Well I knew they would find a way to indoctrinate children.......

[classy]

LOL @ all the people you call bigots coming in here.

Amused you got PM from like 4 days ago.

I have a problem with this when the kids are 6-9 years old. That is just way too young. And no one should be allowed at that age to introduce this subject to your child either. Red mentioned inter-racial marriages, in all my life I have never come across a curriculum soley for inter-racial marriages. But outside of telling a kid hey my mom or dad is a different color no other discussion was needed. But that is a far cry from explaining to kid who plays with army men that two cowboys can be boyfriend and boyfriend like a little boy and little girl can boyfriend and girlfriend.

My indoctrinated statement I made for the sole purpose to prove a point. You can read the threads about how the kids were some how being taught how to worship Obama. But where is the same judgement here? And right on time a couple folks posted about Obama. And finally to reinforce my position, all things can be discussed, but certain topics should age appropiate. I think far to many parents rights are being usurped over by schools in the name of education.

 

[Throckmorton]

I wonder if they'll include HIV in the curriculum and the fact that 20% of men who have sex with men are HIV+.

It's extremely politically incorrect to publicly discuss that, and as a result a LOT of gay men have become infected because they don't realize they're at a ridiculously higher risk.

 

[classy]

Also you can't have any discussion about homosexuality unless you are in total agreement with it. If you don't support gay marriage you're a bigot, if you don't think your child should be taught this in school you're a bigot. Unless you embrace homosexuality completely you are a bigot. Its the biggest joke running. I have to accept the sexual appetities of some people group, no matter how strange they may be or else there is something wrong with me. I just don't get it...................

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Also you can't have any discussion about homosexuality unless you are in total agreement with it. If you don't support gay marriage you're a bigot, if you don't think your child should be taught this in school you're a bigot. Unless you embrace homosexuality completely you are a bigot. Its the biggest joke running. I have to accept the sexual appetities of some people group, no matter how strange they may be or else there is something wrong with me. I just don't get it...................

You mean just like how atheists have to accept the practices of Christians?

 

[classy]

You mean just like how atheists have to accept the practices of Christians?

That is an excellent contrast. But we have a clear separation between church and state. You can't pray in school. You can't have lunch time prayer meetings or give out church literature. Its okay to seperate our kids from being taught some kind of personal religion in school. But its okay to teach our kids personal sexual lifestyles?

 

[Craig234]

That is an excellent contrast. But we have a clear separation between church and state. You can't pray in school. You can't have lunch time prayer meetings or give out church literature. Its okay to seperate our kids from being taught some kind of personal religion in school. But its okay to teach our kids personal sexual lifestyles?

Well, idiot, they don't 'teach personal sexual lifestyles' by including the gay people when representing society any more than they 'teach black' by including black people.

You're the one demanding they EXCLUDE gay people as if they don't exist, so people with your bigoted sensibilities can pretend that, you are the one wanting to 'indoctrinate kids'.

You don't teach people to be gay, or not gay - but you can teach bigotry or teach not to be bigoted.

 

[zsdersw]

classy.. I don't think you're necessarily a bigot, but I do think you're woefully naive and uninformed about homosexuality in general and GLBT people in particular. Everything you've posted on the subject looks like nothing more than a regurgitation of stereotypes.

If you're not capable of a rational discussion about homosexuality and homosexuals beyond stereotypes, you're uninformed. If you refuse to become informed, you're purposefully ignorant. Neither of those make you a bigot, per se, but you're hardly one to be taken seriously when you talk about homosexuality and/or GLBT individuals.

 

[wuliheron]

Real assholes, you mean, you fucking bigot. Thank God your kind is dying out like the shit head bigot racists. I love you, you understand, even though you're a worthless piece of shit. Just want to convert you. I'm the real American, you piece of crap.

Oh, I love you too and Baby Jebus loves you even more! However, he doesn't like cussing, lies, or hypocrites. Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry! Welcome to the fold son, you are truly a real American. Now we just need to work on focusing all that hate at the right people.

As a small minority group with a lot of enculturated self-loathing homosexuals are an easy target to begin with, but if they don't appeal to you I'm sure we can find some other group. Please, tell me all about who you hate and why you hate them. I'm sure someone somewhere can help to hone that hate towards productive use and eventually you'll come around to my way of thinking.

 

[JD50]

Like anyone needed more evidence that classy is a bigot. And Craig you're ridiculous, you must be suffocating from the weight of your own ego.

Save234

 

[classy]

Like anyone needed more evidence that classy is a bigot. And Craig you're ridiculous, you must be suffocating from the weight of your own ego.

Save234

Coming from you is a laugh in itself.

 

[Throckmorton]

Don't confuse different culture and values with bigotry. Conservative Christians and Muslims have proscriptions against homosexuality as part of their culture, with the same biblical roots as not eating pork and shellfish. You can't really argue with the results-- look at how low the HIV rate is among Christian conservatives and Arabs. By stigmatizing and banning an extremely high risk behavior, they've virtually eliminated a major disease vector.

