Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Kidlicious]

I haven't said anything bigoted. YOU HAVE!!!!

[C0ckney]

I haven't said anything bigoted.

apart from saying that there's something wrong with homosexuals you mean.

[Kidlicious]

apart from saying that there's something wrong with homosexuals you mean.

There's something wrong with all of us dude.

[C0ckney]

do you ever get tired of posting mealy mouthed bull****?

do you think there's something wrong with being homosexual? a simple yes or no will suffice.

[Aeson]

No. I didn't error.

So you meant to say "heterosexuals"?

The statistics that I gave you were not of people who had unprotected sex. They didn't excluded people who had protected sex.

Which is why they aren't really useful for this topic. If being a homosexual doesn't mean you are forced to have risky sex, then the harm isn't in being homosexual.

If you teach children that it's ok to recieve anal sex and they do, there's no way to make sure that they us protection, just like there is no way to make sure people having heterosex use protection. Also, there is still risk even when you use a comdom.

If you can teach people to receive anal sex you can probably teach them to use a rubber. In fact, I'm willing to bet you can far more easily teach someone to use a rubber than to teach them to receive anal sex. Not that public schools are trying to teach kids to receive anal sex anyway ...

[Kidlicious]

So you meant to say "heterosexuals"?



Which is why they aren't really useful for this topic. If being a homosexual doesn't mean you are forced to have risky sex, then the harm isn't in being homosexual.



If you can teach people to receive anal sex you can probably teach them to use a rubber. In fact, I'm willing to bet you can far more easily teach someone to use a rubber than to teach them to receive anal sex. Not that public schools are trying to teach kids to receive anal sex anyway ...

My concern isn't really about public schools teaching kids to recieve anal sex. My concern is that public schools will teach kids that it's not ok to think that it's wrong to think that same-sex sex is a sin.

I don't think the schools do a very good job at teaching kids to wear rubbers. But what they do is make some kids think that what their parents teach them is wrong. In subtle ways, that is.

The consequence is that kids trust the goverment and the crowd more than their parents and their own beliefs.

The government doesn't care if what they are teaching is going to result in kids getting AIDS or not. It was easy for them to make people think that when they were just teaching kids to use precaution. But teaching kids not to judge people who engage in homosexual behavior is something entirely diffferent. Now they are putting kids at risk. More kids are going to engage in same-sex, and more are going to get AIDS, infections etc.....

[Aeson]

My concern isn't really about public schools teaching kids to recieve anal sex.

It sounds like it is...

But teaching kids not to judge people who engage in homosexual behavior is something entirely diffferent. Now they are putting kids at risk. More kids are going to engage in same-sex, and more are going to get AIDS, infections etc.....

Yes, public schools teaching kids to receive anal sex is definitely is what you're concerned about.

The government doesn't care if what they are teaching is going to result in kids getting AIDS or not.

[Kidlicious]

It sounds like it is...



Yes, public schools teaching kids to receive anal sex is definitely is what you're concerned about.

Did you just deliberately misunderstand everything that I just said?

[Aeson]

You said you weren't concerned with public schools teaching kids to have butt secks ... and then went right into detailing why you are worried about public schools teaching kids to have butt secks.

[Ming]

No. I didn't error. The statistics that I gave you were not of people who had unprotected sex. They didn't excluded people who had protected sex. There's no way to do that, and it wouldn't matter. If you teach children that it's ok to recieve anal sex and they do, there's no way to make sure that they us protection, just like there is no way to make sure people having heterosex use protection. Also, there is still risk even when you use a comdom.

You should take a reading class... because you don't seem to be able to comprehend what Aeson is saying. STD's is both a straight and gay problem. Safe sex should be taught. You and Bennie are trying to imply that it's unhealthy to be gay... WRONG. It's unhealthy to have unprotected sex. Deciding to have unprotected sex has NOTHING to do with your sexual orientation. It's a personal choice. And your "there is still a risk using a condom" argument applies to both straights and gays.

So you can quote all the statistics you want, but all it proves is that gay's are more likely to have unprotected sex in the US. As Dinner points out, AID's is a big problem with straights in Africa. It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with unprotected sex.

