From the current Willamette Week:
In a letter sent to the 244,587 Oregonians who signed their petition, the Defense of Marriage Coalition revealed what’s really at stake for kids if the [Oregon anti-same-sex-marriage] amendment doesn’t pass.
“Beginning in kindergarten, children will be taught that marriage between two men is the same as marriage between a man and a woman,” the letter says. “Sex-education classes will be required to teach homosexuality as a legitimate option.”
This was all news to Gene Evans, spokesman for the state schools. “The Oregon Department of Education couldn’t require kindergarten teachers to do that even if we wanted to,” Evans says. “The curriculum is set through a public process, and right now there is no marriage curriculum in any grade.”
Does this tactic really surprise anybody, considering the source? Our current administration has set the precedent for propagating “mistruths” for political gain. Why wouldn’t ignorant lemmings follow suit? I hope this story gets more exposure in Oregon, and elsewhere.
I still can’t believe they haven’t given up on that “gay agenda” thing. You’d think they would’ve figured out by now that there’s no recruitment process and it’s all in their little paranoid heads.
“It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.”
— Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to be in on the class lecture wherein the Oregon biology teacher explains how to consummate the above marriage. I really think eugenics gets a bad rap. Certainly Sen. Cornyn’s biological lineage should be terminated.
From Senator John Cornyn’s press secretary: “For what it’s worth, Sen. Cornyn did not, in his speech to the Heritage Foundation, use the ‘box turtles’ quote. The Post was given a copy of remarks ‘as prepared,’ but Sen. Cornyn did not like that passage, and did not use it. The Post, which did not attend the speech, reported the quote nonetheless. Sen. Cornyn said that he did not think that statement appropriate, that’s why he didn’t use it. I’ve advised the Post of this fact.”
—The Daily Dish
Just for intellectual honesty’s sake, y’know
“Our current administration has set the precedent for propagating “mistruths” for political gain.”
Please don’t limit that to current administration. Let’s also include the legislative branch and the idiots running for the Presidency — one of them is implicit in your statement, don’t forget about the other one. God help our Union.
“This was all news to Gene Evans, spokesman for the state schools. “The Oregon Department of Education couldn’t require kindergarten teachers to do that even if we wanted to,” Evans says. “The curriculum is set through a public process, and right now there is no marriage curriculum in any grade.”
Did you forgot to include his statement refuting their second claim? “Sex-education classes will be required to teach homosexuality as a legitimate option.” Maybe not.
J.S.,
I guess I should have been more specific. Our current administration has taken propogation of “mistruths” (lies) for political gain to an entirely unprecedented level.
I hope that is a little clearer.
Spot: That was much clearer. And I cannot wait for the one-up-manship that will ensue the fogged in masses idiot one from office and replace him with idiot two.
I just hate the primary process. My wife used to say, I can’t vote for that guy, speaking of our current “leader”. She had ABB syndrome (Anybody But Bush). When it became apparent (while she was in the Persian Gulf) that freak of nature may be nominated — I quote: “holy crap it’s armageddon!” Personally I am going to write-in Mickey Mouse, we have a better shot of him not trying to cover his special interest ass than these two cronies that are currently running.
Yeah, no worries. The late Senator Bono took care of Mickey Mouse’s interests quite handily for the next several years.
J.S.,
I may not agree with you, but at least you are going to exercise your hard won right to vote, albeit it will be moot. I would hope that the grassroots movement that has emerged from this primary season and election year can be embraced by the third, fourth or fifth party candidates in the next four years to break us out of this two party system. I am sticking with Kerry/Edwards this round, as I cannot begin to fathom the damage that could be done by the bush administration with supreme court appointees during the next four years. All I can say is vote your conscience, but vote, dagnabit!!
JStevenson:
Did you forgot to include his statement refuting their second claim? “Sex-education classes will be required to teach homosexuality as a legitimate option.” Maybe not.
It doesn’t need to be refuted. It’s as stupid as the first claim.
I’d love to know, by the way, how you think it would even be possible to teach “homosexuality.” Perhaps you imagine something alone the lines of: “Listen up, children, today I’m going to teach you how to be sexually attracted to members of your own gender.”
