Here's the deal. It is natural.
Went to a picnic at a managers house and another manager was nervous because the boss had invited her partner and she wasn't sure how she would be received. I normally don't go to these things, but she seemed worried.
Took the ten year old. On the way over, told her why I was going. She thought it was silly that grown ups get worried about what anyone else thinks. She thought it was a kid thing..
I assured her it was a kid thing. But there is a little bit of kid stuff left in everyone. She sat and talked with them most of the evening.
She still likes boys..... go figure:rolleyes:
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
thats an awkward wording to really vote on for me. Should it be taught as a "natrual" way... well technically it's not natural no. But it is acceptable. can we teach young children the difference?? Perhaps not. I don't really know.
At what age are children too young to get sexual education Gosh you know young girls are getting their cycles earlier and earlier I think it has to be taught as early as possible so children understand the consequences of sex ... ack I shudder at the thought of a girl child getting pregnant, never mind having sex. Oiy I have to stop now.
At what age are children too young to get sexual education Gosh you know young girls are getting their cycles earlier and earlier I think it has to be taught as early as possible so children understand the consequences of sex ... ack I shudder at the thought of a girl child getting pregnant, never mind having sex. Oiy I have to stop now.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
― Mae West
― Mae West
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
minks;1262284 wrote: thats an awkward wording to really vote on for me. Should it be taught as a "natrual" way... well technically it's not natural no. But it is acceptable. can we teach young children the difference?? Perhaps not. I don't really know.That's exactly the topic of conversation. What are we to consider "natural"? Are we to consider the acceptance of society as "natural" or the fact that homosexuality assumes no biological response whatsoever as still being considered "natural"?
minks;1262284 wrote:
At what age are children too young to get sexual education Gosh you know young girls are getting their cycles earlier and earlier I think it has to be taught as early as possible so children understand the consequences of sex ... ack I shudder at the thought of a girl child getting pregnant, never mind having sex. Oiy I have to stop now.I have absolutely nothing against biology.
minks;1262284 wrote:
At what age are children too young to get sexual education Gosh you know young girls are getting their cycles earlier and earlier I think it has to be taught as early as possible so children understand the consequences of sex ... ack I shudder at the thought of a girl child getting pregnant, never mind having sex. Oiy I have to stop now.I have absolutely nothing against biology.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
buttercup;1262244 wrote: Yes thats true but not everybody having sex wants to reproduce.
Would you consider that natural?
Not all unable to reproduce wishes to not reproduce.
Would you consider that natural?
Not all unable to reproduce wishes to not reproduce.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262305 wrote: That's exactly the topic of conversation. What are we to consider "natural"? Are we to consider the acceptance of society as "natural" or the fact that homosexuality assumes no biological response whatsoever as still being considered "natural"?Male homosexuality - though it's an odd word in the context - is exhibited by every mammalian species I can think of. Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, you name it and there's Natural History programs that have filmed it and shown it. Oh - and monkeys. And especially dogs. I'm not convinced they achieve any form of penetration but by golly they get excited acting it out. What's so unnatural?
Can you suggest any time or any place where male homosexuality hasn't been an acknowledged aspect of human existence?
Can you suggest any time or any place where male homosexuality hasn't been an acknowledged aspect of human existence?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
spot;1262322 wrote: Male homosexuality - though it's an odd word in the context - is exhibited by every mammalian species I can think of. Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, you name it and there's Natural History programs that have filmed it and shown it. Oh - and monkeys. And especially dogs. I'm not convinced they achieve any form of penetration by by golly they get excited acting it out. What's so unnatural?
Can you suggest any time or any place where male homosexuality hasn't been an acknowledged aspect of human existence?
Let's take it a step further and suggest bestiality is natural then. Wonder how many minds have changed upon reading that sentence. (This is the part where we strap on our seat belts because it will be a bumpy ride :yh_devil)
When in history was there not some form of bestiality? Not like it doesn't exist none the less.
So then by the very same logic, schooling, children mind you, in the apparent adequacy of a person sharing a bond of love with say, "Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, you name it" is "acceptable" to society because after allgmc;1261981 wrote: It's part of the reality of life teaching children that anyone who is different from them is an abomination belongs in the past along with the teaching of children that different races are inferior and can be enslaved, or that someone who has a different religion can be killed and it's OK with god. K.Snyder;1261982 wrote: Doesn't bother me because I'm educated enough to know better
It's quite simply not natural
The rest is up for debate I suppose
Look, I don't agree with any sex being taught to children. Not gay or otherwise. The rest of that enclave would be a biased onset and when children are involved in such an atmosphere it sincerely upsets me.
I respect that people are entitled to their own opinion I just see bestiality and homosexuality being taught to children that know no better is wrong in the same sense teaching a child to slap the butt of a girl is wrong without her consent.
Homosexuality and Bestiality in a nutshell is basically the act and nothing biological which signifies bestiality and homosexuality as being no different than teaching a child to slap the rear of a girl without her approval. The lack of approval signifies a lack of purpose from which "you" get absolutely no biological response. Not one of love. Not what sex is intended for. What a child knows beyond the point of discovery is theirs to keep and should be theirs to seek.
Can you suggest any time or any place where male homosexuality hasn't been an acknowledged aspect of human existence?
Let's take it a step further and suggest bestiality is natural then. Wonder how many minds have changed upon reading that sentence. (This is the part where we strap on our seat belts because it will be a bumpy ride :yh_devil)
When in history was there not some form of bestiality? Not like it doesn't exist none the less.
