Another example of right wing evil

I don't know, are you asking me to speculate?I suppose it has to do with non-hetero sexualities being brought up a lot more these days. After seeing more of it, they had the realization that they'd prefer it be discussed at home and not promoted to young children in sex ed class in the public school, imho. That's lame...

I just prefer logic in a discussion, we all know what your prefer. not true. when do your strawmen stop? based on what? oh yeah the bullshit you make all day long.riiight. i didn't, you did. wow you are so ignorant you don't even know what a personal attack is. you are truly hilarious. Which is more than can be said for you.------------------------------Its really funny to see you abandon the topic and come after me after it was clearly shown you have no clue what you are talking about, and cannot debate in a logical fashion.you got pwnd like the n00b you are. LOL

What if its straight, male-to-female butt fucking? That's ok then, since its straight sex? Or how about female-to-male strap-on butt fucking, or is that too "gay" for you? I assume, since this is YOUR argument, that you are perfectly fine with schools teaching the intricacies of straight sex to your 7 year old daughter. We can keep the 'Deep Throating For Beginners' class after recess if we stick to examples of females blowing men right?Shouldn't the law be about discussing graphic sexual intercourse of ANY kind, if this is the argument you want to make? There is NO reason to single out homosexuality in ANY way. I don't want the teacher discussing rimming with my 7 year old, even if its girl-on-guy.

Wow taking me out of context must be the name of the game here at EvC.The class in question is an elementary school health class, where they probably teach more nuts and bolts anatomy and human reproduction. Yes I know it’s easier to ask me silly questions than follow along and read what has already been posted, but since Butt Secks is not part of reproduction, and rim jobs are not part of reproduction, nor is deep throating, I would conclude that none of that would be included in this topic.I know it’s hard to follow and keep up without changing the subjects and going out of context (especially for lefties), but you are going to have to try and keep up with the topic if you want to hang.This is about teaching reproduction to kids, you can keep all of your sodomy questions to yourself, as they have nothing to do with reproduction, this class, this bill, or this topic in general.Thanks for trying though

Do you or do you not agree that homosexuality was an integral part of the classical era? If not, then are you a revisionist? If so, then how the hell did you miss that part in your supposed 4 years of history majoring?Added by edit.Or how about this. Are you aware or are you not aware that Martin Luther King Jr.'s right hand man in organization was an out the closet gay man? Try to guess what his name was. Conservatives at the time tried to stamp out the civil right movement by trying to stir up the homophobia within the black community. Surely, you've at least heard about this. Or is this not important enough to be covered in your American History class?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

But "BUTT FUCKING" is not. Odd, Percy, odd.........

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Are you listening to your own words?"promoted"?You're all but saying that these kids can be talked into being gay.If that's your position, own up to it. It's CLEARLY the position of those behind the law.Let's stop playing games. Just put it all on the table.I'm siding with science. Gay from birth. Ignoring those kids who are born gay is not going to "ungay" them. Hiding them from straight kids is not going to foster acceptance.I am straight. I have always been straight. I can not imagine a scenario in which a teacher could "trick me into being gay" with a hand out and a homework assignment.So, what exactly do you mean that they don't want it "promoted"?Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Yes, I prefer that a bigot own up to being a bigot.You've made it clear that this issue for you is about "BUTT FUCKING" Just a tip. If you don't know what the term "strawman" means, you really shouldn't use it. It makes you look like an idiot when you declare everything to be a strawman.

Probably? You mean you don't KNOW what is being taught in this class?
Do you honestly (no I shouldn't use that word with you)... do you think (damn it)...What exactly do you think is being taught in 2nd grade sex ed? Ah, I see. You seem REALLY obsessed with these topics. And 2nd graders.The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Yes, as in "provide any instruction or material "... like the bill says. Absolutely not. There's no need to vilify me. That's not clear at all, show me. I meant to be reflecting the part of the bill that says to not "provide any instruction or material".The exact same word didn't fit, so I chose another 'pro-' word. In hind site, that wasn't the best word choice. Pardon me.

I do pardon you, but I think you blundered into a truth whether or not you meant to. Okay.
http://www.alan.com/...mpfield-defends-his-dont-say-gay-billThat's a video of a radio interview (why it's video and not just audio, I dunno) between a DJ and the sponsor of the bill.The sponsor complains about homosexuality being "wrong". He complains that some schools have internet access and that a kid was able to get to websites about homosexuality and "witchcraft".The DJ also brings up the point I raised, that this is a bill designed to correct a problem which doesn't exist.The sponsor replies that he has evidence - but then doesn't have any.It's about 10 minutes long.You give it a listen and tell me if you think Stacey Campbell is doing this without some sort of anti-gay agenda at the heart of it.And remember, don't ***. (I actually just put three stars rather than write out a word.)

I thought the "witchcraft" bit was rather telling.Freedom of religion is protected under the Constitution. That includes "witchcraft." If a child wants to investigate "witchcraft," or Christianity, or Judaism, or Atheism, or Wicca, or Satanism, or anything else regarding their religious beliefs or the lack thereof, they should be allowed to do so.Yet the good Senator clearly disagrees.I think it's very clear that the Senator sponsors this bill because it bars teachers from teaching things that he personally disapproves of, even if there is no real state interest in adding such an additional restriction.He claims that "teachers are telling us they're doing this already" is no different whatsoever than McCarthy holding up his "list of Communists." It's bullshit. He's presenting vague references to nonspecific cumulative anecdotes and treating them like they're actually relevant data. We have no way of seeing how frequently K-8 teachers reference homosexuality and in what context. We don't even have any way of verifying the Senator's anecdotes because he only vaguely refers to "teachers" who "tell him" things, without names or anything specific at all.The best "evidence" he brought up involved an anecdote about a contracted Planned Parenthood employee who taught sex education to 10th graders and mentioned that the anus is an erogenous zone (hint - it is, and that's just as relevant to heterosexuals as homosexuals, as just about anyone with a brain and genitalia knows). Since he was teaching to 10th graders, this law wouldn't have covered him anyway.The whole law is absurd.

Well you brought up butt fucking. Those were YOUR words. Here, I'll quote it AGAIN for you. Did someone post that from your account without your knowledge? That comment says pretty plainly that, without this bill, you think 7 year olds would be learning about male-on-male BUTT FUCKING. They aren't supposed to be learning about blowjobs in that class either, or rimming, which is why I brought it up. Is that being specifically addressed in a similar bill? No child shall learn about blowjobs in health class?You brought up the silly butt fucking being taught to children, not me. I just pointed out how silly it was to bring up. Don't like it, don't post garbage like that. Or I suppose you could be ready to back your statements up... Edited by PsychMJC, : No reason given.Edited by PsychMJC, : No reason given.

Let's not forget that the GOPs push for absentence only education has led to a MASSIVE increase in anal sex among hetero teens.Because "you can't get diseases that way".Study Reports Anal Sex on Rise Among Teens - ABC News

Then why did you post as tho elementary school health classes regularly discuss male-on-male butt fucking, and that this bill is needed to protect 7 year old daughters from hearing about it? If you conclude that anal sex WOULDN'T be included in this topic (which you just did, right there, in quotes), why would you use anal sex as support for your position... on this topic? And you want to argue context with me?