I’d love to know, by the way, how you think it would even be possible to teach “homosexuality.” Perhaps you imagine something alone the lines of: “Listen up, children, today I’m going to teach you how to be sexually attracted to members of your own gender.”
Now I will not profess ignorance, but I would expect the good fundamentalist, not knowing the difference between desire for another sex and homosexual acts. My presumption was that he meant the latter as viable options. Something to the effect of “Today girls we are going to learn about joys of performing cunnilingus” or “Boys today we are going to learn the pleasures of receiving anal sex”.
I don’t think the schools should be teaching adventurous sexual practices whether on homosexuals or heterosexuals. I would much rather my daughters learn the joys of anal and fallacio by football players in the back of our minivan.
All sarcasm aside, Massachusettes schools are already teaching anal, oral and fisting as viable options in public schools. “Alternative” sexual experiences (porn sex) has no business being taught by schools. I learned deviant sex on the scrambled spice channel. I think the schools are taking something away from kids if they take the spice channel excitement away from them and teach it in the schools. What is the benefit of trying to turn your head to unscramble the picture to see anal sex? Seriously, it is something parents should be explaining to their kids, not schools. His argument is that SSM coupled with anti-discrimination laws would require teaching about all kinds of relationships. He is wrong in that assumption because it is already required by the schools health programs in many states.
When he speaks of the danger, he speaks of teaching it for those that are self-defined gay but those who want to be gay for the day. You know the type, the college experimental type. It is just like the “white girl” that wants to “try” a black guy, but would never marry one. That is dangerous to teach to young children as a viable choice when they are still unsure of their sexuality.
That is dangerous to teach to young children as a viable choice when they are still unsure of their sexuality.
Why?
And nobody started fussing about “OMG they will teach boys about cunnilingus!!!11!!!” on teaching heterosexual relationships. Funny how when same-sex relationships enter the picture, all heterosexuals can imagine is buttfucking and girl-girl action.
jstevenson: Do you have a link to the sex ed curriculum in Mass?
So why isn’t it “dangerous” to teach young children about heterosexual relationships when they’re unsure about their sexuality?
I also don’t understand the definition of “porn sex”. Isn’t there plenty of porn that depicts male-female “intercourse”? Is all male-female intercourse “porn sex”?
With respect to teaching about anal sex, fisting etc – I would guess, though I don’t know, that the “teaching” is mostly to do with safe sex. These things can be dangerous, either because of risk of transmitting infections, or risk of injury, if you don’t know how to do them properly. I think it’s better to learn such things in a health education context, rather than trying to pick up technique from porn or experimentation. I’m sorry if you feel that takes away the “excitement” :o
I agree with J. Why teach kids about safe-sex techniques and take away all the excitement of experimenting with sex unsafely like kids used to do? Hell, back then you were only risking the chance of getting an infection or pregnant. Nowadays it’s 10 times more exciting, as you are risking death.
Before the big guns come out . . . I merely made presumptuous analysis of his statement. I believe he meant that you would HAVE TO teach aberrant sexual practices in order to teach tolerance and civility for those who have homosexual desires. Many wild-eyed fundamentalists believe that in order to teach about homosexuality you would have to teach about aberrant sexual practices (whether they be girl-girl or boy-girl or boy-boy). I don’t think that is necessarily the case. I know several celebate men who have homosexual desires. You do not have to teach about homosexual acts to teach that these men deserve respect and civility. However, once you do teach aberrant sexual practices, I believe that is going too far. Recognizing someone has same-sex desires is different than teaching aberrant sexual acts.
The schools can teach reproductive process and about sexual diseases. I think they should show the negative ramifications of aberrant sexual practices with regards to disease (like genital herpes of the mouth, anal tearing, chlamydia). I do not however, think schools should teach the “pleasures” of aberrant sexual practices and how to “safely” risk disease in order to get these pleasures.
Furthermore, if the schools do teach these types of classes, they should be required to inform the parents and allow the parents to teach these topics instead of the school. Novel as it may be, parents may want the opportunity to teach their children about aberrant sexual practices and not the schools.