So then by the very same logic, schooling, children mind you, in the apparent adequacy of a person sharing a bond of love with say, "Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, you name it" is "acceptable" to society because after allgmc;1261981 wrote: It's part of the reality of life teaching children that anyone who is different from them is an abomination belongs in the past along with the teaching of children that different races are inferior and can be enslaved, or that someone who has a different religion can be killed and it's OK with god. K.Snyder;1261982 wrote: Doesn't bother me because I'm educated enough to know better
It's quite simply not natural
The rest is up for debate I suppose
Look, I don't agree with any sex being taught to children. Not gay or otherwise. The rest of that enclave would be a biased onset and when children are involved in such an atmosphere it sincerely upsets me.
I respect that people are entitled to their own opinion I just see bestiality and homosexuality being taught to children that know no better is wrong in the same sense teaching a child to slap the butt of a girl is wrong without her consent.
Homosexuality and Bestiality in a nutshell is basically the act and nothing biological which signifies bestiality and homosexuality as being no different than teaching a child to slap the rear of a girl without her approval. The lack of approval signifies a lack of purpose from which "you" get absolutely no biological response. Not one of love. Not what sex is intended for. What a child knows beyond the point of discovery is theirs to keep and should be theirs to seek.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
I suppose this is where I ask if you(all) would accept the idea of teaching children about bestiality in schools. Or are we going off of a percentage thing here? Are we to wait until say, roughly 6% of the worlds population engages in bestiality?
Then what's your answer? We're defining "natural" here either based off of the acceptance of society as "natural" or the fact that homosexuality assumes no biological response whatsoever as still being considered "natural"?
No biological response in reference to any for of sexuality is not natural
Then what's your answer? We're defining "natural" here either based off of the acceptance of society as "natural" or the fact that homosexuality assumes no biological response whatsoever as still being considered "natural"?
No biological response in reference to any for of sexuality is not natural
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
You say "taught to" as though there are practical lessons with strap-ons being offered in Kindergartens. Nobody at any school is taught to. Children at school are informed of. They're given the vocabulary to discuss the topic. They're handed accurate information about the society in which they're growing up. A hundred years ago, intelligent women like Marie Stopes had to go to specialized libraries after their wedding just to discover what married life entailed, simply because nobody had ever given them the words or the information as they were growing up.
So, no, we're not living in a Brave New World of classroom practical sex sessions. Neither are we living in a society where school lessons on homosexuality involve advocacy or recommendation of that behaviour. It's education, pure and simple.
So, no, we're not living in a Brave New World of classroom practical sex sessions. Neither are we living in a society where school lessons on homosexuality involve advocacy or recommendation of that behaviour. It's education, pure and simple.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262324 wrote: So then by the very same logic, schooling, children mind you, in the apparent adequacy of a person sharing a bond of love with say, "Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, you name it" is "acceptable" to society because after all
PS: I forgot chickens, cows, and pigs and whatnot but you get the drift!
PS: I forgot chickens, cows, and pigs and whatnot but you get the drift!
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262328 wrote: PS: I forgot chickensWhatever you do, don't forget the chickens...
YouTube - Jasper Carrot - The Bantam
YouTube - Jasper Carrot - The Bantam
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
spot;1262327 wrote: You say "taught to" as though there are practical lessons with strap-ons being offered in Kindergartens. Nobody at any school is taught to. Children at school are informed of. They're given the vocabulary to discuss the topic. They're handed accurate information about the society in which they're growing up. A hundred years ago, intelligent women like Marie Stopes had to go to specialized libraries after their wedding just to discover what married life entailed, simply because nobody had ever given them the words or the information as they were growing up.
So, no, we're not living in a Brave New World of classroom practical sex sessions. Neither are we living in a society where school lessons on homosexuality involve advocacy or recommendation of that behaviour. It's education, pure and simple.
At what age? Above the age of 12 I'd agree, I've said that. Not meaning I'd agree with an extenuated curriculum regarding sex ed but none the less. Biology I agree with.
Marie Stopes is one of many that hardly ever learn how to live a life of marriage. You're basing this off the idea marriage is a predominantly successful thing. If people could pick up a book about "How to live" and everyones' problems would go away you think there would be as much pain as there is now?
So, no, we're not living in a Brave New World of classroom practical sex sessions. Neither are we living in a society where school lessons on homosexuality involve advocacy or recommendation of that behaviour. It's education, pure and simple.
At what age? Above the age of 12 I'd agree, I've said that. Not meaning I'd agree with an extenuated curriculum regarding sex ed but none the less. Biology I agree with.
Marie Stopes is one of many that hardly ever learn how to live a life of marriage. You're basing this off the idea marriage is a predominantly successful thing. If people could pick up a book about "How to live" and everyones' problems would go away you think there would be as much pain as there is now?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262330 wrote: Marie Stopes is one of many that hardly ever learn how to live a life of marriage.What on earth makes you accuse her of that? A year after the marriage she went to a doctor for confirmation that she was still a virgin. Ignorance is dreadful, whether you approve of the woman or not. How's she supposed to "learn how to live a life of marriage" with that sort of informational handicap?
She successfully persuaded a British court to grant her an annulment in 1916 on the basis of the examination, and on her own evidence. She claimed to have married in complete ignorance of the physical practicalities of sex, and, concerned at her failure to become pregnant, enlightened herself by studying the learned tomes in the ‘Cupboard’ of the British Museum reading room.
