Sodomy 101

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
If you've ever masturbated YOU sir, are a homosexual.

ROFL! knee slapper!

Yep. And it get's much funnier if you follow the thread, see how he
tried to dodge and my comeback at that point.

Don't have a cow, man.

I hate to have to explain the joke, but you won't get it unless I do. I
was using HIS logic in HIS argument about what heterosexual sex is for.

Get it?


0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:1bOdneDxy6sQTULZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:mZidnaf8QvOeOEPZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:OsadnfoyDoY3EkPZnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
:
Snip

No. But why would a sex education class, for instance, exclude
the homosexual perspective?
You need to ask why? Goddamn you're an idiot Kane.
Your a common sick bigot.
Touché.

The reason why it should be excluded is for the simple fact that
fags and dykes don't practice the normal biological means of
sex/reproduction.
You claim falsely that I won't debate,
Nope. Most of the time you will not. It's just attacks, attacks,
attacks. I don't really care, but don't try to convince us that I've
lied because you are about to engage.

yet here I answer the question
you posed about sex education excluding homosexual perspectives,
Which proves I've lied and falsely claimed you won't debate?

What a dip ****, boy.

and you
attempt to lead the article away to philosophical drama.
You're a
regular drama queen aren't you?
Nope. It's a valid question. If you are going to claim that making
babies is the only "norm" in sexual behavior then YOU have to prove
that it's true for heterosexuals. My question goes to that issue. No
drama involved.

I'm bored, so I'll play.
So you finally decide to debate because you are bored. What does
that tell you about YOUR claim that I falsely accuse of you not
debating?
Heterosexual get pregnant every time they have sex?
Of course not, the world's population would significantly exceed
six billion if females became heavy with child with each
copulation.
And you claim I diverted. R R R R R ...

I can
guarantee though, that two females won't become pregnant without
the assistance of a male, no matter how hard they try.
Yep.

(Exclusive of modern
science's intervention, that isn't natural)
Only "****ing" for pregnancy is natural? So, is the sperm used
artificial then?

and as for two males, well
even science won't currently help a male carry a fetus to term.
Nope, so they adopt.

Is adoption outside your concept of "natural?"

Not mine. People have been adopting before recorded history no
doubt. Caring for the young of others sans the bio parent. Usually
taken by wolves or a large cats. Or trained police killer dogs. 0;-

As for
the male and female couple, even they have to hit the correct hole
with the correct tool, something fags and dykes can never do.
Well, going back around to the beginning...sex is only for
procreation, or otherwise it's "unnatural?"

Homosexuals don't love each other even when not having sex?

With a bulk of marriages ending in disconnect, I would venture a
guess that many people don't love each other as much as they once
believed they did, but that's all philosophical anyhow.
Well, out of both populations there is a contingent that do not
"disconnect." Apply my question to the real population not one you
are busy making up.

Any reasons why fag and dyke biologically faulty lifestyles should
be discussed in a sex education class Kane?
Well sure, since they aren't "biologically faulty." Making love has
human biology somewhat involved regardless of the sex of each member
of the couple.


All your hot air and the best you could come up with is a lame
'making love' bit.

LOL
You find love lame do you? And making love lame? Aren't we talking
about sex here?

No, I am not talking about the emotion love; I am discussing the
physical act of sex between a male and a female, the way animals evolved
to reproduce. It is not called love education, but is properly entitled
sex education.

Yep. And your question was?


The sole purpose of sex is to procreate a species thus ensuring the
survival of the species and to allow a diverse genetic pool to carry
on positive traits.
Nope. The sexual connection is directly supportive of also caring for
that young and the mother while the child is dependent on her.

No? LOL. You can say that with a straight face too I bet.

Of course.

We were
discussing sex, remember, the physical act of copulation, not the
emotion love or caring.

Oh, you now are going to define the argument as though it existed before
your definition in that form? Cute. No one limited it to "sex."

People can and people do have plenty of sex and
procreate without any emotional bonding.

Yep. I don't approve of it particularly.

Which would include caring for the adoptive parent, one for the other,
during the same time. Sex makes a strong bond, among emotionally
healthy people.

Why don't you know this already?