“So why isn’t it “dangerous” to teach young children about heterosexual relationships when they’re unsure about their sexuality?”
They already do teach young children about the dangers of infidelity and the benefits of monogamy. As for danger of those who are “gay for the day” begins a dangerous precedent of bisexuality. “Bi” definition, bisexual acts are not monogamous. Infidelity has a higher risk of bringing sexual diseases into a monogamous relationship. As excited as I may be about girl-girl action or some-kind of Jack Ryan/ Seven-of-Nine threesome, I am not naive to the fact that it is extremely dangerous behavior and should not be taught nor encouraged by schools.
“These things can be dangerous, either because of risk of transmitting infections, or risk of injury, if you don’t know how to do them properly.”
Children should not be taught fisting, fallacio, and other aberrant sexual practices are viable sexual practices. How to do it right, in my opinion is child abuse and sexual molestation. Just because it is taught in a school environment does not make it any less aberrant. These are certainly things children should not be doing.
If a school feels it is necessary (like MA) to teach these practices, parents should at least have the option to keep their children away from it.
As for Porn Sex — that is the “pleasure” part of the reproductive process that I learned on the Spice Channel. Probably wasn’t the best venue and I know if my parents were informed that I was going to learn it in school they probably would have taught me before I saw it on Spice. Nevertheless, it is a parents job to teach these things not the school.
Mythago: Google Massachusettes and fisting and public schools and you can read the “expose” on Fistgate.
“girl-girl action” is dangerous?? I wasn’t aware that sexual intimacy between women was intrinsically dangerous. In fact it’s almost certainly less dangerous than many heterosexual sex acts.
I have no idea what a “bisexual” act is. I hope you’re not buying into the stereotype that bisexual people are unable to form stable, monogamous relationships. Because it’s not true. Or am I misunderstanding you?
I did “google” as you suggested. From the article I read, it looks like “fisting” came up for discussion because a *student* asked a question about it. And when other students displayed a mistaken idea of what the practice involved (a mistake that could have been dangerous if any of them had decided to try it!), they were corrected with a brief explanation of the correct technique.
If it were a case of the children being taught about things they would never otherwise have heard of – I might agree with you. But if it’s about correcting dangerous misinformation that they’re already getting from elsewhere – I think that’s different, and it’s an important thing to do.
jstevenson, you’re being completely misleading about MA public schools. The MA incident that you’re referring to was related to a workshop at a conference that was not held in public schools, and neither public school students nor public school teachers were required to go to it. It appears that some of the conference instructors were public school teachers–and they were fired, and the state immediately disassociated itself from the conference’s sponsoring group.
In other words, this was a conference that people had to register for; they were aware of what was going to be discussed; it was their decision to participate, not the state’s. Sex techniques are not part of the public school curriculum and will probably never be part of the public school curriculum. (PS. Most of these articles come directly from anti-gay sources, which, I have no doubt, have an agenda of their own.)
I came by my (heterosexual) fetishes and perversions long before my school had any sex education, and I learned about sex the *right* way – by raiding my dad’d porn videos.
If it’s good enough for me, it’s good enough for today’s children! Leave sex out of the schools and put it into the backs of cars and dad’s porn stash, where it belongs!
Hestia: I hope you are correct in your analysis. I try to get all the sides of a story. Of course, most of the sides of this story were from the lunatic fringe, which is usually unreliable (whichever side of the fence they lay). Unfortunately, I have not been able to find stories from GLBTXYZPDQ groups adding clarity to the accusations or better yet refuting the actions of those public educators in attendance.
Furthermore, I hope you are correct in your assessment that sex techniques will PROBABLY never be part of the public school curriculum. Nevertheless, I think that is what drafter of the letter was referencing when he said “homosexuality” will be required to be taught in schools. I think, in his limited capacity, meant aberrant sexual acts . . . thinking of course that only homosexuals and Star Trek stars participated in aberrant sexual acts.
As for danger of those who are “gay for the day” begins a dangerous precedent of bisexuality. “Bi” definition, bisexual acts are not monogamous.