She successfully persuaded a British court to grant her an annulment in 1916 on the basis of the examination, and on her own evidence. She claimed to have married in complete ignorance of the physical practicalities of sex, and, concerned at her failure to become pregnant, enlightened herself by studying the learned tomes in the ‘Cupboard’ of the British Museum reading room.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
spot;1262331 wrote: What on earth makes you accuse her of that? A year after the marriage she went to a doctor for confirmation that she was still a virgin. Ignorance is dreadful, whether you approve of the woman or not. How's she supposed to "learn how to live a life of marriage" with that sort of informational handicap?
She successfully persuaded a British court to grant her an annulment in 1916 on the basis of the examination, and on her own evidence. She claimed to have married in complete ignorance of the physical practicalities of sex, and, concerned at her failure to become pregnant, enlightened herself by studying the learned tomes in the ‘Cupboard’ of the British Museum reading room.
She should have been taught her physical make up.
What's that have to do with homosexuals pressing their agenda on children?
She successfully persuaded a British court to grant her an annulment in 1916 on the basis of the examination, and on her own evidence. She claimed to have married in complete ignorance of the physical practicalities of sex, and, concerned at her failure to become pregnant, enlightened herself by studying the learned tomes in the ‘Cupboard’ of the British Museum reading room.
She should have been taught her physical make up.
What's that have to do with homosexuals pressing their agenda on children?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262334 wrote: She should have been taught her physical make up.
What's that have to do with homosexuals pressing their agenda on children?
What does "homosexuals pressing their agenda on children" have to do with what actually happens in schools? It's unreal, it's not what happens, you're making it up.
What Marie Stopes has to do with it is to show the desirability of basic information at an early age. Not indoctrination, not recommendation, just the plain facts without suppression.
What's that have to do with homosexuals pressing their agenda on children?
What does "homosexuals pressing their agenda on children" have to do with what actually happens in schools? It's unreal, it's not what happens, you're making it up.
What Marie Stopes has to do with it is to show the desirability of basic information at an early age. Not indoctrination, not recommendation, just the plain facts without suppression.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
spot;1262335 wrote: What does "homosexuals pressing their agenda on children" have to do with what actually happens in schools? It's unreal, it's not what happens, you're making it up.No I'm not necessarily making it up because I'm not necessarily talking about schools. I'm talking about the statement of homosexuality being brought to the public as being natural, in the same instance, not only is it possible, but will happen given the exact incumbency of homosexual enthusiasts, is bestiality being considered "natural" by those equally accepting homosexuality as a "natural" part of life:yh_eyerol Key word: "Life" just somehow holds no purpose in reference to homosexuality. What's not logically parallel about Homosexuality and bestiality? Honestly. The next step would be for those that feel homosexuality is "natural" suggest that bestiality is "natural" as well. You have to lest you contradict your own logic.
I don't want anyone suggesting to my kid or any kid that homosexuality is normal because it's not. That's my opinion I see as truth(Why else would I argue it if I didn't see it as such?) I won't apologize for it either.
spot;1262335 wrote:
What Marie Stopes has to do with it is to show the desirability of basic information at an early age. Not indoctrination, not recommendation, just the plain facts without suppression.
I can't say I'm exactly sure about women. They have a different
physical make up than I do. Keep it biological backed with the emphasis to make moral decisions based off of any given situation and you have an ideal society. Sex ed or not.
Kids below the age of 12 have no need for biology aside from maybe a few girls. Then just reduce the age as appropriate.
I don't want anyone suggesting to my kid or any kid that homosexuality is normal because it's not. That's my opinion I see as truth(Why else would I argue it if I didn't see it as such?) I won't apologize for it either.
spot;1262335 wrote:
What Marie Stopes has to do with it is to show the desirability of basic information at an early age. Not indoctrination, not recommendation, just the plain facts without suppression.
I can't say I'm exactly sure about women. They have a different
physical make up than I do. Keep it biological backed with the emphasis to make moral decisions based off of any given situation and you have an ideal society. Sex ed or not.Kids below the age of 12 have no need for biology aside from maybe a few girls. Then just reduce the age as appropriate.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
The use of "natural" in this thread has been linked to the act of reproducing and the conclusion asserted (rightly or not) that if the act of sex is not undertaken for the sake of reproduction it is not natural. We could expand that to say that if the act is not done with the possibility of reproduction available. Can we agree that this defines how the word "natural" is intended and applied in this discussion?
Assuming yes, then the only requirement to deconstruct the argument against homosexual sex as natural is to show that the majority of people (thereby the measure of judgment for "natural" in a societal context) have sex for the purpose of reproduction. Any time birth control is taken or used by either party in a sexual act there is no intention and little likelihood, if we buy the manufacturers' claims, that reproduction will happen. Argument thereby deconstructed on a massive scale every single night we live and breathe... even if we exclude the homosexuals from the body count of non reproductive sex in the percentages, majority sings out (or screams in passion) against that definition of natural.
The reality that a large number of people have sex while taking efforts to prevent pregnancy has been mentioned earlier in the thread and neatly avoided.
