Homosexual teachers and supporters are promoting dangerous ideals in classrooms today, telling students that it’s okay to be gay. They are ruining the innocence of our children, who shouldn’t be exposed to such disgusting and wrong behaviour. Some even suggest amending sex education to be relevant to gay children! More so, homosexual teachers are ostentatious enough to be open about their sexuality within the school environment – they plan to recruit more young people into their decrepit lifestyle.
This attitude – expressed above – is the kind of shit that some people actually think, believe, and preach. I think it is abhorrent.
Homophobia and heterosexism in schools is rampant, making it hardly the best environment for the growth and development of a student that identifies as being same-sex attracted. For gay teachers, many fear the day that they are outed and harassed by the more conservative or ignorant students, parents and other staff. Herein lies the issue – how can we create a safe and accepting environment for gay students, when the people trying to create this environment don’t have one of their own?
A woman from Washington is discussed in a US newspaper for the view that her seven-year-old child’s “sense of innocence” has been taken from her because the child read a book in school about two gay guinea pigs, and because the child’s female teacher mentioned an impending marriage to – gasp – another woman. There is this general consensus among those who do not agree with homosexuality that a teacher’s sexuality has no place being expressed in a classroom. This view is fine, as long as it applies to heterosexual teachers also. Often, it doesn’t – the hegemonic sexuality can be freely expressed, but not any alternatives.
In Australia, these issues are even more prevalent in religious schools, where such organisations are given the legal right to discriminate based on sexuality. Despite the supposed separation of church and state in this country – something I’m sure many of us are cynical about – religious organisations receive special treatment under government laws. Do you think this is fair?
School experiences shape our lives, and until we get it right by our students, homophobia and heterosexism will continue to be entrenched in our society. Before teachers can make a difference though, homophobia and ignorance from other staff and parents needs to be addressed. If a heterosexual teacher can mention their husband or wife, a homosexual teacher should be able to do the same. If the latter isn’t appropriate in a particular school setting, than the former should not be either. Sex education needs to be relevant to all students, not just those who are heterosexual. I also do not believe for a second that there is some minimum age that children need to reach before they can be ‘exposed’ to the idea of homosexuality. If you’re talking sex with the kids, they’re old enough for all of it. To treat it any other way is simply another expression of the heterosexism already present in schools.
I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet, but Teachers TV has a video which follows the lives of five gay teachers, and how they cope with the pressures of the school environment. On that page, there are also links to a number of other relevant resources.













Hi Christopher,
Some thought provoking comments there!
I think there are a few key issues I can agree on….
- Homosexuality being normalised as part of sex education;
- Part of that process being support for homosexual kids (or perhaps that should be those generally confused, unsure and scared by any aspect of their sexuality).
Certainly gay teachers should not be afraid to be openly gay… in the same way that a straight teacher may say “I was saying to my wife last night” a gay teacher should have no fear of saying “I was saying to my bf last night”… with all the same borders and boundaries that all teachers are bound by.
However, I disagree with your comment that “I also do not believe for a second that there is some minimum age that children need to reach before they can be ‘exposed’ to the idea of homosexuality”.
At the moment I confess I can’t back that up with a reasoned argument… it is very much a gut feeling. But I think there is an age after which the subject can be introduced. Certainly I’m personally not comfortable with the 7 year old and the gay guinea pig. And yes, again, that’s really a “gut” call on my part.
But thoughtful….!
February 25, 2010 @ 11:49 am
David, does your minimum-age gut feeling focus on the homosexuality, or the sexuality in general?
I’m inclined to agree that generally there is an age at which sex and sexuality should be introduced to children (although I couldn’t possibly hope to say what that age should be), but as Chris points out, it should be all or none. There’s nothing more or less obscene about homosexuality compared to heterosexuality, so there’s no reason to split the ages.
February 25, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
Sexuality in general.
IIRC from my own education, the “biology” of “reproduction” was in grade 4, but true discussion of “Sexuality” started in grade 6 generally, and got very specific in 7/8.
And to me, that seems about right.
I don’t think/feel there’s a need to bring homosexuality into grade 4 reproduction… that’s really basic facts of life time.
But when the course gets to actual sexuality, yeah, homosexuality should be mixed in at the same time.
Hopefully that makes sense!?
(And I stress, I’m not an education expert, not remotely…!)
February 25, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
Thanks for the comments guys.
Dave, that’s the same kind of thinking I had, and what I meant by my original statement.
When referring to sex ed, I’m thinking more of the health / sexuality side of things, so safe sex, etc. I’d agree that homosexuality wouldn’t be relevant when discussing reproduction solely as a biological concept.
February 25, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Yeah, I figured we were on the same page. The guinea pig rather distracted me!
But that is rather a good example though of how these debates are warped by people at the extremes. People talk about homosexuality in schools as part of an existing course on adolescent sexuality, and the counter argument is about teaching sex to 7 yrs olds.
I don’t want homosexuality taught to my uber-hypothetical 7yo because of the homo part, I don’t want ANY sexuality taught at 7!
And I think that’s why the old Play School segment with “2 mums” freaked a lot of people out… not because they weren’t comfortable per se, but because it was opening the sexuality window *generally* too early.
[Though of course, there would have been a number against the homo in homosexuality!]
February 25, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
I would have to disagree with David about why the two mums on Play School freaked people out. Although I haven’t seen the segment, I cant imagine that it described, in any detail, the sex or sexuality involved in the relationship between the two mothers. Instead I would’ve thought that segment would have portrayed two parental figures who just happened to be female.
A large part of the problem here, I think, is that the people that want to make decisions about whether a child can or cannot know about homosexuality at a young age are bringing their own idealogy and opinions about homosexuality to the table. If homosexuality is considered to be something deviant and morally wrong, then of course it will corrupt a young innocent mind. But think about the situation at hand. A 4 year old knows nothing of homosexuality or the arguments surrounding it. Even if the child is perceptive enough to notice that there are two mothers, and that this is not a normal situation (purely in terms of numbers), I hardly believe that the child will baulk at the concept of two mothers, because the child simply has no preconceptions about the situation. If the child accepts the parents word as an authority on the ways of the world, then the parent saying that some children have two mummies will become a normal and non-threatening concept from the very beginning.
This is why the Play School segment on two mothers exists, to introduce the children to the concepts at a young age so that the knowledge and opinions of the child can be moulded for life. This is good parenting, and I believe there is nothing wrong with introducing the concept of homosexual relationships as being a normal thing in society.
Forgive me if I have repeated myself too much.
February 25, 2010 @ 7:07 pm
As I say, I agree that for a certain percentage (a vocal minority??) the issue with the segment is one of prejudice. Most certainly.
But I think a that a lot of good people are just uncomfortable with the thought that it might open a window that the parent isn’t ready to open.
“Why does that kid have two Mums?”, they worry, might lead to a conversation about topics they don’t want. Much the same as “Where do babies come from” does?
I can understand that concern, and feel it’s valid.
February 25, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
I don’t understand what questions it might raise though. The only questions unwanted questions that would be raised about why the kid has two mums would be about sex, but those questions aren’t going to be asked in the first place if the kid isn’t aware that couples have sex. And like Elmo said, if the kid is asking about sexuality, they should get it all in one go. I don’t see how the book is dangerous at all, and I think that too many people give children more credit than they deserve, assuming that the kid will immediately think to ask “well where does he put his penis?”
February 25, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
Yeah, I get what you’re saying, and don’t necessarily disagree.
What I’m saying is that I can *understand* why a parent would be concerned about opening ANY window on sexuality too early, that’s all.
February 25, 2010 @ 7:20 pm