So what you’re saying is that if I teach a child that it’s OK to like lobster as well as steak, that child will never be able order one or the other at a restaurant–he’ll be stuck with a lifetime of always wanting the surf n’ turf special?
Or that a man who finds blondes and brunettes equally attractive is doomed to cheat, because inevitably he’ll go off with a woman of the opposite hair color than the one he married?
I know you enjoy playing devil’s advocate, but I sometimes worry that you might start believing the siller arguments you propound.
(And when did fellatio become an ‘aberrant’ sexual practice?)
“I know you enjoy playing devil’s advocate”
You can’t call me out in public like that. I may have to become more radical so people will believe me.
As for bi-sexual. Clearly, people may have desires for both sexes. As clarification, I would say — how do you say it — acting on your bisexual tendancies during a monogamous relationship is dangerous? How is that — meaning you can act on heterosexual or homosexual preferences while in a monogamous relationship, but it is impossible to act on bisexual desires while in a monogamous relationship. The problem is infidelity and bringing sexual diseases back to an innocent party to the relationship. No matter how much you teach SAFER SEX your partner did not agree to take your risks.
As for aberrant: I am partial to the American Heritage Dictionary definition of — “Deviating from the usual course”. There are several other orafices that also deviate from the “usual” course. Just because it is common to “deviate from the usual course” does not make it the usual course. Sometimes natural law will dictate the usual course and without evolution we would be unable to change it.
Umm…straight folks in heterosexual “monogamous” relationships cheat all the time (and bring home STD’s). Acting on your heterosexual tendencies during a monogamous relationship has the same dangers. People who are gonna cheat are gonna cheat, regardless of whether they’re het, bi or gay/lesbian.
but it is impossible to act on bisexual desires while in a monogamous relationship
This assumes the definition of “bisexual” is somebody who wants sexual relations with both males and females, rather than someone who can have sexual (or romantic) relations with males or females. Assuming that a bisexual cannot be monogamous is like assuming that a man who is equally content with a blonde or brunette partner ought not to be trusted–if he marries a blonde you just know that, if she doesn’t dye her hair, he’ll eventually go whoring off after some chit with raven tresses.
FWIW, the iconic “bisexual husband who sneaks off and has anonymous sex with men” is far more gay than bisexual, according to gay and bisexual male friends of mine who have had the misfortune to run into such men. But…
The problem is infidelity and bringing sexual diseases back to an innocent party to the relationship.
Indeed. Those problems are hardly specific to any one sexual orientation; it’s not bisexual men keeping prostitution profitable in this country.
It is true that people are gonna cheat. However it is impossible to perform bisexual acts while in a monogamous relationship. As such, participating in bisexual acts is dangerous. A person who is participates in homosexual acts with their partner will not be cheating. A person who participates in bisexual acts is by definition — cheating.
I am not defending the position of the letter drafter. I was just providing analysis of his assumptions.
As such, participating in bisexual acts is dangerous.
Actually, a bisexual woman is (statistically) safer from STDS having extramarital sex with another woman than if her heterosexual husband is having sex with another woman. But that’s kind of beside the point, which is that the whole “bisexual acts” thing is stupid. It assumes that a bisexual cannot be monogamous, or choose a single partner. Kind of the way guys who like blondes can never, ever be trusted to be faithful to a redheaded wife…
“Kind of the way guys who like blondes can never, ever be trusted to be faithful to a redheaded wife…”
Hey, how did you know my wife was a redhead and what do you know about what I do after work? I, uh . . . can be trusted, sure I can, I mean . . .
“Actually, a bisexual woman is (statistically) safer from STDS having extramarital sex with another woman than if her heterosexual husband is having sex with another woman.”
I tried that tack. It didn’t work. Also, I tried to explain that fallacio was not aberrant sexual practice. Another loser. Oh well.
I’m still waiting for a definition of “bisexual acts”
If what you mean is that cheating on your partner with one or many other people is potentially dangerous in terms of STIs, then yes, I’d agree. Especially if it’s cheating instead of just having lots of casual partners, because there’s probably more likely to be secrecy, meaning the “cheated on” partner doesn’t know he/she is at risk.