Aside from the failure to convince that gay sex is any less natural than sex while using contraceptives, there is the matter of what subjects are suitable for teaching in schools. Presumably they are adding teaching homosexuality to previously existing sex ed classes and not creating a whole new program just for that variable. So, that being correct, the issue is not about whether gay sex should be taught as natural but whether or not sex ed should be taught at all.
imo they should just teach kids that they get urges to stick body parts into things or have orifices filled and they should try to find the safest most comfortable way of satisfying that urge. End of story. Next topic, how babies are made, followed by how diseases are spread via body contact.
Assuming yes, then the only requirement to deconstruct the argument against homosexual sex as natural is to show that the majority of people (thereby the measure of judgment for "natural" in a societal context) have sex for the purpose of reproduction. Any time birth control is taken or used by either party in a sexual act there is no intention and little likelihood, if we buy the manufacturers' claims, that reproduction will happen. Argument thereby deconstructed on a massive scale every single night we live and breathe... even if we exclude the homosexuals from the body count of non reproductive sex in the percentages, majority sings out (or screams in passion) against that definition of natural.
The reality that a large number of people have sex while taking efforts to prevent pregnancy has been mentioned earlier in the thread and neatly avoided.
Aside from the failure to convince that gay sex is any less natural than sex while using contraceptives, there is the matter of what subjects are suitable for teaching in schools. Presumably they are adding teaching homosexuality to previously existing sex ed classes and not creating a whole new program just for that variable. So, that being correct, the issue is not about whether gay sex should be taught as natural but whether or not sex ed should be taught at all.
imo they should just teach kids that they get urges to stick body parts into things or have orifices filled and they should try to find the safest most comfortable way of satisfying that urge. End of story. Next topic, how babies are made, followed by how diseases are spread via body contact.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
koan;1262347 wrote: The use of "natural" in this thread has been linked to the act of reproducing and the conclusion asserted (rightly or not) that if the act of sex is not undertaken for the sake of reproduction it is not natural. We could expand that to say that if the act is not done with the possibility of reproduction available. Can we agree that this defines how the word "natural" is intended and applied in this discussion?
Assuming yes, then the only requirement to deconstruct the argument against homosexual sex as natural is to show that the majority of people (thereby the measure of judgment for "natural" in a societal context) have sex for the purpose of reproduction. Any time birth control is taken or used by either party in a sexual act there is no intention and little likelihood, if we buy the manufacturers' claims, that reproduction will happen. Argument thereby deconstructed on a massive scale every single night we live and breathe... even if we exclude the homosexuals from the body count of non reproductive sex in the percentages, majority sings out (or screams in passion) against that definition of natural.
The reality that a large number of people have sex while taking efforts to prevent pregnancy has been mentioned earlier in the thread and neatly avoided.
Aside from the failure to convince that gay sex is any less natural than sex while using contraceptives, there is the matter of what subjects are suitable for teaching in schools. Presumably they are adding teaching homosexuality to previously existing sex ed classes and not creating a whole new program just for that variable. So, that being correct, the issue is not about whether gay sex should be taught as natural but whether or not sex ed should be taught at all.
imo they should just teach kids that they get urges to stick body parts into things or have orifices filled and they should try to find the safest most comfortable way of satisfying that urge. End of story. Next topic, how babies are made, followed by how diseases are spread via body contact.
Condoms are no more natural than a "male" wishing to insert his male genitalia into another "male's" rectum
I personally don't want my kids told a lie dressed up as "the truth" and don't expect natural children to wish to hear it because it's not natural
It's insulting to their intelligence
Assuming yes, then the only requirement to deconstruct the argument against homosexual sex as natural is to show that the majority of people (thereby the measure of judgment for "natural" in a societal context) have sex for the purpose of reproduction. Any time birth control is taken or used by either party in a sexual act there is no intention and little likelihood, if we buy the manufacturers' claims, that reproduction will happen. Argument thereby deconstructed on a massive scale every single night we live and breathe... even if we exclude the homosexuals from the body count of non reproductive sex in the percentages, majority sings out (or screams in passion) against that definition of natural.
The reality that a large number of people have sex while taking efforts to prevent pregnancy has been mentioned earlier in the thread and neatly avoided.
Aside from the failure to convince that gay sex is any less natural than sex while using contraceptives, there is the matter of what subjects are suitable for teaching in schools. Presumably they are adding teaching homosexuality to previously existing sex ed classes and not creating a whole new program just for that variable. So, that being correct, the issue is not about whether gay sex should be taught as natural but whether or not sex ed should be taught at all.
imo they should just teach kids that they get urges to stick body parts into things or have orifices filled and they should try to find the safest most comfortable way of satisfying that urge. End of story. Next topic, how babies are made, followed by how diseases are spread via body contact.
Condoms are no more natural than a "male" wishing to insert his male genitalia into another "male's" rectum
I personally don't want my kids told a lie dressed up as "the truth" and don't expect natural children to wish to hear it because it's not natural
It's insulting to their intelligence
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
American Pie suggests that the homemade goodies are just as satisfying.
Sticking genitalia into anything wet and warm is pretty much the norm, kiddo.
Sticking genitalia into anything wet and warm is pretty much the norm, kiddo.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262356 wrote: Condoms are no more natural than a "male" wishing to insert his male genitalia into another "male's" rectum
I personally don't want my kids told a lie dressed up as "the truth" and don't expect natural children to wish to hear it because it's not natural
It's insulting to their intelligence
Surely it's insulting their inteligence by pretending it doesn't happen?
