Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay taught in school

pawletoe
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2008 11:51:14 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Look I'm sick and tired of people saying gays want young kids to learn about being gay...

I just want to know, with a straight to the point answer, "Do any gay people want kids to learn about being gay?" Do you seriously want kids to learn about being gay? I never heard of a gay couple telling teachers to teach gay marriage.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2008 6:27:17 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'm assuming you are referring to California's prop 8?

It's all propaganda. If prop 8 doesn't pass, gay marriage will NOT be taught in school. The California Superintendent of Schools even said so.

The only reason gay marriage may be taught is if it is in a sex ed classroom (typically in high school). And then, the teachers are mandated to tell the parents exactly what will be taught. And the parents have every right to demand an alternative assignment.

But let's be serious. Prop 8 won't start teacher to teach about gay marriage. Straight marriage is barely referred to in sex ed classrooms right now!

Again, it's all propaganda.

Source: http://johnnycalifornia.com...
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2008 7:12:20 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Welcome to the PRO side of Prop 8, where there all arguments are logical fallacies.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2008 7:46:46 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Welcome to the PRO side of Prop 8, where there all arguments are logical fallacies.

That's not true at all. Perhaps the best state we can look at as an example is Massachusetts. We are already seeing these things happen in the class room.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2008 9:29:29 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
That is a result of the school board's policy presumably, not the legality of gay marriage. Mainly because Massachusetts has some kind of mandate to teach kids about marriage in general, which I think got intertwined with that.

Besides, Massachusetts is just working off it's "separation of church and state" karma. It has a lot of work to do leftover from the Puritan days.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
pawletoe
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2008 7:35:45 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/4/2008 9:29:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That is a result of the school board's policy presumably, not the legality of gay marriage. Mainly because Massachusetts has some kind of mandate to teach kids about marriage in general, which I think got intertwined with that.

Besides, Massachusetts is just working off it's "separation of church and state" karma. It has a lot of work to do leftover from the Puritan days.

lol salem witch trails =P
pawletoe
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2008 7:37:15 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/4/2008 7:12:20 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Welcome to the PRO side of Prop 8, where there all arguments are logical fallacies.

umm wtf... how is this helping? all i am asking is if there are gays out there that want to teach gay marriage to "little" students as the pro prop 8 said in their ads
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 6:05:27 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
What if teacher teach about Gay marriage? It teaches them they can be with whoever they want, in happiness. Conservatives think marriage is between man and woman. It's basically saying straight people are superior to gay people. Thats why I F***ing hate conservatives.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 6:14:19 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
The fear is that teaching about gay relationships may somehow TEACH kids how to be gay. It might infect their impressionable young minds. When, in reality, the gay kids who were BORN that way may just get a measure of self-respect, get over their fear, and it may reduce suicide and depression knowing that there is a "world" out there where they can be accepted. Kids aren't naive - most know a helluva lot more about it than their teachers. Give them a chance to value themselves? For shame.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 6:35:59 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 6:14:19 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
The fear is that teaching about gay relationships may somehow TEACH kids how to be gay. It might infect their impressionable young minds. When, in reality, the gay kids who were BORN that way may just get a measure of self-respect, get over their fear, and it may reduce suicide and depression knowing that there is a "world" out there where they can be accepted. Kids aren't naive - most know a helluva lot more about it than their teachers. Give them a chance to value themselves? For shame.


Conservatives are really narrow minded.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
manutdredseal46
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 7:02:59 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 6:35:59 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/7/2008 6:14:19 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
The fear is that teaching about gay relationships may somehow TEACH kids how to be gay. It might infect their impressionable young minds. When, in reality, the gay kids who were BORN that way may just get a measure of self-respect, get over their fear, and it may reduce suicide and depression knowing that there is a "world" out there where they can be accepted. Kids aren't naive - most know a helluva lot more about it than their teachers. Give them a chance to value themselves? For shame.


Conservatives are really narrow minded.

Surprisingly enough, he claims to be an atheist.
-ManUtdRedSeal46
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 8:30:32 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 7:02:59 AM, manutdredseal46 wrote:


Surprisingly enough, he claims to be an atheist.

Who me?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
manutdredseal46
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 8:59:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 8:30:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/7/2008 7:02:59 AM, manutdredseal46 wrote:


Surprisingly enough, he claims to be an atheist.

Who me?

jjmd280.
-ManUtdRedSeal46
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 9:38:08 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Once upon a time, there was a theory that anal penetration released hormones that made you permanently gay.