[Ben Kenobi]

I actually haven't agreed that we ought to "prevent children from seeing smoking". My position is actually the opposite of that. I am not looking to supress information, but rather to make it available. I think children should be shown smoking, as it really is. I think children should be educated on the actual effects of smoking so that they are better prepared to make a healthy choice when the time comes. My parents did this at an early age, taught me about what smoking is, and what effects it has. The conclusions I came to on my own based on that information made it easy to choose not to smoke.

My mother who is a nurse did the same with me. Same with sex ed which I did when I was 7, 8 or so. Condoms and whatnot as well. I thought the explanations were very important and I plan to do that with mine as well, give them the best information I can give them about what sex is all about. I don't plan to leave it up to the schools.

The major point I'm arguing is that you believe that children can be taught and that they are impressionable, that is all I am arguing here.

I think we should do the same thing in regards to prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. I wish my parents had taught me in the same comprehensive fashion about the dangers of unprotected sexual contact. Instead I got the "wait for marriage" line which wasn't helpful for me, or for most of those I knew growing up. (And this was in a very conservative place.)

I got the opposite. People make a lot of judgments about my upbringing. I chose to wait because I understood the risks involved and when I later became Christian, the moral teachings on continence made sense to me. To someone who chose to wait it was good to have a spiritual support for that position. Especially when in college.

The reality is most parents don't do a good job of either. I was lucky on one hand, and just average on the other. I could easily have ended up supporting a kid I couldn't support (at the time) or with a serious health issue. I lucked out that neither of those things happened, but that's all it was, luck.

We should not leave our childrens' health up to luck when we can educate them on how they can protect themselves.

I see education as a parental duty which may seem strange for a teacher. It's not the job of the state. I do it, I enjoy my job but the parents have the primary obligation.

The evidence being asked for in that instance was evidence that homosexuality had an innate risk. All you're doing is what Kid already tried to do, that being to pretend that sexually transmitted diseases are innate to homosexuality. The reality is that there are ways to avoid the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases whatever your sexual orientation.

Kid tried, but I thought it important to actually provide the numbers, and the statistics. I think it's pretty blasé to attribute 100x the risk to, 'not using enough condoms". We're not in a condom shortage, we're not dealing with people who haven't heard that message many times already. There is a reason CDC specifically states that homosexual men ought to be tested every year. The risk - in the real world is far, far greater and the health problems associated are tremendous.

Why isn't this part of sex education? It wasn't part of mine, and it ought to have been, many years ago. The facts are all there. If we're talking real education - we need to point this out and save people's lives.

[Ming]

Really. I presume equal rights entail Christians the right to seize money from the accounts of publicly known atheists without legal recourse.

You are going to have to explain that one... But if you want to talk about equal rights, let's take the Tax relief away from Religions... I have no problem with giving them tax breaks for their charitable work, but not a blanket tax break.

I'd agree with you that it's about equal rights, except it's not.

Then you are mistaken. It is about equal rights. It's all about not letting "some" religions dictate their morals for everybody. It's about letting people decide who to love and who they can marry and commit to spending their lives together as partners.

Do we teach five year olds in public schools the sacrament of holy matrimony? If not, why not? It's about equality after all...

Gee, if we are going to teach five year olds about sex between the opposite sexes, then they should be made aware of the alternative lifestyles.
That's equality. Holy matrimony is a religious deal, it shouldn't be taught in public schools. Sex isn't holy matrimony.

[Ben Kenobi]

You and Bennie are trying to imply that it's unhealthy to be gay

CDC is recommending that homosexual men ought to be tested every year because they are a tremendously high risk population for STDs. Take it up with them, Ming. That is their quotation, not mine.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

even homosexual men in a long term relationship with just one partner?

[Aeson]

My mother who is a nurse did the same with me. Same with sex ed which I did when I was 7, 8 or so. Condoms and whatnot as well. I thought the explanations were very important and I plan to do that with mine as well, give them the best information I can give them about what sex is all about. I don't plan to leave it up to the schools.

The major point I'm arguing is that you believe that children can be taught and that they are impressionable, that is all I am arguing here.

Be sure to teach your kids to be tall and with perfect bone structure ... and definitely not to need hearing aids.