"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[epan]

I’m not exaggerating believe me and I am sure other posters will weigh in. The “war on Christmas” is a traditional theme in newsbroadcasts. As you said, forcing irreligion on school children and the public.

Topics on sexuality, particularly with respect to information on the ramifications of sexual activity, make sense in health or biology classes if taught in a dispassionate and agenda free tone AND if the parents are given the opportunity to view the curricula and decide whether it’s appropriate for their child. And yes kids talk to each other but they have since the beginning of time. It’s not so much that causing parents’ distress but having Planned Parenthood come in with graphic discussions about the use of condoms, sex toys, masturbation, oral/anal sex and homosexual activisit groups indoctrinating young people that such activity is completely normal…when one would hope discouraging sexual activity at a young age would be the objective. Planned Parenthood also hawks contraception, particularly birth control pills, Plan B and other strong hormonal medications without bothering to explain the side effects, the incidence of cancer after use of such meds and promotes their major money making activity, selling abortions.

Actually there IS a religion taught in schools but it’s secular leftism, not Christianity, Judaism or any well recognized faith tradition. I think the negative results are pretty obvious.

Lisa

Some of the credit for this must be taken by parents, themselves, even those who disagree with the curriculum, because they have handed over the education of their kids to the state. It is very important for parents to be as involved as possible with their schools, to be involved, and to be well informed. School boards, and state politicians can be influenced by and informed electorate, much more so than the Federal legislatures.

The schools that I went to were more even handed than you describe in sex education. Yes, they did teach contraception, and safe sex practices. But the emphasis was not on how to have recreational sex, per se. That was part of a larger package, which also included the importance of abstinence. They had a representative from planned parenthood come in, and present the pro-choice arguments, and also a pro-life advocate, who even went so far as to bring along fetuses in jars to show and tell.

After the advocates had made their respective cases, and left, the class discussed the issues, respectfully, so that people could form their own conscience. Reflecting on it, it all seems to have been very unbiased, which is what I would expect of a secular institution.

I would add, that it was not your average public high school, either. Nor was it a religiously affiliated school. It happens to be the greenest school in the country, with the best sports program in the country (according to sports illustrated), with among the most illustrious alumini in the country, with the highest percentage of ivy leaguers of any school west of the mississippi… so it might have been an unusual academic experience, given the standards of the school.

 

[NeedImprovement]

No, it is not implied. Do not try to put words into my mouth.

All “you people” is restricted to those who are arch-conservative, who are holier-than-the-pope, who are ultra-die-hard in their beliefs - that is what is “implied”, and now explicitly stated. There is a very sizable percentage of catholics who are excluded from the “you people”. Those whom you love to call “heretical” cafeteria catholics (the word “heretic” always conjures up of the stench of the burning human flesh at the stakes - I wonder why?).

Yet, it would seem okay, from his highness’ perspective, () to put words into my heart

. . . Those whom you love to call “heretical” . . .

Funny . . . . . . I don’t recall telling anyone here what I “love”. There would appear to be a marked prejudice expressed in those words. So what do we anticipate the response to be ?. . . *“I wasn’t referring to you, um , even though I used the word ‘you’.” *:doh2:

And , of course

Farien:

. . .the children. . . do not care. . .

doesn’t really refer to any particular amount of children anywhere does it ?. . . for if it did, we would again be putting words in the poster’s mouth.:dts:

People who argue in favour of equating same sex unions with marriage believe it is perfectly fine to trample parents rights, and like some of our jellyfish judges, and our politicians who’ve failed to program “spinal column” into their GPS , they run from direct confrontation on this issue of the trampling of parents rights – and they will attempt to cloud the issue while they’re running too.

There are posters here incapable of arguing in a straight line.

What I notice about the post quoted at the beginning above, is how there has been a radical change in direction in the argument - nothing to contradict the logic presented in post # 216 (that’s the one which ended with the quote

• La Trobe University professor Dennis Altman, a gay-rights pioneer, describes the gay-marriage campaign as "self-indulgent cr**. .

)

. . . No logic in the response - just some more redundant inflammatory anti-Catholic rhetoric.

I never really understood why people have to come here to express how much they hate Catholics . One would surmise, according to their own comments, that they might find a more sympathetic ear on a website or forum which promotes the gay agenda.

