BulletWounD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 984
- Reaction score
- 210
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sex education in the schools should be limited in scope to the health aspects--i.e., transmission of STDs and the potential for pregnancy, when is it rape and not sex, et cetera. To the greatest extent possible, it should be value neutral. It is not the job of a school to teach morals.
Sexual acts are not homosexual acts until and unless the sexual actors are both male or both female. Anal sex is not gay sex unless both are men. Oral sex is not gay sex unless both are male or both are female. The health and safety aspects which are the proper academic objectives of sex education derive from specific sexual acts, which can be discussed and taught from a gender-neutral perspective. The cliched sayings about condom use ("put it on before you put it in," "no glove, no love", "always wear a raincoat", "don't be silly, cover that willy") are equally applicable to male-female as well as male-male sexual contact.
What does need to be a part of sex education is the range of sexual acts that can be dangerous. The great risk to today's youth is that many honestly believe that oral sex and anal sex are not "sex". Sex education should not be limited merely to safe practices for vaginal intercourse.
Homosexuality itself should not be a part of sex education in the schools, simply because the emotional content of sexual relationships and the sublime psychology of one's sexuality are not academic lessons any school can ever be equipped to teach.
The easiest way to bypass is just teach everything based on the biology of the organs involved. Gay or straight, anal sex works exactly the same way. Kids should be informed based on objective facts as much as possible, and social conditioning as little as possible.
That's a good point. At my school our "sex ed" class was more a class in reproductive biology. No condoms on bananas or any of that ****. That's the way it should be.
Explain how if everyone became gay the human race would become extint in about 100 years...
Regardless, i think its vital that gay students should recieve some kind of education and information about gay sex, how its carried out and again, how to keep safe. Sex ed. isnt just about how to use a condom. It teaches you how to have sex, creativedreams its a big shame you wasnt listening in that lesson my virgin friend.
Maybe, but without sex, who'd want to?:lol:In vitro fertilization. Men and women do not need to have sex to keep the human race alive anymore.
It bloody well better not be teaching that.Regardless, i think its vital that gay students should recieve some kind of education and information about gay sex, how its carried out and again, how to keep safe. Sex ed. isnt just about how to use a condom. It teaches you how to have sex, creativedreams its a big shame you wasnt listening in that lesson my virgin friend.
It bloody well better not be teaching that.
Schools should not be teaching sexual technique, merely sexual safety. As a matter of public health, education about the full range of transmission vectors for STDs and the potential for pregnancy serves a distinct public good. "How to have sex" does not.
(Besides, isn't that what porn is for?)
Maybe I am a flaw in human nature but I am not going to get all defensive about it and demand people speak of me in politically correct ways
ironic for you.... stating I am uneducated makes you the epidomy of ignorance
It bloody well better not be teaching that.
Schools should not be teaching sexual technique, merely sexual safety. As a matter of public health, education about the full range of transmission vectors for STDs and the potential for pregnancy serves a distinct public good. "How to have sex" does not.
(Besides, isn't that what porn is for?)
It is not the job of a school to teach morals.
Perhaps i havent made myself clear. Im not the one who thinks homosexuality can be spread like friggin SARS. You cant just wave a wand to make people straight either. Perhaps you should learn to accept such people in our society instead of urging the state to "change them". Dont go all muslim on my ass.
I just feel that the medical science industry has not correctly defined it and catagorized it for what it truely is and stems from...
Man+man or man+dog
both of these scenarios are completely unnatural
Not quite sure which side you're landing on....Normally, I would agree, apparently, moral values are no longer being taught, anywhere.......
The very idea that any perversion be taught in a school......when students are "graduating" without being able to read and write...
Twenty plus years ago, it was wrong to persecute a homosexual , now things seem to be completely out of balance..
First, let's be clear about something: homosexuality is not a perversion, nor are homosexual acts. Gay sex is not perverse sex.
Ever since there where straights there where gays, if your claim is true that homosexuality is genetic-related, then theres nothing unnatur(e)al about it.
There are many genetic flaws in humans that come out once in a while...Autism, Growth defects, Mentally Challenge.....REPRODUCTIVELY CHALLENGED, etc.
There are many genetic flaws in humans that come out once in a while...Autism, Growth defects, Mentally Challenge.....REPRODUCTIVELY CHALLENGED, etc.
Gays are not reproductively challenged. They could still screw a girl and get her pregnant. Dont confuse homosexual people to somebody with damaged goods.
I could come up with numerous arguments as to why a 'gay gene' might actually help reproduction. For instance, lets consider a very average-looking, perhaps homely, Cro-Magnon female 30,000 years ago. She might have had difficulty finding a suitable mate. Now consider that she had a gay brother who loved to fiddle with her hair and clothing and make her up very pretty... suddenly her chances of successfully breeding have increased dramatically, ensuring the 'family' gene pool gets passed on.
Yes they can still impregnate but their chemical imbalance steers them toward the same sex.
Not much unlike a chemical imbalance may steer grown men toward little boys
So they still have the ability to reproduce, therefore they are not reproductively challenged. Your are acting as if chemical imbalances and "gay" genes are a proven scientific explanation towards the preference of ones sexual attractions, and you are also basing the majority of your arguments on unproven theories. Im still dazed at your man+man = man+ dog comment. Please explain, because quiet frankly im lost for words.
I was just trying to convey how there are many different extremes of being unnatural relations....
The only natural relations are man+woman at relatively near ages
Anything else is unnatural on many different levels of extremes
Ill accept that, under the bases homosexual relationships are boardering onto natural and are not completely natural only under the sole condition that our bodies werent completely geared for gay sex but under that condition alone. And try avoiding categorizing gay sex with having sex with a dog or horse in the future. :2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?