Fag and dyke 'sex' doesn't perform either function and is therefore
useless and faulty for the survival of a species.
Nope. Both can either have or adopt children, and their loving bond,
including sex, keeps them connected, just as it does with hets.

We are discussing the physical act of copulation, not love or emotional
bonds that are not dependant on sex.

"We" are? Odd, I was discussion the context for sex that includes love.
"We" can discuss whatever "we" want in this debate.

Do you love your mother? Are you
bonded closely with her? Your sister? Your best childhood friend? Did
it require you to have sex with them to love and care and bond with
them? I bet not. So, they are not connected but mutually reinforcing.

You seem to have it backwards. I didn't say that to HAVE a connection
one must have sex, but that SEX makes a connection in emotionally
healthy human beings. Seems to be true for most mammals, though not all,
and most birds, but not all.

Do you always confuse this easily?

Simply stated, a penis is designed to enter a vagina, not an asshole,
and rubber dicks don't belong in a vagina.
Whatever floats your boat, Bruce.

And as for your lame statement above in regards to 'making love', we
are talking about sex education classes, not love making classes, so
again I will ask you to stay on topic and debate WHY you believe fag
and dyke behavior should be taught in sex education class.
Because it's sexual behavior?

It is not biologically normal sex.

Oh? Then animals that exhibit sexual behavior towards members of their
own sex are not biologically normal? Since when?

Cows, for instance, will mount other cows that are in heat.

Is bestiality sex?

Yes.

Under your broad
umbrella it is, so that should be taught also?

It should be taught, yes.

You are assuming that whatever is taught is approved of.

Not in any sex education classes I've ever heard of. Most have strong
warnings about deviant sex.

This teaching is according to age level of course.

Give me a real thoughtful answer instead of your topic twisting ****
and maybe,
I don't twist topics, child.

Funny, you have said a lot but have yet do give a solid reason why fag
and dyke behavior should be taught in sex education classes.

Yes I have. It's one of the many kinds of sexual behavior that fall well
within normal human behavior patterns.

I have not, though, approved of the "course" that was listed here as
controversial. Or did you miss that?

In fact, the vast majority of gay people I know would not approve of it
either, for that age level.

just maybe it will become a debate/discussion instead of line
after line of **** that isn't cutting to the bone of this matter, sex
education and fag/dyke unnatural behavior.
You mean you are losing the argument because yours come from a hate
filled perspective and mine does not?

This discussion, not argument was over the moment it began.

You have a problem with power struggles, don't you, Mikey my boy?

Sort of have to be in control, up to and including defining the argument
for others to make you the winner, rather than debate on merit of
argument. Cute.

Sex is
male/female between the same species and its role it to procreate. All
else is deviant behavior by choice, not designed by nature.

Naw, you don't really mean that. Do we eat for pleasure? Sure we do.
Some people eat foods I couldn't stomach, not even to watch them, but
far be it from me to force them to watch me eat beef (yum yum) if it
offends them.

And as far as I know no queers require you to watch them have sex.

Do we take drives for the fun of it, or is travel abnormal if it's not
to transport ourselves and or our cargo from one place to another?

Nature lets us make up our own minds.

For you it would be abnormal to have sex with a male, presuming you
really are one.

Fine, don't.

Personally I find all sex kind of funny and grotesque, but that's the
charm.

Homosexual sex I find slightly repugnant, but then I'm not terribly
interested in it.

I am interested in exposing bigots. Is that abnormal of me?


Snip

If you've ever masturbated YOU sir, are a homosexual.
LOL

What fag/dyke dictionary did you look to for that definition?
I don't know there is such a thing. Logic is all I used.

Your logic is as flawed as ever then.

Nope. You made a claim that homosexual behavior is "abnormal." Your
reason being it's not "natural," yet it is perfectly natural in nature,
and in humans.

It's certainly not artificial.

Homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex, when you masturbated
what was the sex of the person you were pleasuring?

LOL. I'm so glad you asked! I always thought of my hand as being Sally
Palm and her five sisters, nothing gay there. It was self masturbation,
not sex.

Bill Clinton had similar ideas. "I didn't have "sex" with that women,
no. She just gave me a few blow jobs and I moistened my cigar a little."