 

[edwest2]

I would ask my fellow Christian members to focus on only two words in the excerpt above. In this case it takes only 2 words in that post to promote a particular fallacy. The words are “You people” . Once we accept those words, we are misclassified and limited to arguing under the poster’s terms.

Moreover we permit ourselves to be placed in a particular group. In actuality it’s a mirage that has been created - imaginary utopic groups which don’t exist . But once people assume the “group” identity the poster wishes to impose on them, then the poster can appoint himself as spokesman for the “other group” – namely everyone else outside the “group” of “you people”. It becomes an effective tool in the deceptive practice of painting a larger than life picture which is a distortion of reality.

“You people” is really anyone who dares to disagree with the poster. But what is implied is “all you Catholics”.

We see on the thread how arguments using the gay lobby buzzwords such as *tolerance *and diversity are used. Numerous attempts were made to try and change the focus from the topic of *Gay Marriage Doesn’t Hurt Society * and to transform it into individual cloaked accusations of homophobia and discrimination . They try to label others as *homosexual haters *– which isn’t at all true .

As a matter of fact,we should probably include in the “you people” group, practically all heterosexuals ; since by their very lifestyle, they’re saying that something is not right about homosexual activity.

Now the “you people" who don’t agree that we could ever equate homosexual or same sex relationships with marriage might be a little surprised to learn that there are people who experience SSA , some who experience homosexual tendencies and even some who engage in flat out active homosexuality who share these same views as we do – making them also part of our “you people “ group.

A considerable number of LGBT people do not believe that equating same sex unions to marriage is a good idea. The actual percentage is difficult to determine because some are afraid to speak up. The gay militants are not that numerous themselves, but are influential and deftly manipulative in their lobbying tactics – particularly through the media and they intimidate some LGBT people which prevents them from ever voicing their disagreement. Still , there are those who don’t fear to voice their opinion.

We might consider
I’m Gay. . . And I Hate It

• or,

Many more examples are available for anyone who knows how to use a search engine. But to really drive the truth of this point home, let us make honourable mention of Denis Altman.

That last word rhymes with “wrap” guys.

Excellent post. “You people” should be “I - and only I - think you people.” Every poster is responsible for his own post, nobody else. We all get one vote. We don’t get to vote for a roomful of people. You people can refer to any other group: whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. I think it’s fair to say that You People can also be phrased as “If it wasn’t for you people, everything would be fine in my version of how the world should be.”

Thank you for providing examples of the unheard, or rarely heard, voices in the gay community. Distorting reality is effective among some Catholics who don’t think things through. We can’t afford to accept everything written here by pro-gay marriage advocates as representing every gay person, or think that there aren’t gays who think this whole experiment is pointless or worse. However, we need to recognize that there are small groups with financial backing and access to influential people who can help spread their distortions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Yet, it would seem okay, from his highness’ perspective, () to put words into my heart

Funny . . . . . . I don’t recall telling anyone here what I “love”. There would appear to be a marked prejudice expressed in those words. So what do we anticipate the response to be ?. . . *“I wasn’t referring to you, um , even though I used the word ‘you’.” *:doh2:

And , of course doesn’t really refer to any particular amount of children anywhere does it ?. . . for if it did, we would again be putting words in the poster’s mouth.:dts:

People who argue in favour of equating same sex unions with marriage believe it is perfectly fine to trample parents rights, and like some of our jellyfish judges, and our politicians who’ve failed to program “spinal column” into their GPS , they run from direct confrontation on this issue of the trampling of parents rights – and they will attempt to cloud the issue while they’re running too.

There are posters here incapable of arguing in a straight line.

What I notice about the post quoted at the beginning above, is how there has been a radical change in direction in the argument - nothing to contradict the logic presented in post # 216 (that’s the one which ended with the quote )

. . . No logic in the response - just some more redundant inflammatory anti-Catholic rhetoric.

I never really understood why people have to come here to express how much they hate Catholics . One would surmise, according to their own comments, that they might find a more sympathetic ear on a website or forum which promotes the gay agenda.

Some Catholics have been swayed in the wrong direction and I suspect that one goal is to keep repeating the same thing over and over to reinforce the message that “gay marriage” is the solution. It’s not. But when other, rational voices get buried under tons of posts from the pro gay marriage side, it gives the false appearance that they must be right… somehow. Just as some Catholics do not listen carefully to the nonsense the media is spewing 24/7.