I personally don't want my kids told a lie dressed up as "the truth" and don't expect natural children to wish to hear it because it's not natural
It's insulting to their intelligence
Surely it's insulting their inteligence by pretending it doesn't happen?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262205 wrote: Anyone that physically attacks another human being without due provocation is wrong would you not agree?
Well no-although some advocate beating children to teach them to behave as a vital right we should not let woolly minded leftie liberals take away.
I notice you dodged my question
Perhaps the question should be rephrased to
is it acceptable to teach children that prejudice and dislike of another person based on their lifestyle/and/or sexual proclivities is perfectly OK?
I don't want anyone suggesting to my kid or any kid that homosexuality is normal because it's not. That's my opinion I see as truth(Why else would I argue it if I didn't see it as such?) I won't apologize for it either.
Why don't you let your kids hear both sides of the argument and make up their own mind? To teach it is unnatural is to teach prejudice.
prejudice
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis
I wouldn't expect you to apologise for it but you seem to think you have the right to have your opinion foisted on school kids whether their parents agree with you or not. The thing is you can discuss it with your kids and help them form their own opinions rather than form a prejudice. If people who think as you do get their way we teach children it is acceptable to despise someone and view others as less than human.
I personally don't want my kids told a lie dressed up as "the truth" and don't expect natural children to wish to hear it because it's not natural
It's insulting to their intelligence
Is it not equally as insulting-if not more so- to deny them the right to make up their own mind? The "Truth" is that it is a fact that some people are homosexual. It is your opinion it is unnatural it is not some great truth. Your way teaching it is unnatural brings misery to some and an excuse for bullying to others against anyone perceived to be the least bit effeminate-often in ways that are quite sadistic and perverted.
On balance I would say it is more acceptable than what you are suggesting.
Bringing bestiality is a bit sneaky. How about celibacy? Is it normal for a celibate priests and nuns to be giving sex education lessons to their schools or to preach about family values when they have rejected such a lifestyle for themselves?
Well no-although some advocate beating children to teach them to behave as a vital right we should not let woolly minded leftie liberals take away.
I notice you dodged my question
Perhaps the question should be rephrased to
is it acceptable to teach children that prejudice and dislike of another person based on their lifestyle/and/or sexual proclivities is perfectly OK?
I don't want anyone suggesting to my kid or any kid that homosexuality is normal because it's not. That's my opinion I see as truth(Why else would I argue it if I didn't see it as such?) I won't apologize for it either.
Why don't you let your kids hear both sides of the argument and make up their own mind? To teach it is unnatural is to teach prejudice.
prejudice
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis
I wouldn't expect you to apologise for it but you seem to think you have the right to have your opinion foisted on school kids whether their parents agree with you or not. The thing is you can discuss it with your kids and help them form their own opinions rather than form a prejudice. If people who think as you do get their way we teach children it is acceptable to despise someone and view others as less than human.
I personally don't want my kids told a lie dressed up as "the truth" and don't expect natural children to wish to hear it because it's not natural
It's insulting to their intelligence
Is it not equally as insulting-if not more so- to deny them the right to make up their own mind? The "Truth" is that it is a fact that some people are homosexual. It is your opinion it is unnatural it is not some great truth. Your way teaching it is unnatural brings misery to some and an excuse for bullying to others against anyone perceived to be the least bit effeminate-often in ways that are quite sadistic and perverted.
On balance I would say it is more acceptable than what you are suggesting.
Bringing bestiality is a bit sneaky. How about celibacy? Is it normal for a celibate priests and nuns to be giving sex education lessons to their schools or to preach about family values when they have rejected such a lifestyle for themselves?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
No, one again we are being driven by the minority which is being reinforced by media.
Is it part of our society? Yes
Do we accept it? Yes, live and let live and all that..
Should we then start teaching it as being normal? No
Is it part of our society? Yes
Do we accept it? Yes, live and let live and all that..
Should we then start teaching it as being normal? No
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
mikeinie;1262373 wrote: No, one again we are being driven by the minority which is being reinforced by media.
Is it part of our society? Yes
Do we accept it? Yes, live and let live and all that..
Should we then start teaching it as being normal? No
If you accept it then surely you are saying it is normal?
Is it part of our society? Yes
Do we accept it? Yes, live and let live and all that..
Should we then start teaching it as being normal? No
If you accept it then surely you are saying it is normal?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
We could do with defining "child" here. Are we talking about prepubescent or post?
I think I am in favour of some basic factual stuff prepubescent. Along the lines of "These changes are going to start happening to you soon. It's normal."
I am in favour of more detailed sex education post pubescent. It seems girls and boys do have a good idea of their sexual orientation by their mid to late teens and having homo and heterosexuality reasonably well understood and accepted at that sort of age would, in my view, be a good thing. I have known marriages fail because one partner was trying desperately to be straight when they were gay and had known it for years, causing great distress to all concerned.
"Natural"? What is "natural" and why does it matter? "Normal" and "acceptable" are more important and relevant words here, in my opinion.
And what about bisexuals? Always felt they theoretically get the best of both worlds, but actually get prejudice from both. Poor lucky boggers.
I think I am in favour of some basic factual stuff prepubescent. Along the lines of "These changes are going to start happening to you soon. It's normal."
I am in favour of more detailed sex education post pubescent. It seems girls and boys do have a good idea of their sexual orientation by their mid to late teens and having homo and heterosexuality reasonably well understood and accepted at that sort of age would, in my view, be a good thing. I have known marriages fail because one partner was trying desperately to be straight when they were gay and had known it for years, causing great distress to all concerned.