In a perfect world we could stigmatize anal sex among gay men as dirty, and eliminate the insanely high 20% HIV infection prevalence, without considering gayness itself to be wrong.

 

[zsdersw]

Don't confuse different culture and values with bigotry. Conservative Christians and Muslims have proscriptions against homosexuality as part of their culture, with the same biblical roots as not eating pork and shellfish. You can't really argue with the results-- look at how low the HIV rate is among Christian conservatives and Arabs. By stigmatizing and banning an extremely high risk behavior, they've virtually eliminated a major disease vector.

In a perfect world we could stigmatize anal sex among gay men as dirty, and eliminate the insanely high 20% HIV infection prevalence, without considering gayness itself to be wrong.

Anal sex isn't the problem... unprotected anal sex is the problem.

 

[Throckmorton]

Anal sex isn't the problem... unprotected anal sex is the problem.

They make special thick condoms for anal sex because condom damage is more likely.... which I have never seen in a store.

Gay men need to be educated on the reality that anal sex really is dirty. For some reason they just don't feel the need to wear condoms, much less the special ones.

Edit: Anal sex IS the problem. Unprotected anal sex is much higher risk than unprotected vaginal sex. That's why even though MSM only make up 2% of the population, they account for half of HIV diagnoses. Two decades of political correctness fucked you over and you should be pissed at America for downplaying the reality that HIV is a gay disease even moreso than breast cancer is a women's disease.

 

[zsdersw]

They make special thick condoms for anal sex because condom damage is more likely.... which I have never seen in a store.

Gay men need to be educated on the reality that anal sex really is dirty. For some reason they just don't feel the need to wear condoms, much less the special ones.

Edit: Anal sex IS the problem. Unprotected anal sex is much higher risk than unprotected vaginal sex. That's why even though MSM only make up 2% of the population, they account for half of HIV diagnoses. Two decades of political correctness fucked you over and you should be pissed at America for downplaying the reality that HIV is a gay disease even moreso than breast cancer is a women's disease.

Unprotected anal sex is the problem, not anal sex in general. You need to also remember that anal sex is increasingly popular among heterosexuals.

 

[Throckmorton]

Unprotected anal sex is the problem, not anal sex in general. You need to also remember that anal sex is increasingly popular among heterosexuals.

Anal sex may be increasingly popular among heterosexuals, but we're starting out with a much lower HIV rate-- something like .1% vs 20%-- so the risk is still far lower than it is for MSM.

 

[zsdersw]

Anal sex may be increasingly popular among heterosexuals, but we're starting out with a much lower HIV rate-- something like .1% vs 20%-- so the risk is still far lower than it is for MSM.

It's still "dirty" (your characterization, not mine).

Anyway, it seems to me the real problem isn't who's having anal sex, but whether they're using a condom or not.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's still "dirty" (your characterization, not mine).

Anyway, it seems to me the real problem isn't who's having anal sex, but whether they're using a condom or not.

Fact is unprotected anal sex with a gay man, who has a 20% chance of being HIV+, is about as dirty as it gets. Any dirtier and you're talking about subsaharan Africa.

Who is working on convincing gay men to use condoms? If it was any other group of people that had a 20% prevalence of a disease, it would be declared a national emergency, and there would be a massive campaign to raise awareness, educate, and find a cure. Just look at breast cancer.

But because it's gays, and it's politically incorrect to associate HIV with gay men, nothing is being done.

 

[Vette73]

That is an excellent contrast. But we have a clear separation between church and state. You can't pray in school. You can't have lunch time prayer meetings or give out church literature. Its okay to seperate our kids from being taught some kind of personal religion in school. But its okay to teach our kids personal sexual lifestyles?

More classy BS.

YOU can pray in school all you want. The school and its admins can not tell you to pray.

 

[Craig234]

Don't confuse different culture and values with bigotry. Conservative Christians and Muslims have proscriptions against homosexuality as part of their culture, with the same biblical roots as not eating pork and shellfish. You can't really argue with the results-- look at how low the HIV rate is among Christian conservatives and Arabs. By stigmatizing and banning an extremely high risk behavior, they've virtually eliminated a major disease vector.

In a perfect world we could stigmatize anal sex among gay men as dirty, and eliminate the insanely high 20% HIV infection prevalence, without considering gayness itself to be wrong.

In Africa, there's a strong anti-gay bigotry, and yet AIDS rates are among the highest.

It doesn't need to be 'in a perfect world' to oppose both AIDS and bigotry. We can and should do that.

If AIDS didn't exist, I don't think almost any of the anti-gay bigots here would be any less bigoted - that's just a convenient excuse.

By the way, how do teen pregnancy rates among 'conservative Christians' compare to the general population?

http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/09/18...christians-have-highest-teen-pregnancy-rates/

So, I guess it's justified to 'stigmatize' them if it reduces a 'major problem vector' of teen pregnancies?