Continue to speak the truth my friends. The Church, they believe, is standing in their way. The Church is speaking the truth. Just continue to speak the truth here. They don’t need to convince their supporters, they feel they need to convince others, or at least confuse them and make them doubtful.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farien]

Yet, it would seem okay, from his highness’ perspective, () to put words into my heart

Your heart is just an organ pumping blood . So, let’s see, then you (personally) disagree with the “kind, loving” words of maximus above? He used “sickos”, “deviants” and the like? If you would just express how strongly you disagree with him (and not just the words themselves), I will gladly apologize for putting you into same group…

People who argue in favour of equating same sex unions with marriage believe it is perfectly fine to trample parents rights…

What parents’ “rights”? You can try to instill whatever value system you wish into your children. All the scorn, all the hate you wish… maybe they even will accept it. Maybe they will not.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Gee . . . I guess someone must’ve conducted a poll with the children . I wonder where all the demographics stats and cross references might’ve gotten to . . .

He is right, though. Children wouldn’t care. They are, by default, very accepting of what you tell them. If you told them homosexuality is moral, they would accept that, and they wouldn’t care. I don’t really see why you think children would be angry in regards to being taught about homosexuality.

Yeah, right : Two men sodomizing each other is natural - :dts: And let’s make sure everybody teaches their children that. I surmise that if even Charles Darwin were alive today he might be tempted to kick someones butt ; a classic case of the *blinders *leading the blinders.

Well, depending on the definition of natural you’re using, it is natural. It’s found in nature. I also fail to see what you were on about when you mentioned Darwin? Why does it matter what he thinks? The man was a product of his time. By our standards, we would have considered him to be a racist. It doesn’t really matter. The guy made an observation about nature that we believe to be correct (and not on his own, either) but that doesn’t mean we do, or should, care about anything else he believed.

We see on the thread how arguments using the gay lobby buzzwords such as *tolerance *and diversity are used. Numerous attempts were made to try and change the focus from the topic of *Gay Marriage Doesn’t Hurt Society * and to transform it into individual cloaked accusations of homophobia and discrimination . They try to label others as *homosexual haters *– which isn’t at all true

This is true, I suppose. I knew a lesbian who was very militant about homosexuality, and despite preaching tolerance and what-not, she was very, very intolerant towards those with political views she disliked. It was all very hypocritical.

As a matter of fact,we should probably include in the “you people” group, practically all heterosexuals ; since by their very lifestyle, they’re saying that something is not right about homosexual activity.

Ah, yes, in the same way that someone who doesn’t partake in cycling as a hobby is saying that there is something not right about cycling. That makes perfect sense. Well done for that superb demonstration of logic, there.

People who engage purely in heterosexual activities generally do so because they’re only attracted to members of the opposite sex, not because they think homosexual activity is wrong. For your statement to be correct, everyone would have to be bisexual - attracted to both men and women. This clearly isn’t true.

Now the “you people" who don’t agree that we could ever equate homosexual or same sex relationships with marriage might be a little surprised to learn that there are people who experience SSA , some who experience homosexual tendencies and even some who engage in flat out active homosexuality who share these same views as we do – making them also part of our “you people “ group.

A considerable number of LGBT people do not believe that equating same sex unions to marriage is a good idea. The actual percentage is difficult to determine because some are afraid to speak up. The gay militants are not that numerous themselves, but are influential and deftly manipulative in their lobbying tactics – particularly through the media and they intimidate some LGBT people which prevents them from ever voicing their disagreement. Still , there are those who don’t fear to voice their opinion.

We might consider
I’m Gay. . . And I Hate It

• or,

Many more examples are available for anyone who knows how to use a search engine. But to really drive the truth of this point home, let us make honourable mention of Denis Altman.

Yeah, generally the fact that not all homosexuals want marriage is a good argument against the existence of some evil ‘Homosexual Agenda’, for obvious reasons, or that all homosexuals are part of this agenda.

That last word rhymes with “wrap” guys.

Map? Lap? Fap?

 

[fix]

It is hilarious to see how you people choose to wear blinders when it comes to children and their curiouslity. I have never met a child under the age of six, who did not ask the parents and their friends: “How are children born?”. Parents have their standard answers about storks and cabbage pacthes, and sometimes about how mummy and daddy wanted you so much, that God planted a little seed in mummy’s belly… and so on… children are MOST curious about their “origin”. When they talk about it among themselves they exchange what they heard.