Now there's pegging, popular among many a straight.

The notion that teachers will make someone homosexual has even less plausibility behind it... heh, pun oddly not intended.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 9:44:40 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Gay marriage in schools????? That might actually help stop homosexuality. If they teach everything. Like the damage to the rectum. The bacteria in those nether regions. They should teach it right along side of evolution. In evolution species do almost everything for propagation of the species, homosexuality is the opposite. Homosexuality results in no offspring, unless a child is adopted from a NORMAL human couple. Just think about that for a minute.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 10:21:40 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 9:44:40 AM, roughneck wrote:
Gay marriage in schools????? That might actually help stop homosexuality. If they teach everything. Like the damage to the rectum. The bacteria in those nether regions. They should teach it right along side of evolution. In evolution species do almost everything for propagation of the species, homosexuality is the opposite. Homosexuality results in no offspring, unless a child is adopted from a NORMAL human couple. Just think about that for a minute.

Ye, now you go to China and see just how many children they have for adoption! If everyone was straight, we would have too many people in the world. And there would be an excess of male men, so we would just have lonely people.

And yes, sexual intercourse through the anal region does produce disease, but if you have protection it doesn't.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 10:26:59 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 10:21:40 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Ye, now you go to China and see just how many children they have for adoption! If everyone was straight, we would have too many people in the world. And there would be an excess of male men, so we would just have lonely people.

There are no more big wars. War always helps to balance things out.


And yes, sexual intercourse through the anal region does produce disease, but if you have protection it doesn't.

Think about that. Still being taught alongside evolution. If homosexuality is "natural" and people are "born" that way why would you need "protection" from a natural act?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 10:30:54 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 10:26:59 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:21:40 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Ye, now you go to China and see just how many children they have for adoption! If everyone was straight, we would have too many people in the world. And there would be an excess of male men, so we would just have lonely people.

There are no more big wars. War always helps to balance things out.


And yes, sexual intercourse through the anal region does produce disease, but if you have protection it doesn't.

Think about that. Still being taught alongside evolution. If homosexuality is "natural" and people are "born" that way why would you need "protection" from a natural act?

That doesn't make any sense. Straight couples use protection also, to avoid certain diseases like Syphilis and HIV. I assume you would label a straight couple as being "natural", yet they also need "protection" from a natural act.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 11:08:25 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 10:26:59 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:21:40 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Ye, now you go to China and see just how many children they have for adoption! If everyone was straight, we would have too many people in the world. And there would be an excess of male men, so we would just have lonely people.

There are no more big wars. War always helps to balance things out.


And yes, sexual intercourse through the anal region does produce disease, but if you have protection it doesn't.

Think about that. Still being taught alongside evolution. If homosexuality is "natural" and people are "born" that way why would you need "protection" from a natural act?

I simply see it as a natural solution to a natural cause.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 11:11:22 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 10:30:54 AM, JBlake wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. Straight couples use protection also, to avoid certain diseases like Syphilis and HIV. I assume you would label a straight couple as being "natural", yet they also need "protection" from a natural act.

Straight couples need protection from diseases that are introduced to them. We have bacteria in those unmentionable areas for a reason, and without those bacteria we can not survive. HIV and Syphilis are not, they are the opposite. I as a straight man, do not have to worry about having sex with my wife. No protection is needed. And this would also be the case if people would practice what is in Holy Scriptures. Sex outside of marriage takes care of this disease problem.

Most people think that Religions come up with these rules to control other humans. But think about this for a minute. Take the Laws/Rules about sex and marriage in Scriptures. Don't have sex before marriage and don't have sex with any one but your wife. This takes care of diseases and ,most likely, a lot of murders, rapes and emotional and monetary damage.

These simply Laws/Rules were came up by men who believed the earth was flat and the man held the seed to propagation alone. Pretty smart if you ask me. But men came up with it all by themselves huh?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 11:18:28 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
You need protection from wild animals too. That doesn't make them any less natural. Diseases evolve in the natural environment.

By the way, the laws in scripture explicit accept rape and require murder in lot of circumstances.

furthermore, marriage is no foolproof protection, you can get diseases from a monogamous partner too, if they are born with them or if they are less faithful than you (which is quite likely if they don't love you, and if you marry without having sex first, you don't know for sure that the sex won't change their mind :D). This is because diseases have to come from somewhere other than sex, or they'd never exist in the first place.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 1:24:41 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 11:11:22 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:30:54 AM, JBlake wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. Straight couples use protection also, to avoid certain diseases like Syphilis and HIV. I assume you would label a straight couple as being "natural", yet they also need "protection" from a natural act.