But that’s not, by a very long way, behaviour restricted to bisexual people!
“I’m still waiting for a definition of “bisexual acts”
I used “bisexual acts” For lack of a better term. Unfortunately, I am not sitting in coffee shop or in the law library discussing this issue. But I will try to convey my meaning.
The best way to explain is to put my thoughts into context. A homosexual man — may cheat on his spouse, but a bisexual person by definition cheats on their spouse. A homosexual man cannot be faithful to his spouse if he performs cunnilingus. However, a homosexual man who performs fellacio is not necessarily unfaithful. Both sexes can be unfaithful, but it is the person who is defined as bisexual (not in a desire sense, but defined by their acts) cannot by the meaning of “bi” be faithful. It is the fact of cheating on your partner that is dangerous not the desire for another sex. Desire for another sex is not sufficient to be a bisexual. A homosexual has sex with people of their same sex. A heterosexual has sex with people of the opposite sex and a bisexual has sex with people of both sexes. You cannot be faithful to your spouse and have sex with people of BOTH sexes (unless your spouse is a hermephidite, which is a topic of another day). Being unfaithful is the problem not being attracted to both sexes.
I try to get all the sides of a story.
Oh, come on. How could you have possibly missed the truth? It was right there, in every article Google linked to, which were almost all extremely conservative. I just don’t understand why you claimed facts that simply didn’t exist, at all, which you would have known if you’d read any of the articles.
And when the guy says that he’s worried that homosexuality will be taught in schools, no, it isn’t the sex techniques in and of themselves that he’s concerned about. Otherwise, why hasn’t anyone made a big deal about preventing schools from teaching heterosexual sex stuff? No, what he’s actually concerned about is that people will start thinking that homosexuality is acceptable, that if you’re a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls, you’re not abnormal or sinful or a bad person. Helping people feel comfortable in their sexuality is, to this guy, immoral. And maybe this does stem from his ignorant belief that homosexuality is “aberrant”–but that doesn’t make it a valid or thoughtful complaint.
A person who is participates in homosexual acts with their partner will not be cheating. A person who participates in bisexual acts is by definition — cheating.
You put “with their partner” in the first sentence but not the second, which invalidates the comparison. You can’t say that a person who participates in “bisexual acts with their partner” is cheating–unless you think that “bisexual acts” are required to consist of at least one man and one woman simultaneously, which is silly.
Please explain, using your definition, how someone can have “bisexual sex” in the first place. Seems to me that it could only occur during threesomes. Using your definition, how can sex between two men ever be classified as “bisexual”?
Desire for another sex is not sufficient to be a bisexual.
This is just flat-out wrong. You’re creating a convoluted semantic concept that has no basis in real life. You don’t identify someone’s sexual orientation by their behavior instead of their desires; that’s why it’s called sexual orientation. Otherwise, every person who has sex with someone of the same gender is either homosexual or bisexual.
Someone who is bisexual and monogamous is participating in “bisexual” acts because s/he is bisexual, not because s/he is having sex with two or more people of opposite genders. It’s not the behavior that’s at issue; it’s the person who’s conducting that behavior. You only cheat when you have sex with someone other than your partner.
But maybe it’ll make more sense to you this way: Bisexuals have heterosexual sex with people of the opposite gender and homosexual sex with people of the same gender. Because those are the only two kinds of sex that are possible outside of threesomes.
Hestia: “why hasn’t anyone made a big deal about preventing schools from teaching heterosexual sex stuff?” The schools should not teach deviant heterosexual acts (I don’t think they do anyway). The reason there is no big deal about teaching heterosexual sex is that it is in the guise of reproductive education. Any “how to” instruction greater than reproductive education, I am sure, would create an similiar outcry.
Desire for another sex is not sufficient to be a bisexual.
So virgins do not have a sexual orientation? If it’s who you do, rather than what you want, nobody can possibly heterosexual until they first have intercourse.
The schools should not teach deviant heterosexual acts (I don’t think they do anyway).