So wake up. Those sweet, little, innocent children WILL get their information eventually, because they WANT it. They cannot be “protected”. Better to give biologically correct answers - maybe watered down to their understanding. If you try to be secretive about it, you just whet their appetite. Children who grow up on farms and see the process of procreation is vivid details are not traumatized by it. They understand that it is a natural part of life.

Now, it is true, that with the advancement of same sex relationships, children will see that some of their friends have two daddies, or two mummies… and that turns YOUR stomach, but the children do not care. If you do not make a fuss about it, they will stop to think about it, they will accept it as natural - which it is. That is what you cannot “stomach”. Well, it is your problem, and do not ry to hide behind the “poor innocent children’s back”. Yes, society is changing. It is always changing, and it will be changing no matter how hard you would like to fossilize it. Get over it.

Innocent children are just that-innocent. Innocent children know same sex pairings are wrong. Only after they have been indoctrinated would they think such things were normal and virtuous. It is called deception and is very wrong.

 

[LisaA]

He is right, though. Children wouldn’t care. They are, by default, very accepting of what you tell them. If you told them homosexuality is moral, they would accept that, and they wouldn’t care. I don’t really see why you think children would be angry in regards to being taught about homosexuality.

Well, depending on the definition of natural you’re using, it is natural. It’s found in nature. I also fail to see what you were on about when you mentioned Darwin? Why does it matter what he thinks? The man was a product of his time. By our standards, we would have considered him to be a racist. It doesn’t really matter. The guy made an observation about nature that we believe to be correct (and not on his own, either) but that doesn’t mean we do, or should, care about anything else he believed.

This is true, I suppose. I knew a lesbian who was very militant about homosexuality, and despite preaching tolerance and what-not, she was very, very intolerant towards those with political views she disliked. It was all very hypocritical.

Ah, yes, in the same way that someone who doesn’t partake in cycling as a hobby is saying that there is something not right about cycling. That makes perfect sense. Well done for that superb demonstration of logic, there.

People who engage purely in heterosexual activities generally do so because they’re only attracted to members of the opposite sex, not because they think homosexual activity is wrong. For your statement to be correct, everyone would have to be bisexual - attracted to both men and women. This clearly isn’t true.

Yeah, generally the fact that not all homosexuals want marriage is a good argument against the existence of some evil ‘Homosexual Agenda’, for obvious reasons, or that all homosexuals are part of this agenda.

Map? Lap? Fap?

A couple of thoughts. One I don’t think the CHILDREN would be angry if they were taught homosexuality was “normal” “moral” or “just fine.” With no context about sexuality they are likely to simply absorb whatever they are told. The anger is from the parents who feel their role in guiding their children’s moral and theological lives has been usurped by the state. Now epan is correct, that some parents are happy to hand over their kids to what amounts to a free babysitter for six hours a day and don’t much care what they are learning. But the issue is the rights of parents who DO care, particularly in matters of theology, sexuality, family structure, etc. As we are learning, schools are taking more and more control, sometimes without the parents’ knowledge or consent and sometimes against the explicit instructions of the parents.

That is NOT right and I hope parents continue to stay involved with their children’s schools.

That something is “natural” in that it’s found in nature, doesn’t mean it is a good thing. Cancer is found in nature, heart disease, murder, incest, rape, theft and violence are all characteristic of life in this world. So that some are attracted to the same sex isn’t good by virtue of the existence of this behavior. That being said, I believe one’s sex life is a private matter and one of my biggest objections to the homosexual agenda is their desire if not their demand that their sexual practices be explicitly made public, that they be taught in schools, that private businesses are sued or harassed (can we say Chik Fil A?) because they do not champion this cause. If homosexuals want to engage in legal (as in consenting adults) and private sexual activity…hey it’s your life and your business. I just do not want to hear about it any more than I want to hear about my many years’ married neighbors sex life.

As to the statement that not all and maybe not most homosexuals are activists, true enough. I have a lot of interaction with homosexuals and only one pair of Lesbians give a rip about marriage. Most are happy to live their lives like the rest of us. Unfortunately the activists are the ones creating the disputes, the lawsuits, the demonstrations, the harassment. They’re the ones we hear about, not the nice gay couple in the apartment down the hall.

