Proxy,
I didn't appear to me that Glen Coulton was advocating teaching children that private promiscuous homosexual behavior was equivalent to normal heterosexual behaviour.
The point he appeared to me to be making was that quoting from a ancient rule book to make a homosexual practitioner feel inferior or guilty is stupid.
I am sure that no ethics discussion will be advocating that individual children adopt homosexual or promiscuous behaviour.
If you watched the SBS programme on the Ethics Trial you would have seen a "volunteer teacher" of SRI who sounded American and whose views were appalling.
You would also have seen children who were enjoying the opportunity to discus opened ended questions and make up or change their minds as they heard the views of their peers on particular questions.
Students in philosophical discussion classes have an opportunity to improve their ability to think, to improve their IQ results, to minimise bullying in their environment and generally improve their lives and the lives of their future partners and offspring.
That prospect seems to frighten the religious heirarchy.

A sound and sensible article from Glen Coulton. Predictably some posted comments have revealed that some readers have simply missed the main point of the article, namely that the various religions do not and should not have a monopoly on what consitutes acceptable ethical behaviour. There is also a major misapprehension by some that the recent trial of secular ethics classes in ten selected public schools in NSW is about "teaching ethics". It's not. The trial is simply an exercise in critical thinking about such issues as fairness, lying, graffiti, use and abuse of animals, children's rights and what constitutes the good life. The specially selected and trained teachers are NOT teaching "someone else's ethics". They are simply inviting individual children to express their thoughts and opinions on certain issues and then encouraging other children in the group to either agree or disagree. It is obvious, e.g., from the recent SBS Insight program, that the children are enjoying these sessions. Clearly the religious leaders are concerned about this, as they fear a mass exodus from scripture classes to the secular ethics discussions. As Glen Coulton notes, the various religions seem to think that the domain of ethics and ethical behaviour is exclusively theirs, and that there are ABSOLUTE standards of ethical behaviour, as set out in the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran. Many people (including myself) disagree strongly with this viewpoint. Indeed, people are deserting the churches these days because of the archaic views of the clerics, e.g., that homosexuality is abhorrent, that women are inferior, that abortion and voluntary euthanasia are "sinful" and so on. For me, the so-called Golden Rule says it all in one sentence. And these secular ethics classes area breath of fresh air. But watch out for the religious leaders who are itching the scuttle the entire experiment!

phenologist

Perfectly summarised.

It is only fear of losing more devotees that provides the impetus for objection to critical thinking, similar fears drive the objection to various scientific discoveries where such knowledge conflicts with religious text.

The inability of religion to be a dynamic system like science is the major reason for not foisting religious dogma on children. When children become adults they can choose whether or not to believe in the supernatural. Until then, children need to learn how to learn - not stagnate.

The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says the following: "The ‘straw man fallacy’ is committed when one arguer misrepresents another’s position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it."

I strongly doubt that you would get a thumbs up from "the Clerics" for the way their arguments have been presented here. A robust discussion involves making the best case for the opposition (writers like Martha Nussbaum do a sterling job).

The split between faith and reason has been cast in Enlightenment terms, with the corresponding oversight of the incarnate nature of human rationality. Religion, language, history, tradition and culture matter. Can you really think that "the Clerics" should not be "allowed within a bull’s roar" of the courses? Although ethics has its own domain and methododology, reason without faith misses out on rich fields of investigation. Think for a moment about the notion of 'person' and its origins.

Proxy, I think you are going over the top. Such polemic convinces nobody. The same goes for commenters who dismiss religious believers as closed minded crackpots. Such Dawkins'-like obtuseness is exceedingly tiresome and a clear sign of narrow mindedness in itself. Please allow for a minimum of rationality in people with whom you disagree.

Proxy
If, as you say, my article made it clear that my “concept of ethics involves teaching school children that homosexual behaviour is the ethical equivalent of heterosexual behavior”, then I would apologise for my appallingly careless drafting for that is nothing like what I meant. I’d go so far to suggest it is not even anything like what I said. I will plead guilty to being so careless with my drafting as to allow a really determined mis-reader to misread at will. To clarify: what I was suggesting is that all human actions, even such sensitive ones as same sex coupling, should be judged according to whether they increased or decreased the total amount of human discomfort experienced by people, not according to some proscription that might or might not have been intended by some anonymous statement in a very ancient book written without the benefit of modern knowledge. If you can demonstrate that a given act of same sex coupling reduces the total level of human comfort in the world, then I would say it is unethical to engage in it. If not, then I would say it is up to the couple themselves to decide. I’m not competent to judge whether your demonstration has succeeded.
As for my own sexual orientation, did you not understand my disclaimer? Again my drafting skills appear to have failed me so let me try again. I’m 100% with the 85 year old Cornishman who, when asked why at such an age he was migrating to Australia, replied that he had watched in dismay as Britain made homosexual acts legal and he was getting out before they made them compulsory!