We laughed then. And I'm laughing now.

LOL

Masturbating oneself has absolutely no bearing on attraction to
others of the same sex.
But aren't you repulsed by the male body as a sex object?

Repulsed at my male body as being sexual? No.

You like your male body? But isn't that the essence of homosexuality?

Repulsed at other males
who desire to **** some other males asshole that nature designed for
removal of **** from the body? Goddamn right.

That's nice, then don't **** them.

Goddamn regular einsteindyke aren't you.
Never met one. Being male I could not be a dyke if I wanted to.
Is it unnatural when a person masturbates?

Your argument is about as brilliant as your claim to have two
killers dogs trained at a Police Academy. (Maybe the movie, but not
in real life, dummy.)

So, now that you are over your boredom...we can hope, what's your
next argument that "homosexual sex" is unnatural?

Even other animals do it in nature. We are just another animal, just
a bit smarter, except for the occasional scooter rider.

0:-
You sure been sucking up that homophobic propaganda big time. Any
chance you might be a frightened latent homo yourself?

Not a chance, Kane. I've only been with females of my species and have
no desire to **** assholes of other males, not even the assholes of
females.

Some males do. Is that unnatural?

It's always fun to expose a vicious lying self deluding bigot,
Michael.

Expose? All you had to do is ask if I was a bigot.

All I had to do was read.

And yes, as defined
I am a bigot, as I do have 'very strong opinions'.

That is not the definition of "bigot."

"big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

A few days ago in this same message thread
Greg wrote
Why should 5 year olds be plied with gay propaganda?

Will the skinheads or Nazi's be asking for their equal
footing in school propaganda next?

Or the Libertarians?

Must every MINORITY be represented with sex ed
from their own special perspective?

Michael added Bestiality as another type of sex
that could be added to the pantheon of
sexual confusion.

Will school teachers "come out" for being
fans of bestiality and insist that it be added
to sex ed for 5 year olds?

You pimp for fags so their perversions can be taught in 'sex education' -
yet when engaged in a debate with Michael, yo prove you have no clue -

You're just sexually perverted koo-koo who pimps for fags to have access to
our children - lol Butch - you folks are disgusting.


"0:-" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
If you've ever masturbated YOU sir, are a homosexual.

ROFL! knee slapper!

Yep. And it get's much funnier if you follow the thread, see how he tried
to dodge and my comeback at that point.

Don't have a cow, man.

I hate to have to explain the joke, but you won't get it unless I do. I
was using HIS logic in HIS argument about what heterosexual sex is for.

Get it?


0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
A few days ago in this same message thread
Greg wrote
Why should 5 year olds be plied with gay propaganda?

Will the skinheads or Nazi's be asking for their equal
footing in school propaganda next?

Or the Libertarians?

Must every MINORITY be represented with sex ed
from their own special perspective?

Michael added Bestiality as another type of sex
that could be added to the pantheon of
sexual confusion.

Will school teachers "come out" for being
fans of bestiality and insist that it be added
to sex ed for 5 year olds?

Ah, extremism for the sake of argument, the oldest bull**** in the
pantheon of logical fallacies. The Slippery Slope.

If there was evidence for bestiality being within the acceptable norm,
yes, that's what would happen. Is it?

Some things are, some things are not.

Homosexuality is not comparable to bestiality because, boys, it doesn't
include animals.

Would you like to go on record as claiming they are the same?

Shall we include rape/murder? How about sexual abuse of children?

Just all the same, right?

You two are a chuckle. Who and what else do you hate mindlessly?

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

"Sharon Long" wrote in message
news:rVZDg.1572$117.93@trndny09...

Betty belched -

BECAUSE a child who is taught man/woman sexuality only, yet has feelings
of
affection for t he same sex, may feel that they are a 'freak'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe because they are 'freaks'?

Would you tell your child they were a freak if they told you they were gay?



"dragonsgirl" wrote in message
. ..

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
Kane is there any job you think gays should NOT do?

I can't think of one, except maybe restroom attendant for the opposite
sex. In fact I think the US department of Labor, many years ago said it
was the only sex specific job, that all others should be open to either
sex.

