Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School - Page 11

mrnoodle · 04-26-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin

but we cant control who we love...
shouldnt be getting into a religious debate... but I guess thats gonna happen in this context, because there is no non religious reason to object to t his.

You can love without putting your peener in the object of your affection. But let's move away from religion -- what if the school had a children's book that featured plural marriage, or a spousal relationship between an 18 year old girl and a 60 year old man? What about swingers? I can imagine people would be a little put off by that stuff, even if they weren't religiously devout. And who are we to say that a person can't love their 3 husbands or their 18-year-old wife? That's not the issue...the issue is, where do parents draw the line?

MaggieL · 04-26-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

But let's move away from religion -- what if the school had a children's book that featured plural marriage, or a spousal relationship between an 18 year old girl and a 60 year old man?

Don't both of those occur in the Bible?

mrnoodle · 04-26-2006, 03:37 PM

yep. also, incest. But wouldn't there be a bit of a hue and cry anyway? And not just from zealots?

Ibby · 04-26-2006, 05:55 PM

Thank you, rkzenrage. I am not a christian, but my family is methodist, so I have read parts of the bibe. You are correct, eating shrimp or touching a football is no worse than being gay. Therefore, religion is, honestly, not a valid argument. Therefore it is insecurity about one's own sexuality that must cause homophobia and discrimination against queers, no?

jaguar · 04-26-2006, 05:59 PM

noodle - because none of those examples involve nearly 10% of the population, pologamy is illegal most places and swinging is very much a sexual concept, homosexuality is not.

MaggieL · 04-26-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaguar

...pologamy is illegal most places...

For the protection of the ponies.

Or perhaps Ralph Lauren, I forget which.

Jordon · 04-26-2006, 06:06 PM

Let's jump ahead a bit then, since the dead horse is now getting a bit ripe.

Little Johnny reaches the grade where it's time for sex ed classes.

Are you going to insist that he be taught gay sex in addition to normal biology? You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.

MaggieL · 04-26-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordon

You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.

The horse isn't dead just because you didn't like the way the debate was going. And you've made it clear you wouldn't know "normal" if it bit you on the ass.

But last I saw, sex ed covered a lot of "what" and damned little "how". Reproductive biology needs to be taught, but when Clinton's Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders suggested teaching masturbation, she was forced to resign.

I'd just as soon the government not teach any "how" for sex; they'll just fuck it up anyway.

Jordon · 04-26-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The horse isn't dead just because you didn't like the way the debate was going. And you've made it clear you wouldn't know "normal" if it bit you on the ass.

If it will make you feel less abnormal, you may bite my ass. Be gentle.

I'm quite satisfied with the way the debate went. You all showed your true colors vibrantly. Most of your should have restraining orders keeping you a safe distance from schoolyards. Even being a Pagan, with a huge axe to grind against Christians, the level of your hatred toward them is pretty vile, and yet you all talk of love like you own the word. Hypocrites, all.

Stormieweather · 04-26-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordon

Little Johnny reaches the grade where it's time for sex ed classes.

Are you going to insist that he be taught gay sex in addition to normal biology? You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.

LOL! You do know that sex ed doesn't actually teach you HOW to have sex, right? It simply describes the differences in the male and female body, the reproductive organs as well as ways to prevent pregnancy and STD's. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Stormie

MaggieL · 04-26-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

LOL! You do know that sex ed doesn't actually teach you HOW to have sex, right?

I still don't think jordon has ever been a parent...he seems pretty clueless about it. He's certainly silent about it. I think the whole "parental rights" thing was just an excuse for some verbal queer bashing.

"You no playa da game, you no maka da rules."

tw · 04-26-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

LOL! You do know that sex ed doesn't actually teach you HOW to have sex, right?

Someone who fears and therefore cannot answer three simple 'softball' questions, would then actually know what is taught in sex education? A complete surprise would be if Jordon provided an intelligible answer.

Ibby · 04-26-2006, 06:12 PM

No, because sex ed is for biological purposes, and, well, gay sex is biologically useless. If he wants to know about gay sex, or any other sex besides plain old penis-in-vagina sex, that's his business. Stop being a prick, and a troll, and go away.

Happy Monkey · 04-26-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

No, because sex ed is for biological purposes, and, well, gay sex is biologically useless. If he wants to know about gay sex, or any other sex besides plain old penis-in-vagina sex, that's his business.

Actually, everything in sex-ed except for pregnancy is equally relevant to gays and straights. It's not like there's anything gays can do sexually that straights can't.

MaggieL · 04-26-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

...gay sex is biologically useless...

That's a pretty broad claim; I doubt you know all the "biological uses" of various kinds of behavior. Certainly a PhD Bio wouldn't make such an assertion.

How about "Gay sex doesn't result in pregnancy", I might buy that one.

04-26-2006, 03:37 PM	#3
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	yep. also, incest. But wouldn't there be a bit of a hue and cry anyway? And not just from zealots? __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

04-26-2006, 05:59 PM	#5
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	noodle - because none of those examples involve nearly 10% of the population, pologamy is illegal most places and swinging is very much a sexual concept, homosexuality is not. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

04-26-2006, 05:55 PM	#4
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Thank you, rkzenrage. I am not a christian, but my family is methodist, so I have read parts of the bibe. You are correct, eating shrimp or touching a football is no worse than being gay. Therefore, religion is, honestly, not a valid argument. Therefore it is insecurity about one's own sexuality that must cause homophobia and discrimination against queers, no?

04-26-2006, 06:06 PM	#7
Jordon Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 93	Let's jump ahead a bit then, since the dead horse is now getting a bit ripe. Little Johnny reaches the grade where it's time for sex ed classes. Are you going to insist that he be taught gay sex in addition to normal biology? You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.

04-26-2006, 06:12 PM	#13
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	No, because sex ed is for biological purposes, and, well, gay sex is biologically useless. If he wants to know about gay sex, or any other sex besides plain old penis-in-vagina sex, that's his business. Stop being a prick, and a troll, and go away.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)