No, it's not. And there's no need to 'stigmatize' gay sex, but instead to increase condom usage - and hey, maybe even monogamy, with marriage, which 'stigmatizing' *prevents*.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer233/sufian.html

Check the link above for info on the region not keeping good track of AIDS cases, with the rates possibly being much higher; and also for how they are improving dealing with the issue, such as Iran going from terrible policies to far better ones, which include REDUCING the 'sitgma' of AIDS, in spite of their President claiming there are no gays in Iran.

 

[zsdersw]

Fact is unprotected anal sex with a gay man, who has a 20% chance of being HIV+, is about as dirty as it gets. Any dirtier and you're talking about subsaharan Africa.

Who is working on convincing gay men to use condoms? If it was any other group of people that had a 20% prevalence of a disease, it would be declared a national emergency, and there would be a massive campaign to raise awareness, educate, and find a cure. Just look at breast cancer.

But because it's gays, and it's politically incorrect to associate HIV with gay men, nothing is being done.

You're amazingly uninformed (something I'm not surprised to see) if you don't think anyone is trying to convince gay men to use condoms. Every gay organization and publication tries to do so.

 

[JD50]

Coming from you is a laugh in itself.

Fail

 

[Craig234]

They make special thick condoms for anal sex because condom damage is more likely.... which I have never seen in a store.

Gay men need to be educated on the reality that anal sex really is dirty. For some reason they just don't feel the need to wear condoms, much less the special ones.

Edit: Anal sex IS the problem. Unprotected anal sex is much higher risk than unprotected vaginal sex. That's why even though MSM only make up 2% of the population, they account for half of HIV diagnoses. Two decades of political correctness fucked you over and you should be pissed at America for downplaying the reality that HIV is a gay disease even moreso than breast cancer is a women's disease.

No, it's A problem. On the one hand, you have a point that there is a history of downplaying the relative risk that anal sex is much more dangerous than heterosexual sex.

On the other hand, what harm did that cause, if it led ot greater concern among heterosexuals and lower rates of risky sex?

You say heterosexuals should be 'pissed'. Why? What's the harm? Because the rates are lower, and more heterosexuals should have done risky behavior?

There are many other problems than anal sex. Drug needles is a major one. Globally, poverty is a serious problem as well, such as unsanitary situations.

 

[Throckmorton]

In Africa, there's a strong anti-gay bigotry, and yet AIDS rates are among the highest.

It doesn't need to be 'in a perfect world' to oppose both AIDS and bigotry. We can and should do that.

If AIDS didn't exist, I don't think almost any of the anti-gay bigots here would be any less bigoted - that's just a convenient excuse.

By the way, how do teen pregnancy rates among 'conservative Christians' compare to the general population?

http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/09/18...christians-have-highest-teen-pregnancy-rates/

So, I guess it's justified to 'stigmatize' them if it reduces a 'major problem vector' of teen pregnancies?

No, it's not. And there's no need to 'stigmatize' gay sex, but instead to increase condom usage - and hey, maybe even monogamy, with marriage, which 'stigmatizing' *prevents*.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer233/sufian.html

Check the link above for info on the region not keeping good track of AIDS cases, with the rates possibly being much higher; and also for how they are improving dealing with the issue, such as Iran going from terrible policies to far better ones, which include REDUCING the 'sitgma' of AIDS, in spite of their President claiming there are no gays in Iran.

Subsaharan Africa has such high HIV rates because of bush meat and massive amounts of unprotected sex of all kinds, especially rape.

I agree, gay marriage would probably reduce the HIV rate.

But as it is, gay men don't seem to realize that anal sex is the reason they have a 20% HIV prevalence and heterosexuals and lesbians don't, otherwise they would never even think about unprotected anal.

I think most people wouldn't have sex, even protected, with someone who had a 1/5 chance of having HIV.

 

[zsdersw]

But as it is, gay men don't seem to realize that anal sex is the reason they have a 20% HIV prevalence and heterosexuals and lesbians don't, otherwise they would never even think about unprotected anal.

Unprotected anal sex is part of the reason for HIV's prevalence.. not anal sex in general.

I think most people wouldn't have sex, even protected, with someone who had a 1/5 chance of having HIV.

.. a further illustration of your naivety.

 

[Throckmorton]

Unprotected anal sex is part of the reason for HIV's prevalence.. not anal sex in general.



.. a further illustration of your naivety.

That's what I'm saying.... gay men have so much unprotected anal sex that their HIV prevalence is 20%, because they don't seem to understand that it's extremely high risk. It needs to be restigmatized, so that they rightfully fear it.

And are you saying you'd put on a condom and have sex with someone who has such a high chance of being HIV+, knowing there's a risk of the condom breaking, or some bodily fluid containing HIV getting onto a permeable membrane of your body?