Of course hetero culture is pushed everywhere! It's the norm!

What do you mean by norm?

Why should 5 year olds be plied with gay propaganda?

What gay propaganda are you referring to?

Propaganda is, after all, just information. There are lots of subjects
about homosexuals that can be discussed with 5 year olds.

Will the skinheads or Nazi's be asking for their equal
footing in school propaganda next?

No. Why are you using the term propaganda and linking hate groups with
homosexuals and information about them?

I think it would be fair to note, in this discussion, at this point in
time, that Skinheads, Nazi's, and other 'hate groups' DO have equal
rights.
They are capable of opening non profits with their white supremacy
beliefs. They are capable of being part of charity work (as evidenced by
the KKK being part of 'Adopt a Highway' in Arkansas), and so on.
I think it's also fair to note that White Supremacy is NOT sexual
orientation.
There is QUITE a difference between believing that all races other than
white should die, and thinking you are in love with someone of the same
sex.
Even the very foundation of it is completely opposite: love vs hate.
And I think it would be fair to note that so long as one were to supress
thier beliefs, and NOT make those around them aware, they 'seem' to be
just as entitled to the same rights everyone else enjoys.
So long as they keep thier mouthes shut?
Let's look at it this way:
Do you CARE what the sexual orientation of the doctor performing your
heart surgery is? Do you check out his personal profile before you let
him touch you?
How about the cop who comes ot your house because you find someone has
broken in in the middle of the night?
No one cares about that...when they NEED the gays, bisexuals, TG's, etc.
I personally didn't like it much when they took religion out of the
schools.
I was raised in a school that taught religion...once a week missionaries
came to our class and taught us bible stories.
I didn't see anything wrong with that.
But it was, indeed, removed from the schools.
I've always believed it was FAIR to teach both science and religion.
But someone else didn't.
Likewise, I think it's fair to teach age appropriate sex to kids...ALL
sex.
Kindergarten: Some men like women. Some men like men, and so on.
Sixth grade: Some men have relationships with women, some have
relationships with men.
High School: Some people are heterosexual, some are homosexual, and some
have no preference and are called bisexual.
College: As adults is is appropriate to discuss whatever extent of
sexuality with students.
It makes very little sense to shield children from things that they most
certainly ARE going to see in the world...such as two girls holding hands
and kissing.
Further, I think it IS a good idea to teach about all sexual orientations
BECAUSE a child who is taught man/woman sexuality only, yet has feelings
of affection for t he same sex, may feel that they are a 'freak'.
I suppose that the potential for teaching, IMHO, about different sexual
orientations should be measured against the age of the child, the
maturity of the child, etc.
No. I don't want anyone telling my five year old that when two men have
sex they do blah blah blah.
But do I mind if someone tells my child they are gay and what it means to
be gay? No. Not really. It's a fact of the world that we live in.


Or the Libertarians?

As far as I know no political parties are welcomed to in school
education programs about politics.

Must every MINORITY be represented with sex ed
from their own special perspective?

No. But why would a sex education class, for instance, exclude the
homosexual perspective?

Your absolutist questions aren't relevant or moral, Greg.

Please tell me again how you're a conservative.

What do you mean "how?"

You are a Rainbow Coalition liberal all the way.

Conservatives are racist bigots?

I think you mean right wing republicans, in the current political
climate.

I've never claimed to be one.

I'm an old line conservative. I believe in the rights of all.

Not liberal over conservative, conservative over liberal, one sexual
preference over another.

Now I've answered all you questions.

Do you intend answering mine, or are you going to continue to post
unethically?

You are a bigot, Greg. Plain and simple. There no room for you in either
the conservative or liberal camp. Bigots are sick people, Greg. Get
help.

This planet belongs to everyone on it.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

"0:-" wrote in message
news:IPSdnaheW5n1HH3ZnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
A few days ago in this same message thread
Greg wrote
Why should 5 year olds be plied with gay propaganda?

Will the skinheads or Nazi's be asking for their equal
footing in school propaganda next?

Or the Libertarians?

Must every MINORITY be represented with sex ed
from their own special perspective?

Michael added Bestiality as another type of sex
that could be added to the pantheon of
sexual confusion.

