GAY TEACHER READS HOMOSEXUAL STORY TO 3RD GRADERS

That must also be why queers are called queer.

 

I don't know what a queer is. Outside of strange I don't really know what that word means.

 

as I understand it this book didn't go into the type of sexual acts the two so-called Kings participated in.

Maybe if you could think about something other than sex you wouldn't see an issue with it.

I don't know why it's always sex with the religious right. It's like it's all you guys think about.

 

If anything, I think it's the progressives and their gay buddies who keep shoving their (deviant!) sexuality in our faces. These things that you are hearing from me is a reaction to your nonsense.

This did not answer my question. I will re-phrase it. You claim that children need to be exposed to homosexuality (instead of other forms of deviancy) because it (homosexuality) is a common occurrence. My question to you then, is how often does, say, necrophilia have to occur, before you will start demanding schools teach it to children.

In specific language and give a hard number please. Tell me how many people out of 300 million would have to be necrophiliacs before we start teaching children about it.

 

Acts of Necrophilia is illegal, Homosexuality is not.

Therefore...necrophilia will not be taught in schools. But since a child might announce that he or she has two of the same sex parents or other children see a same-sex couple cheering on their child at a sports-ball or other extracurricular activity...questions will be asked and answers should be given.

 

Maybe necrophilia wasn't a good example (although I must say it's a mere misdemeanor). What about the fetish involving fecal matter? If we have a lot of poop-lovers in our society, should we start teaching it to children?

 

I haven't said a thing to you about my sexuality.

I never claimed children should be exposed to any sexuality.

I didn't make the claim that common occurrence means we should teach it to children.

See above

 

Are you telling me you don't understand the difference between a paraphilia and a sexual orientation?

We shouldn't teach children about paraphilias.

 

I don't mean you personally. I was talking about liberals and progressives shoving gays and gays' sexuality into our faces.

The later part of my post was in response to Skruddgemire, not you.

 

So why don't you tell me the difference/s between them if you are so knowledgeable on this matter.

I can also say that we shouldn't teach children about deviant sexual behaviors such as homosexuality.

 

I'm a libertarian.

Fair enough.

 

You don't see a difference between a man and a woman in a relationship and a person that gets they're jollies off by wrapping themselves in plastic?

Really?

Sexual behaviors whether you find them strange or not typically don't need to be taught. And again what sexual behaviors do you think were in this children's book?

 

You failed to answer my question. And please do not imply that I am stupid and/or ignorant. Let's keep things civil.

I wasn't talking about this particular book. I was speaking in term of general concepts. We should not be exposing children to homosexuality in school.

 

Actually several here on the forum have argued that two lesbians and a sperm donor is a gay couple procreating.

 

You didn't answer my question. I find it hard too believe that you think sexual orientations are the same as fetishes. I apologize for any condescension. That was not my intent.

Well, i don't think they teach homosexuality in schools. And you can't halt exposure to it without placing heavy restrictions on homosexual teachers or students. I don't think homosexuals will take to that too kindly.

There is a level of professionalism that is expected of teachers. And parents should have a say in what their children learn. I recognize an effort to push acceptance on people. I don't think it's necessary for teachers to talk about things like this at school. But i also don't think it's wrong that there are homosexual teachers.

 

Than you should address those people with this.

 

Well let's put it in a way that it doesn't matter the fetish is.

Exposing children to sexual activity (vanilla sex or sexual fetish) is illegal under federal obscenity laws. There are no laws regarding keeping children from seeing people kiss, hug, or hold hands or otherwise being in love.

So if little Timmy says that he's seen his parents doing [insert sexual activity or fetish here], then that's illegal and therefore will not be taught in public schools as the children in public schools are below the legal age of adulthood. Little Suzy on the other hand being picked up by her two mommies or daddy's...is not illegal and therefore should be addressed as it is something the children might be exposed to (legally) and may have questions regarding that.

As long as the explanation only involves the fact that a same-sex couple can love each other like a different sex couple can...it should be fine and honestly should not any longer than 10 minutes, 15 tops and then the teachers can get back to having the kids grinding for the standardized tests.

 

Oh and while the act of necrophilia is a misdemeanor, I think it qualifies as unlawful disturbance of a corpse, any exposing of any sexual acts to children tend to be way more serious.

 

So if a child is exposed to his father loving and having sex with piles of feces every night, which is legal, then we need to address this in schools.

 

The logical fallacy here is that you're assuming that Timmy's father's actively expressing his coprophilia in front of his children would be legal. Technically speaking, my wife and I having plain old vanilla heterosexual sex in the missionary position in front of my underaged children would be equally illegal.

Witness Exhibit A

Now if my wife and I did it when the children were asleep in bed and/or away for a sleepover...that's fine. Same for Timmy's dad's coprophilic activities. As long as he is enjoying that when Timmy can't see it...then he is also fine and in the clear.

 

you're painting with the broad brush. I know quite the number of gays, men and women, for whom monogamy is important and it is becoming more important to gay as homosexuality is becoming more and more open. And it is easier now to be monogamous as a gay person now that you don't have to hide it.

Beside it looks as if monogamy is becoming les and less important for straights. Granted that comes in two forms. Those who are into committed polygamy, which is the same as monogamy but with more people (i.e. They don't go outside the relationship) and those who just are bothering with committed relationships in any form.

 

Which just goes to show that the legal definition doesn't always match the actual definition.

 

That's not the point. For some reason, in general heterosexuals don't feel the need to evangelize their sexual practices. Homosexuals? That's a completely different story. And the fact that their activism is now extending into elementary school classrooms is more than a little screwed up. Heterosexual parents have every right to be ticked off about their kids having to hear about uncle Bob being in daddy's bed...

 

Always amusing when a guy expects others to do what he avoids like the plague himself.

Yeah, good riddance, to you and everybody who thinks like you.

Doesn't matter, the kids can smell it.

 

Maybe. But why do you think that is? If you're arguing that because of the prevalence of porn parents no longer have the right to have a say over how and when their kids become educated in matters of sexuality, I'm sorry but I strongly disagree...