"Natural"? What is "natural" and why does it matter? "Normal" and "acceptable" are more important and relevant words here, in my opinion.
And what about bisexuals? Always felt they theoretically get the best of both worlds, but actually get prejudice from both. Poor lucky boggers.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262305 wrote: That's exactly the topic of conversation. What are we to consider "natural"? Are we to consider the acceptance of society as "natural" or the fact that homosexuality assumes no biological response whatsoever as still being considered "natural"?
I have absolutely nothing against biology.
natural, nature made? Good lord I looked up Natural on dictionary.com way to many definitions to include here.
I think we need to teach children that acceptance means they accept "differences" and Homosexuality is a difference in choice, not a natural choice.
I have absolutely nothing against biology.
natural, nature made? Good lord I looked up Natural on dictionary.com way to many definitions to include here.
I think we need to teach children that acceptance means they accept "differences" and Homosexuality is a difference in choice, not a natural choice.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
― Mae West
― Mae West
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
I'd also note that K's working definition of "natural" allows for middle aged men to have sex with young girls as soon as they start menstruating.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
koan;1262358 wrote: American Pie suggests that the homemade goodies are just as satisfying.
Sticking genitalia into anything wet and warm is pretty much the norm, kiddo.
American Pie is "rated R for strong sexuality, crude sexual dialogue, language and drinking, ..." sweety.
What is it about picking and choosing about what the actual argument is about?
Sticking genitalia into anything wet and warm is pretty much the norm, kiddo.
American Pie is "rated R for strong sexuality, crude sexual dialogue, language and drinking, ..." sweety.
What is it about picking and choosing about what the actual argument is about?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
abbey;1262360 wrote: Surely it's insulting their inteligence by pretending it doesn't happen?
Sure it happens.
I'm having trouble in understanding why anyone would think I would be disrespectful to anyone gay or otherwise. No one knows who I am. I would do anything for anybody(So long as I felt the request were rational - Engaging in homosexual activity is not rational to me and I don't believe it would be pleasing in the least), and that includes if they were homosexual or not.
We're talking about homosexuality generating absolutely no biological response from which serves to be no different than one having a relationship with "Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, ...Oh - and monkeys.".
By the logic of finding nothing wrong with teaching homosexuality is "natural" is no different than minding if your child is taught that bestiality is "natural". Afterall,abbey;1262360 wrote: Surely it's insulting their inteligence by pretending it doesn't happen?
Sure it happens.
I'm having trouble in understanding why anyone would think I would be disrespectful to anyone gay or otherwise. No one knows who I am. I would do anything for anybody(So long as I felt the request were rational - Engaging in homosexual activity is not rational to me and I don't believe it would be pleasing in the least), and that includes if they were homosexual or not.
We're talking about homosexuality generating absolutely no biological response from which serves to be no different than one having a relationship with "Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, ...Oh - and monkeys.".
By the logic of finding nothing wrong with teaching homosexuality is "natural" is no different than minding if your child is taught that bestiality is "natural". Afterall,abbey;1262360 wrote: Surely it's insulting their inteligence by pretending it doesn't happen?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Ok K i see where you are coming from with the beastiality as a comparison, no i don't want my kids knowing about that in a living and growing sex education class in primary school.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1262366 wrote: Well no-although some advocate beating children to teach them to behave as a vital right we should not let woolly minded leftie liberals take away.
I notice you dodged my question
Perhaps the question should be rephrased to
is it acceptable to teach children that prejudice and dislike of another person based on their lifestyle/and/or sexual proclivities is perfectly OK?
No
gmc;1262366 wrote:
Why don't you let your kids hear both sides of the argument and make up their own mind? To teach it is unnatural is to teach prejudice. I will let my child make up their mind at a certain age. An age from which it won't confuse the hell out of their natural instinct. Until then I don't want my child being suggested to that homosexuality is natural, because it isn't
gmc;1262366 wrote:
I wouldn't expect you to apologise for it but you seem to think you have the right to have your opinion foisted on school kids whether their parents agree with you or not. The thing is you can discuss it with your kids and help them form their own opinions rather than form a prejudice. If people who think as you do get their way we teach children it is acceptable to despise someone and view others as less than human. You're turning this into a prejudice issue. All I've ever done was express my opinion that I knew it weren't natural. If people want to tuck their tail between their legs and run from that it's not my problem, it's theirs.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1262484-post77.html
gmc;1262366 wrote:
Is it not equally as insulting-if not more so- to deny them the right to make up their own mind? The "Truth" is that it is a fact that some people are homosexual. It is your opinion it is unnatural it is not some great truth. Your way teaching it is unnatural brings misery to some and an excuse for bullying to others against anyone perceived to be the least bit effeminate-often in ways that are quite sadistic and perverted. No you're just not understanding. By my preference to not have a lie suggested to my children is "a truth" I'm not at all suggesting I'd teach them homosexuality is unnatural. I will let them decide that on their own. People just like to remain on the offensive that's all.
"On balance I would say it is more acceptable than what you are suggesting."
gmc;1262366 wrote:
Bringing bestiality is a bit sneaky. How about celibacy? Is it normal for a celibate priests and nuns to be giving sex education lessons to their schools or to preach about family values when they have rejected such a lifestyle for themselves?I personally find celibacy as being unnatural, physically speaking, but understand if the reason for it is in fear of over population. I admire that aspect of it. As far as "sin" and what not I find those that remain celibate because of that to be psycho. It's what you get when you have people brainwash children.
