just elected an openly pro-family judge María Elósegui Ichaso to the European Court of Human Rights. You can read about her here in Spanish.

There were also pro-LGBT candidates in the running, but the vote was not even close, with 114 votes in her favor and the next runner up only garnering 76. This, even though María Elósegui Ichaso has written and spoken out against gender ideology in conservatives publications and environments. While the Court has always been more conservative than most human rights bodies, the sheer bluntness of María Elósegui Ichaso’s writings, one would have thought, might have disqualified her. Instead, it seems to have worked in her favor. Here is a zinger from María Elósegui Ichaso’s writing:

Those who build and express their sexual behavior in conformity with their biological sex develop balanced and healthy conduct. Those who commit themselves to going against their own biology develop several pathologies. This is clear.

Far from being unstoppable, it would seem the homosexual agenda and gender ideology do not have a certain political future. I wrote about a global backlash to extreme LGBT advocacy in The Federalist earlier this month.

Last December, Politico published a leaked memo by State Department senior aide Brian Hook, on the importance of realism in U.S. foreign policy. Extensively citing speeches of President Ronald Reagan, Hook argues that instead of seeking to impose human rights, democracy, and liberal values, the United States should lead by example and incentivize good behavior.

This return to pragmatism breaks with the Obama years’ rigid ideological dogmatism about human rights and clearly rattled the bureaucrats who leaked the memo. But his arguments cannot be easily shoved aside. Promoting a rigid leftist agenda internationally is a form of social engineering.

It is not only politically fraught, it is an ethereal goal that cannot be quantified. And it demands untold expenditures for unforeseeable amounts of time without any way of measuring the effects.

Nowhere is the obtuseness of this idealistic approach more evident than in U.S. promotion of LGBT policies abroad. Without applying any moral calculus, a realist approach to foreign affairs requires accepting that LGBT rights likely will never be accepted by all the people of the world, no matter how many millions of dollars we pour into foreign LGBT organizations.

At the core of the ideology is the radical claim that feelings determine reality. From this idea come extreme demands for society to play along with subjective reality claims. Trans ideologues ignore contrary evidence and competing interests, they disparage alternative practices, and they aim to muffle skeptical voices and shut down any disagreement.

The movement has to keep patching and shoring up its beliefs, policing the faithful, coercing the heretics, and punishing apostates, because as soon as its furious efforts flag for a moment or someone successfully stands up to it, the whole charade is exposed. That’s what happens when your dogmas are so contrary to obvious, basic, everyday truths.

A transgender future is not the “right side of history,” yet activists have convinced the most powerful sectors of our society to acquiesce to their demands. While the claims they make are manifestly false, it will take real work to prevent the spread of these harmful ideas.

The Texas GOP has taken a stand on the bathroom issue, over the business community’s objection. This is going to be a really interesting showdown, given how pro-bidness Texas Republicans are. What I wish would happen is that Republicans would get sophisticated about this stuff, and stop relying on the “yuck” factor, or the “because the Bible says so” factor. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with citing the Bible, nor is there always something wrong with instinctive aversion to that kind of disorder. But there are a number of reasons why this stuff has to be resisted — and why this old-fashioned approach doesn’t work.

Political scientist Dale Kuehne has written: 

The students with whom I associate—from middle school to college students—have understood for several years that we now reside in a world beyond gender. The youngest of them probably don’t realize that TIME’s article announced anything “new.”

For many of them, gender discussions, even of the transgender variation, are just so yesterday. When we talk about personal identity, we don’t include the mundane questions about being male and/or female. A person can certainly identify as male or female if they wish, but there is little expectation that one would do so.

Kuehne is an Evangelical Christian who teaches at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. He’s not exactly in the geographical center of cosmopolitan liberalism. That’s how far this stuff has gone. Here’s his key point in this talk:

It’s all about the freely choosing individual, and the modern ideology that puts that person at the center of the world. Justice Anthony Kennedy is the Prophet of Our Age. As he said in his 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey majority opinion:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

What anyone who wants to resist the triumph of gender ideology has to understand is that this is deeper than gender or sexuality. This is all about identity, and to stand against it is to stand against the way most younger Americans have been conditioned by consumerist liberal democracy to understand themselves and the way the world works. It’s just that radical. As Kuehne once put it, Americans should get ready for things like the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s program to help students transition to the other gender to come to public elementary and secondary schools around the country. It’s already happening. We are far beyond bathrooms.

We may hope that a Trump Supreme Court nominee holds more traditional views on the matter, and is in place before the Court takes up the trans bathrooms issue. But there is no guarantee of it, and besides, the power of Big Business, the Media, and Academia to shape the views of civil society is immense. Never forget that Donald Trump truly doesn’t care about this stuff. He probably doesn’t want to push it, à la Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party, but he probably doesn’t care to interfere to protect the rights of dissenters when others do.

Contributors

StevieRay Hansen
Editor, HNewsWire.com

MY MISSION IS NOT TO CONVINCE YOU, ONLY TO INFORM…

Jesus come quick, there is nothing left in society that’s sacred….