Will school teachers "come out" for being
fans of bestiality and insist that it be added
to sex ed for 5 year olds?

Ah, extremism for the sake of argument, the oldest bull**** in the
pantheon of logical fallacies. The Slippery Slope.

If there was evidence for bestiality being within the acceptable norm,
yes, that's what would happen. Is it?

Some things are, some things are not.

Homosexuality is not comparable to bestiality because, boys, it doesn't
include animals.

Would you like to go on record as claiming they are the same?

Shall we include rape/murder? How about sexual abuse of children?

Just all the same, right?

You two are a chuckle. Who and what else do you hate mindlessly?

0:-

That IS extreme.
I was under the impression that we were talking about sexual relations
between consenting adults...
that excludes human/animal sex, teen sex, child/adult sex, etc.





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

"Sharon Long" wrote in message
news:hnvDg.1339$df.33@trndny06...

"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
"0:-" wrote in
:

Greegor wrote:
Kane is there any job you think gays should NOT do?

I can't think of one, except maybe restroom attendant for the opposite
sex. In fact I think the US department of Labor, many years ago said
it was the only sex specific job, that all others should be open to
either sex.

Of course hetero culture is pushed everywhere! It's the norm!

What do you mean by norm?

Why should 5 year olds be plied with gay propaganda?

What gay propaganda are you referring to?

Propaganda is, after all, just information. There are lots of subjects
about homosexuals that can be discussed with 5 year olds.

Will the skinheads or Nazi's be asking for their equal
footing in school propaganda next?

No. Why are you using the term propaganda and linking hate groups with
homosexuals and information about them?

Or the Libertarians?

As far as I know no political parties are welcomed to in school
education programs about politics.

Must every MINORITY be represented with sex ed
from their own special perspective?

No. But why would a sex education class, for instance, exclude the
homosexual perspective?

Or beastiality, or pedophilia, or furbyphila -

And at least a chapter on folks who like to **** ****house knotholes.

lol Butch, you folk are disgusting but you sure are funny.

I don't believe, myself, that people are homosexual by genetics, as some do,
and as some homosexuals have told me.
I do believe that they may have had some kind of experience in early life
that made them homosexual.
I have known of many homosexuals that will tell of sexual abuse as a child
by opposite gender parents, cousins, siblings, teachers, or other
caretakers.
I have also known of a few who relate that they were raised in homes sans
same gender caretakers, and picked up (for males) feminine qualities being
raised by a woman, or (for females) male qualities being raised by a man.
I don't expecially approve of homosexuality, but I can certainly understand
some cases of it.
It's not hard to fathom a woman developing a dislike for affection and close
relationship with a man after being abused by a male spouse, or after years
of sexual abuse as a child. Nor is it hard to understand a man having the
same repulsion for the opposite sex after such experiences.
It seems that there are many people out there who simply hate those that are
not like them...not 'normal'.
Some actions are simply wrong...and others, where no clear picture of who
may be hurt by those actions is drawn, are simply based on personal
beliefs...I ffor one do not think it fair to 'hate' another simply because
you do not approve of their sexual preferences, skin color, or religion.
I believe that children who are taught HUMAN sexuality...age appropriately,
will fair better in life...both because they will not feel like FREAKS
because of their own preferences, and because they will not grow up to be
adults who also hate those that are not like them, and may be more willing
to accept others.


You need to ask why? Goddamn you're an idiot Kane.

The reason why it should be excluded is for the simple fact that fags
and dykes don't practice the normal biological means of
sex/reproduction.


Your absolutist questions aren't relevant or moral, Greg.

Please tell me again how you're a conservative.

What do you mean "how?"

You are a Rainbow Coalition liberal all the way.

Conservatives are racist bigots?

I think you mean right wing republicans, in the current political
climate.

I've never claimed to be one.

I'm an old line conservative. I believe in the rights of all.

Not liberal over conservative, conservative over liberal, one sexual
preference over another.

Now I've answered all you questions.

Do you intend answering mine, or are you going to continue to post
unethically?

You are a bigot, Greg. Plain and simple. There no room for you in
either the conservative or liberal camp. Bigots are sick people, Greg.
Get help.