If schools are teaching about vaginal intercourse, there’s no reason for them not to mention other kinds of sex in the course of health education. Kids who are already having oral sex are not going to be impressed if you tell them sex is only one act.
If bisexuality ceases to be a sexual orientation the minute that a bisexual is monogamous, because orientation only matters if you *do* something about it, then all monogamous people are not so much hetero- or homosexual as they are “my spouse”-sexual.
If a bisexual is a homo- or heterosexual depending on who they are fucking *at that moment* then does that mean that if they have sex with a man and a woman at different times the same day, that they actually *changed* their sexual orientation in the middle of the day?
If sexual orientation is determined by who you are fucking at this minute, does that mean that people who are watching TV, eating dinner, working, blogging, whatever, *don’t* have a sexual orientation?
If so, then how can be ban homosexual marriage if they are only homosexuals at the moment that they have sex?
And yes, it wasn’t that long ago that fellatio was considered aberrent sexual behavior. In fact, it still is–to people who don’t get any or do but are ashamed of it. Interesting how aberrant sexual behavior, as defined by those who care to define it, is “sexual behavior I don’t do or don’t care to do”.
Hestia: “No, what he’s actually concerned about is that people will start thinking that homosexuality is acceptable. . . Helping people feel comfortable in their sexuality is, to this guy, immoral. And maybe this does stem from his ignorant belief that homosexuality is “aberrant”–but that doesn’t make it a valid or thoughtful complaint.”
Hestia, I agree with your analysis of his beliefs and intentions is the most probable. I was just providing alternate analysis of the statement.
Of course someone who has homosexual desires is not “a bad person” and since I am not a theologian or even a study of any religious doctrine I cannot comment on whether it is “sinful”.
“If a bisexual is a homo- or heterosexual depending on who they are fucking *at that moment* then does that mean that if they have sex with a man and a woman at different times the same day, that they actually *changed* their sexual orientation in the middle of the day?”
No of course not — I was merely trying to define something that cannot be defined without refute. “Bisexual Acts” is something that is undefined. I did not make the term bisexual. I am just trying to describe the acts done by a person who has defined themselves that way.
“If schools are teaching about vaginal intercourse, there’s no reason for them not to mention other kinds of sex in the course of health education. Kids who are already having oral sex are not going to be impressed if you tell them sex is only one act.”
The question was why was there no outcry over heterosexual sex. The answer is most likely because parents are ok with reproductive sexual education, but would prefer either their children not be taught other sexual practices at all or to teach their children themselves. I was just giving a reason, not whether that reason is right or wrong.
Ah, that makes sense.
I think, though, that part of the problem is that people assume teaching “about” same-sex relationships means detailed explanations of, say, anal intercourse. Which is silly–schools that teach kids that people can get married aren’t offering textbooks detailing how to make your wedding night special.
“But maybe it’ll make more sense to you this way: Bisexuals have heterosexual sex with people of the opposite gender and homosexual sex with people of the same gender. Because those are the only two kinds of sex that are possible outside of threesomes.”
That is a better way to put it. Thank you for sparing me the brutal beating I continue to take.
A person who monogamous is in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. A person cannot be monogamous in a bisexual relationship. Monogamy is a value that should be encouraged was my point and encouraging “bisexual acts” while children are still developing is dangerous. There is a difference between encouraging someone to ok with their desires for the same sex, but that should be tempered by encouraging monogamy.
I’m becoming more and more tempted to make very snarky comments; I’m going to stop responding to jstevenson’s posts entirely before I say something I regret…
Mythago, I agree. I know for a fact that many people believe — if you allow gay marriage, in the interest of teaching diversity, you have to teach anal fisting.
I don’t get the leap and would vehemetly disapprove of teaching anal, vaginal or even oral fisting. If the question comes up in class, what is fisting? Given all of the competing interests, I really would have a difficult time in fashioning an appropriate response. Unfortunately, I think there would be a greater outcry if the teacher answered the question and they were a gay man than if the teacher answered the question and she was a heterosexual woman, who enjoyed fisting. I think there is an institutionalized fear of male sexuality which is manifested in fear of gay men and, not to put them in the same category, male pedophiles (whether homosexual or heterosexual). I think this fear of male sexuality fuels gay discrimination and the statements of the drafter.