Straight couples need protection from diseases that are introduced to them. We have bacteria in those unmentionable areas for a reason, and without those bacteria we can not survive. HIV and Syphilis are not, they are the opposite. I as a straight man, do not have to worry about having sex with my wife. No protection is needed. And this would also be the case if people would practice what is in Holy Scriptures. Sex outside of marriage takes care of this disease problem.

Most people think that Religions come up with these rules to control other humans. But think about this for a minute. Take the Laws/Rules about sex and marriage in Scriptures. Don't have sex before marriage and don't have sex with any one but your wife. This takes care of diseases and ,most likely, a lot of murders, rapes and emotional and monetary damage.

These simply Laws/Rules were came up by men who believed the earth was flat and the man held the seed to propagation alone. Pretty smart if you ask me. But men came up with it all by themselves huh?

The reason they said not to have sex outside marriage 2,000 years ago is because sexual disease was rampant, with no possible cure. Nowadays we have medicine for most of them when caught early.

And what proof do you have sex inside marriage is any safer than sex inside marriage? A couple can remained unmarried for their whole lives and have the same chance as an unmarried couple. A ring and a vow does not help. The only way to prevent a STD is to never have sexual contact of sexual body parts or fluids. So if you have unprotected sex with your wife, you have as much of a chance as if you had sex with another woman for your whole life. Sure, people who have casual sex may be at more risk, but they use contraceptives.

P.S. You're risking you're health with unprotected sex. Have some cop on.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 8:15:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Word play, simply word play. And purposeful ignorance and confusion of the topic.

Take four people. Three men a one women (calm down Brian, it aint going where you think it is), all with NO disease. Not contracted at birth or blood transfusion, completely clean. I will even give them fake names to make it easier.

Bob.Male

Joe.Male

Jim.Male

Tina.Female

All are virgins before this minute.
Couple A. Bob and Joe.

Couple B. Jim and Tina.
Bob and Joe have sexual intercourse the only way two men can.

Jim and Tina also have sexual intercourse, vaginal.

All use no protection because

a. they are clean.

b. they are virgins.

Which couple has the highest possibility of having complications due to their intercourse.

You can add all the different ways people can get diseases. But the simple answers are usually the best.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 8:18:30 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
\
Couple B. Jim and Tina.
Bob and Joe have sexual intercourse the only way two men can.
That's not coherent. I can think of at least 7 ways for them to go about it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 8:19:44 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Granted, one of them requires that at least one of them is not circumcised.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 8:25:09 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 8:18:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
\
Couple B. Jim and Tina.
Bob and Joe have sexual intercourse the only way two men can.
That's not coherent. I can think of at least 7 ways for them to go about it.

SEVEN?!?!?!?! I do NOT want to know. I can think of two, and I about vomited when I did that. I could not imagine the other ways.

Let me more clearly define while still trying to keep my account.

No oral (even though there is problems there too)
No hand.
No whatever your sick little mind can come up with.

I know why you do not answer, you don't like the answer. Because it cause you to be wrong. But that is ok, it is still in your head and that is good enough for me.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 8:40:43 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/7/2008 1:24:41 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

The reason they said not to have sex outside marriage 2,000 years ago is because sexual disease was rampant, with no possible cure. Nowadays we have medicine for most of them when caught early.

And what is the ultimate cure for rampant disease?

Virgin before sex and sex ONLY with another virgin in a monogamous relationship. Of course that will not stop contractions received at birth or through blood transfusions . But these cases are unnatural.

Oh yeah, the Laws for sex were written WAY before 2000 years ago.


And what proof do you have sex inside marriage is any safer than sex inside marriage? A couple can remained unmarried for their whole lives and have the same chance as an unmarried couple. A ring and a vow does not help. The only way to prevent a STD is to never have sexual contact of sexual body parts or fluids. So if you have unprotected sex with your wife, you have as much of a chance as if you had sex with another woman for your whole life. Sure, people who have casual sex may be at more risk, but they use contraceptives.

To a point you are correct. But this argument is irrelevant when inside the discussion of the Laws prescribed in Scriptures. The Law requires that you have sex ONLY with your spouse and you are supposed to remain a virgin until marriage.

P.S. You're risking you're health with unprotected sex. Have some cop on.

Not in a clean monogamous relationship. There are NO adverse affect due to disease within this realm. Unless one of the two were to break a commandment.