This planet belongs to everyone on it.

0:-





--
Michael©

"dragonsgirl" wrote in message
m...

"Sharon Long" wrote in message
news:rVZDg.1572$117.93@trndny09...

Betty belched -

BECAUSE a child who is taught man/woman sexuality only, yet has feelings
of
affection for t he same sex, may feel that they are a 'freak'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe because they are 'freaks'?

Would you tell your child they were a freak if they told you they were
gay?

Of course - should I lie and pretend they're 'normal'??




"dragonsgirl" wrote in message
. ..

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
Kane is there any job you think gays should NOT do?

I can't think of one, except maybe restroom attendant for the opposite
sex. In fact I think the US department of Labor, many years ago said it
was the only sex specific job, that all others should be open to either
sex.

Of course hetero culture is pushed everywhere! It's the norm!

What do you mean by norm?

Why should 5 year olds be plied with gay propaganda?

What gay propaganda are you referring to?

Propaganda is, after all, just information. There are lots of subjects
about homosexuals that can be discussed with 5 year olds.

Will the skinheads or Nazi's be asking for their equal
footing in school propaganda next?

No. Why are you using the term propaganda and linking hate groups with
homosexuals and information about them?

I think it would be fair to note, in this discussion, at this point in
time, that Skinheads, Nazi's, and other 'hate groups' DO have equal
rights.
They are capable of opening non profits with their white supremacy
beliefs. They are capable of being part of charity work (as evidenced by
the KKK being part of 'Adopt a Highway' in Arkansas), and so on.
I think it's also fair to note that White Supremacy is NOT sexual
orientation.
There is QUITE a difference between believing that all races other than
white should die, and thinking you are in love with someone of the same
sex.
Even the very foundation of it is completely opposite: love vs hate.
And I think it would be fair to note that so long as one were to supress
thier beliefs, and NOT make those around them aware, they 'seem' to be
just as entitled to the same rights everyone else enjoys.
So long as they keep thier mouthes shut?
Let's look at it this way:
Do you CARE what the sexual orientation of the doctor performing your
heart surgery is? Do you check out his personal profile before you let
him touch you?
How about the cop who comes ot your house because you find someone has
broken in in the middle of the night?
No one cares about that...when they NEED the gays, bisexuals, TG's, etc.
I personally didn't like it much when they took religion out of the
schools.
I was raised in a school that taught religion...once a week missionaries
came to our class and taught us bible stories.
I didn't see anything wrong with that.
But it was, indeed, removed from the schools.
I've always believed it was FAIR to teach both science and religion.
But someone else didn't.
Likewise, I think it's fair to teach age appropriate sex to kids...ALL
sex.
Kindergarten: Some men like women. Some men like men, and so on.
Sixth grade: Some men have relationships with women, some have
relationships with men.
High School: Some people are heterosexual, some are homosexual, and
some have no preference and are called bisexual.
College: As adults is is appropriate to discuss whatever extent of
sexuality with students.
It makes very little sense to shield children from things that they most
certainly ARE going to see in the world...such as two girls holding
hands and kissing.
Further, I think it IS a good idea to teach about all sexual
orientations BECAUSE a child who is taught man/woman sexuality only, yet
has feelings of affection for t he same sex, may feel that they are a
'freak'.
I suppose that the potential for teaching, IMHO, about different sexual
orientations should be measured against the age of the child, the
maturity of the child, etc.
No. I don't want anyone telling my five year old that when two men have
sex they do blah blah blah.
But do I mind if someone tells my child they are gay and what it means
to be gay? No. Not really. It's a fact of the world that we live in.


Or the Libertarians?

As far as I know no political parties are welcomed to in school
education programs about politics.

Must every MINORITY be represented with sex ed
from their own special perspective?

No. But why would a sex education class, for instance, exclude the
homosexual perspective?

Your absolutist questions aren't relevant or moral, Greg.

Please tell me again how you're a conservative.

What do you mean "how?"

You are a Rainbow Coalition liberal all the way.

Conservatives are racist bigots?

I think you mean right wing republicans, in the current political
climate.

I've never claimed to be one.

I'm an old line conservative. I believe in the rights of all.