J.S., you posted
“Unfortunately, I think there would be a greater outcry if the teacher answered the question and they were a gay man than if the teacher answered the question and she was a heterosexual woman, who enjoyed fisting. I think there is an institutionalized fear of male sexuality which is manifested in fear of gay men and, not to put them in the same category, male pedophiles (whether homosexual or heterosexual). I think this fear of male sexuality fuels gay discrimination and the statements of the drafter.”
Regardless, the point of the initial post was that these folks were sending out emails with claims that just aren’t true. Hence the quote
“This was all news to Gene Evans, spokesman for the state schools.”
Discussion about the definitions of LGBT (no extra letters needed at this time) sex acts actually has little to do with the fact that this organization is propogating lies to bolster their political position. As for putting male homosexuals and pedophiles in the same category, though you profess not to, I believe you just did.
And wasting your vote on a mickey mouse write in is a slap in the face to women and minorities who had to fight long and hard to earn the right to vote.
There’s a couple of things I read along this page that just sent up red lights.
First off, while I wish we lived in a time where kids could learn about sex in backseats and from daddy’s porn stash, those times have sped away. It’s no longer safe to let kids “experiment”, think about Aids and various other vd’s and std’s.
second, threesome sex isn’t inherently more dangerous or risky, it’s just as risky and/or dangerous as normal sex. Consider a threesome where there’s X person, Y person, and Z person. X has had sex with 7 people, Y has had sex with 2 people, and Z has had sex with 20 people. Now, imagine “normal” sex where X person has had sex with 70 people and Y person has had sex with 35. Which would be a safer situtation to be in?
Thirdly, woman to woman tranmission of dieases is a lot lower then normal male to female sex.
and Fourth, and completely different from the rest of what I said and IMPORTANT FOR ALL WOMEN, Bush recently signed a law that allows pharmicists to decide if they want to fill birth control perscriptions (as well as his law he signed that says that it’s a person from conception, which stands to bring a lot of laws into effect). You might not agree, but it’s not your place to to tell someone else what they can and can’t do to themselves.
while I wish we lived in a time where kids could learn about sex in backseats and from daddy’s porn stash
I think we’re well-rid of those times, AIDS or no.
You know, I read these posts about the anti-gay hysteria over teaching about homosexual sex and so-called “aberrant” practices and I think to myself, who the hell ever went to a public school where any of this stuff was discussed, even for hetero sex?
In my Marriage & Family class in high school, we learned about budgets and economics and carried an egg around for a week to simulate child care, but sex? Barely touched on it. It wasn’t until I got to college that I heard of any particular acts, and that was in the context of sexual health. My school was big on that — it was 1986, people were just starting to realize that, hey, straight white folks can get AIDS, too, and my school already had a high rate of STDs. We even had Condom Week.
Zuzu:
Those were the good old days when we did not argue who we were allowed to sleep with before the Supreme Court. Now, I guess my girls got sex education in Kindergarten. I guess I am too late to be able to teach my children about the birds and the bees. A friend of mine is a elementary school teacher, he had a meeting with all the parents of his fourth through sixth grade girls. Many of the girls in his “white middle upper class” neighborhood of Palantine, Ill were giving blow jobs by the time they were in fifth grade. He said he was not prepared to tell some of the parents that there were boys giving blowjobs too.
Wow! Have times changed.
Who doesn’t miss the good old days when childhood sexual experimentation was all homosexual? Now that boys and girls are allowed to like each other, and things just aren’t the same.
Those were the good old days when we did not argue who we were allowed to sleep with before the Supreme Court.
Loving v. Virginia, thank you for playing.
I guess my point is, with schools so squeamish about teaching even high schoolers about sex in any detail, why is everyone afraid that anal and oral will be discussed in kindergarten?
Because these people are completely insane. I mean, really.
They’re certainly fixated on bestiality, that’s for damn sure.