an impression on people’s minds, advertising companies would go out of business. Another argument is that school pupils learn many things from their teachers, that is the reason that they go to school, so could learning about homosexuality not teach them to be gay?Firstly, the media can not be blamed for individuals eradicating the blame for their own actions. Religious programming on television has not caused a nationwide surge of Christianity. It is true that advertisements on television and in magazines can have a strong influence on the things we do and by, but how many adverts have you seen where a gay man or woman appears on the screen and says in a voice reminiscent of the child-catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, “Come on kids, it’s great. Why don’t you try it? You might like it.” This would be the so-called “promotion” of homosexuality, something completely separate from giving a child a well-balanced education in all areas of modern society’s sexual tendencies.As for banning the promotion of sexuality in schools, I cannot see that there ever has been any, or that there ever would be any reason to “promote” it. If a child is going to grow up to be an informed individual, they need to be taught all aspects of modern life, including homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. At the moment the government could be accused of the “promotion of heterosexuality,” which has not been successful in preventing those who are born gay from continuing to be so. One would think that this would work exactly the same way when reversed; Why should receiving information about homosexuality convert someone who is inherently ‘straight’ into a raving homosexual? In spite of the introduction of Section 28, there still exists a thriving gay community, which shows that someone will be who they want to be, whether they are having other people’s beliefs shoved dow...