Not liberal over conservative, conservative over liberal, one sexual
preference over another.

Now I've answered all you questions.

Do you intend answering mine, or are you going to continue to post
unethically?

You are a bigot, Greg. Plain and simple. There no room for you in
either the conservative or liberal camp. Bigots are sick people, Greg.
Get help.

This planet belongs to everyone on it.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

dragonsgirl AKA Witchwirsen AKA Betty Jean Hammon Wirsen wrote:
I don't believe, myself, that people are homosexual by genetics, as some do,
and as some homosexuals have told me.
I do believe that they may have had some kind of experience in early life
that made them homosexual.
I have known of many homosexuals that will tell of sexual abuse as a child
by opposite gender parents, cousins, siblings, teachers, or other
caretakers.
I have also known of a few who relate that they were raised in homes sans
same gender caretakers, and picked up (for males) feminine qualities being
raised by a woman, or (for females) male qualities being raised by a man.
I don't expecially approve of homosexuality, but I can certainly understand
some cases of it.
It's not hard to fathom a woman developing a dislike for affection and close
relationship with a man after being abused by a male spouse, or after years
of sexual abuse as a child. Nor is it hard to understand a man having the
same repulsion for the opposite sex after such experiences.

Do you remember ME saying some things a LOT like the above
several months ago? Did you echo the observations?

I pointed out more about ANGRY reaction, militancy, etc.

But I also pointed out more about another mechanism which
is INDOCTRINATION, where they decide they ARE GAY
because they are desperate to be in a social group, a posse.

Kane can tell you about ANOTHER effect of gay molestation
which is that the victim decides THEY LIKED IT and
they feel huge amounts of shame, and often become gay.

The bus driver "anecdote" local to me was a boy who got
buggered by a male neighbor, and ""repaired"" by the
Child Protection agency, but the faggotry, cross dressing,
sexual risk taking, all started as a result of the buggery.

Hetero molestation can of course mess up a girls
sexuality in a bunch of ways as well, sometimes
giving them sex hangups that last a lifetime,
sometimes making them sort of overly sexed,
seeing sex as a means to manipulate or GET things,
or other oddities.

It seems that there are many people out there who
simply hate those that are not like them...not 'normal'.

Mostly I am just against them working in certain jobs
where their sexual identity really SHOULD disqualify them!

WHY must they work in jobs that have to do with
heterosexual relationships or counseling kids?

Do you see HOARDES of heteros rushing to
do couples counseling for gays? That could be fun!

Do you think a person of the opposite orientation
can do a good job of identifying with the situation?

I sure as heck wouldn't want some celibate
NUN or PRIEST teaching about marital relations either.

WHY must the "gay agenda" be pushed on
school kids in and out of sex ed in school?

And anything LESS is "hatred of gays"?

Betty wrote
Some actions are simply wrong...and others, where no clear picture of who
may be hurt by those actions is drawn, are simply based on personal
beliefs...I ffor one do not think it fair to 'hate' another simply because
you do not approve of their sexual preferences, skin color, or religion.

Saying I don't want gays preaching sexuality is NOT hatred.

I believe that children who are taught HUMAN sexuality...age appropriately,

Age appropriateness is an issue even for plain
old unsophisticated hetero sexuality!

Age appropriateness CERTAINLY seems to be a sore subject
when it comes to more complex issues about gay sexuality.

will fair better in life...both because they will not feel like FREAKS
because of their own preferences, and because they will not grow up to be
adults who also hate those that are not like them, and may be more willing
to accept others.

When will we start teaching BESTIALITY in school sex ed then?
After all, you wouldn't want kids so inclined to feel
like FREAKS would you?

Would you support that Betty?

How about pedophilia? Will that become
a sanctioned sexual orientation and taught in
school sex ed?

What IS your basis for including some and not others?

Is it ONLY that you don't want kids with unnatural
sexuality to feel like FREAKS?

What if half the fun for them WAS being FREAKY,
self degradation or the struggle to feel "unique"?

Kane will JUST LOVE IT but what about the
people into fetish SPANKING?

Will the spanking fetish people be properly
represented in the new school sex ed program?

You wouldn't want them to feel like FREAKS would you?