I notice you dodged my question
Perhaps the question should be rephrased to
is it acceptable to teach children that prejudice and dislike of another person based on their lifestyle/and/or sexual proclivities is perfectly OK?
No
gmc;1262366 wrote:
Why don't you let your kids hear both sides of the argument and make up their own mind? To teach it is unnatural is to teach prejudice. I will let my child make up their mind at a certain age. An age from which it won't confuse the hell out of their natural instinct. Until then I don't want my child being suggested to that homosexuality is natural, because it isn't
gmc;1262366 wrote:
I wouldn't expect you to apologise for it but you seem to think you have the right to have your opinion foisted on school kids whether their parents agree with you or not. The thing is you can discuss it with your kids and help them form their own opinions rather than form a prejudice. If people who think as you do get their way we teach children it is acceptable to despise someone and view others as less than human. You're turning this into a prejudice issue. All I've ever done was express my opinion that I knew it weren't natural. If people want to tuck their tail between their legs and run from that it's not my problem, it's theirs.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1262484-post77.html
gmc;1262366 wrote:
Is it not equally as insulting-if not more so- to deny them the right to make up their own mind? The "Truth" is that it is a fact that some people are homosexual. It is your opinion it is unnatural it is not some great truth. Your way teaching it is unnatural brings misery to some and an excuse for bullying to others against anyone perceived to be the least bit effeminate-often in ways that are quite sadistic and perverted. No you're just not understanding. By my preference to not have a lie suggested to my children is "a truth" I'm not at all suggesting I'd teach them homosexuality is unnatural. I will let them decide that on their own. People just like to remain on the offensive that's all.
"On balance I would say it is more acceptable than what you are suggesting."
gmc;1262366 wrote:
Bringing bestiality is a bit sneaky. How about celibacy? Is it normal for a celibate priests and nuns to be giving sex education lessons to their schools or to preach about family values when they have rejected such a lifestyle for themselves?I personally find celibacy as being unnatural, physically speaking, but understand if the reason for it is in fear of over population. I admire that aspect of it. As far as "sin" and what not I find those that remain celibate because of that to be psycho. It's what you get when you have people brainwash children.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
buttercup;1262486 wrote: Ok K i see where you are coming from with the beastiality as a comparison, no i don't want my kids knowing about that in a living and growing sex education class in primary school.
There we have it. Your homosexuality(Humans) is my bestiality.
There we have it. Your homosexuality(Humans) is my bestiality.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
gmc;1262376 wrote: If you accept it then surely you are saying it is normal?
Normal for adults.
Not brainwashing children. How do you find that different than religion?
Normal for adults.
Not brainwashing children. How do you find that different than religion?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262484 wrote: Sure it happens.
I'm having trouble in understanding why anyone would think I would be disrespectful to anyone gay or otherwise. No one knows who I am. I would do anything for anybody(So long as I felt the request were rational - Engaging in homosexual activity is not rational to me and I don't believe it would be pleasing in the least), and that includes if they were homosexual or not.
We're talking about homosexuality generating absolutely no biological response from which serves to be no different than one having a relationship with "Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, ...Oh - and monkeys.".
By the logic of finding nothing wrong with teaching homosexuality is "natural" is no different than minding if your child is taught that bestiality is "natural". Afterall,How on earth can you equate the two
Homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two human beings.
Your reasoning is illogical!
I'm having trouble in understanding why anyone would think I would be disrespectful to anyone gay or otherwise. No one knows who I am. I would do anything for anybody(So long as I felt the request were rational - Engaging in homosexual activity is not rational to me and I don't believe it would be pleasing in the least), and that includes if they were homosexual or not.
We're talking about homosexuality generating absolutely no biological response from which serves to be no different than one having a relationship with "Dogs, horses, dogs, elephants, dogs, dogs, ...Oh - and monkeys.".
By the logic of finding nothing wrong with teaching homosexuality is "natural" is no different than minding if your child is taught that bestiality is "natural". Afterall,How on earth can you equate the two
Homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two human beings.
Your reasoning is illogical!
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
abbey;1262499 wrote: How on earth can you equate the two
Homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two human beings.
Your reasoning is illogical!
No it's very logical.
Someone making love to say a dog and the dog and person had a loving relationship you wouldn't mind that were taught to children?
Homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two human beings.
Your reasoning is illogical!
No it's very logical.
Someone making love to say a dog and the dog and person had a loving relationship you wouldn't mind that were taught to children?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
An important difference between homosexuality and bestiality is that no animal can be a consenting responsible adult partner.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262502 wrote: No it's very logical.
Someone making love to say a dog and the dog and person had a loving relationship you wouldn't mind that were taught to children?
Of course I would, as I said, the two things just aren't equal!
How on earth is an animal consenting?
Someone making love to say a dog and the dog and person had a loving relationship you wouldn't mind that were taught to children?
Of course I would, as I said, the two things just aren't equal!
How on earth is an animal consenting?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Clodhopper;1262511 wrote: An important difference between homosexuality and bestiality is that no animal can be a consenting responsible adult partner.
abbey;1262514 wrote: Of course I would, as I said, the two things just aren't equal!
How on earth is an animal consenting?
There are many instances of male dogs having sex with female humans. Would you suggest they're not consenting?
Just because the significant majority of women(Humans) are sexy doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Even speaking of it hypothetically serves my point.
Your homosexuality is my bestiality. It's logically sound in all I've posted. The difficulty is refraining from using the definition of "acceptance" to define "Logical".
abbey;1262514 wrote: Of course I would, as I said, the two things just aren't equal!
How on earth is an animal consenting?
There are many instances of male dogs having sex with female humans. Would you suggest they're not consenting?
Just because the significant majority of women(Humans) are sexy doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Even speaking of it hypothetically serves my point.
Your homosexuality is my bestiality. It's logically sound in all I've posted. The difficulty is refraining from using the definition of "acceptance" to define "Logical".
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
I know nothing of dog porn but i can tell you dogs often have to be assisted in mating bitches so i'd imagine they would have to be assisted to mate humans, its not natural to them and your the one going on about natural.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Animals are not and cannot be responsible (in the sense we are using "responsible" here). Humans can be. Big difference. I do not see homosexuality as in any way equivalent to bestiality.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
buttercup;1262519 wrote: I know nothing of dog porn but i can tell you dogs often have to be assisted in mating bitches so i'd imagine they would have to be assisted to mate humans, its not natural to them and your the one going on about natural.
Why is it not natural to dogs when they choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a human?
Why is it not natural to dogs when they choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a human?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Clodhopper;1262521 wrote: Animals are not and cannot be responsible (in the sense we are using "responsible" here). Humans can be. Big difference. I do not see homosexuality as in any way equivalent to bestiality.
I disagree.
I disagree.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262548 wrote: Why is it not natural to dogs when they choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a human?
Have you gone mental?
Where have you seen this happen by choice on the dogs part? If its in some weirdo doggie porn movie i'd be willing to bet a human has been encouraging the dog, seriously Kev dogs just don't know how to find a humans vagina and get stuck into it.
Have you gone mental?
Where have you seen this happen by choice on the dogs part? If its in some weirdo doggie porn movie i'd be willing to bet a human has been encouraging the dog, seriously Kev dogs just don't know how to find a humans vagina and get stuck into it.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
buttercup;1262564 wrote: Have you gone mental?
Where have you seen this happen by choice on the dogs part? If its in some weirdo doggie porn movie i'd be willing to bet a human has been encouraging the dog, seriously Kev dogs just don't know how to find a humans vagina and get stuck into it.
I've seen plenty of dogs hump peoples' legs. How is that not at all considered choice? It is sexual is it not?
What's left is getting a human being to not be appalled by it. It's not like it doesn't exist.
Perfectly adjacent.
It's all logically there, most people just don't want to accept it. In the same way I don't wish to accept homosexuality as being natural, nor do I want a bold faced lie told to my children or any other
People define "Logic" based off of what they choose to accept and it's not accurate
Where have you seen this happen by choice on the dogs part? If its in some weirdo doggie porn movie i'd be willing to bet a human has been encouraging the dog, seriously Kev dogs just don't know how to find a humans vagina and get stuck into it.
I've seen plenty of dogs hump peoples' legs. How is that not at all considered choice? It is sexual is it not?
What's left is getting a human being to not be appalled by it. It's not like it doesn't exist.
Perfectly adjacent.
It's all logically there, most people just don't want to accept it. In the same way I don't wish to accept homosexuality as being natural, nor do I want a bold faced lie told to my children or any other
People define "Logic" based off of what they choose to accept and it's not accurate
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Clearly you do not have a dog or know very little of dog behaviour.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
buttercup;1262567 wrote: Clearly you do not have a dog or know very little of dog behaviour.
So I'm not accurate in suggesting that a dog humping a persons' legs is a sexual act?
So I'm not accurate in suggesting that a dog humping a persons' legs is a sexual act?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Reasons for dog humping
Dominance
Excited
Anxious
Bored
Seeking attention
Compulsive disorder
are just a few
Dominance
Excited
Anxious
Bored
Seeking attention
Compulsive disorder
are just a few
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
buttercup;1262570 wrote: No its not.
For the sake of assuming a male dog, or a female dog for that matter, wouldn't grin from ear to ear in the event a human was more than willing how about masturbation, is masturbation natural? If so, would you want people to tell children it's natural? Keeping in mind that we're talking about kids roughly below the age of 12.
For the sake of assuming a male dog, or a female dog for that matter, wouldn't grin from ear to ear in the event a human was more than willing how about masturbation, is masturbation natural? If so, would you want people to tell children it's natural? Keeping in mind that we're talking about kids roughly below the age of 12.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
Jeez Kev kids below the age of 12 have already had a fiddle with themselves, your flogging a dead horse here mate, you should crack open a beer and chill out.
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
buttercup;1262577 wrote: Jeez Kev kids below the age of 12 have already had a fiddle with themselves, your flogging a dead horse here mate, you should crack open a beer and chill out.
Regardless would you want children to be taught that masturbation is natural?
Regardless would you want children to be taught that masturbation is natural?
Homosexuality taught to children as natural acceptable?
K.Snyder;1262576 wrote: For the sake of assuming a male dog, or a female dog for that matter, wouldn't grin from ear to ear in the event a human was more than willing how about masturbation, is masturbation natural? If so, would you want people to tell children it's natural? Keeping in mind that we're talking about kids roughly below the age of 12.
If you understood dog behaviour you would not make that statement.
If you understood dog behaviour you would not make that statement.