Honestly I don’t see how you can claim there is some analogy to be drawn between cycling and homosexuality. The latter has a long history of issues, of religious prohibitions and health concerns. So opinions regarding homosexuality are a lot more passionate than about a hobby. That one doesn’t cycle doesn’t mean one does not think cycling is a valid and positive activity. OTOH homosexuality has a lot more ‘baggage’ and is likely to engender a particularly passionate response.

Sorry seems to be wandering off the thread’s question but I think these related issues all work toward the eventual conclusion.

Lisa

 

[edwest2]

Innocent children are just that-innocent. Innocent children know same sex pairings are wrong. Only after they have been indoctrinated would they think such things were normal and virtuous. It is called deception and is very wrong.

Well said. While we should show compassion, we should always be careful to determine if what we are being told is true. There are people who are willing to tell us what they want us to hear while leaving other things out, or just lie.

And the idea that we are saying we love homosexual persons while, according to a few, actually hating them is irrational. Especially if the goal is denying the truth and yelling, like a spoiled 5 year old who doesn’t get what he wants, “I hate you!” Little kids lash out like that. After same-sex marriage was defeated in Michigan, the following appeared in a Detroit newspaper letters page: “Michigan. The great hate state.” Little 8 year old Bobby hates gays? 81 year old women in nursing homes hate gays? Irrational.

And by the way, there is an international gay agenda, with its highest goal being what they call marriage. I’d provide a list if anybody wants it but no links.

Peace,
Ed

 

[maximus]

You are wrong. Grandkids, too.

I just love the outpour of “christian love” you display… how uplifting… “sickos” and “deviants”… and so on. Guess what? That is only your opinion, and as such it does not amount to much.

Yes, the times are a’changing - as Bob Dylan said. Children will learn that tolerance is good, calling others “sickos” is not “love”. It is possible to slow down the progress, but it is impossible to stop it. Get used to it.

What you call tolerance is merely a one way compromise. You are right why should we fight for religious liberty against such odds and against progress. We should just surrender and abandon all religious belief because resistance is futile and interferes with personal comforts… Unfortunately, some of us are not made that way.

 

[fix]

Well said. While we should show compassion, we should always be careful to determine if what we are being told is true. There are people who are willing to tell us what they want us to hear while leaving other things out, or just lie.

And the idea that we are saying we love homosexual persons while, according to a few, actually hating them is irrational. Especially if the goal is denying the truth and yelling, like a spoiled 5 year old who doesn’t get what he wants, “I hate you!” Little kids lash out like that. After same-sex marriage was defeated in Michigan, the following appeared in a Detroit newspaper letters page: “Michigan. The great hate state.” Little 8 year old Bobby hates gays? 81 year old women in nursing homes hate gays? Irrational.

And by the way, there is an international gay agenda, with its highest goal being what they call marriage. I’d provide a list if anybody wants it but no links.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, the problem is the narrative is written to make one side look attacked and the other side painted as intolerant. Very little deep thinking goes on today.

 

[LisaA]

Yes, the problem is the narrative is written to make one side look attacked and the other side painted as intolerant. Very little deep thinking goes on today.

Actually it seems that thinking is optional, facts are pesky little things. It’s FEEEEELLLLINNNNNNGS that count for the Left.

Lisa

 

[epan]

Innocent children are just that-innocent. Innocent children know same sex pairings are wrong. Only after they have been indoctrinated would they think such things were normal and virtuous. It is called deception and is very wrong.

You should look up the word “innocence.” You got it exactly backwards. A state of innocence would be to have no opinion on the subject. In other words, unaware of worldly concerns. Children are educated in such matters, which is a loss of innocence. They aren’t born with such preconceived ideas.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, the problem is the narrative is written to make one side look attacked and the other side painted as intolerant. Very little deep thinking goes on today.

I partly blame the internet. Does our information come from unbiased, scholarly work or a google search, which, and I tried this, puts all the pro-gay marriage sites at the top? Some Catholics also don’t get the Catholic perspective. We really need to read our state newspaper, like The Michigan Catholic or Our Sunday Visitor or the National Catholic Register (not the National Catholic Reporter).

Without good, solid knowledge and insight from good, solid Catholic sources, we’ve got a mostly pagan media pushing if not just an anti-Christian bias, but pro gay marriage as well. Odds are, if the Church is against it, the mass media is for it. And no, too often, they will not provide a for and against argument, just the “for” part.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Slavonic]

That something is “natural” in that it’s found in nature, doesn’t mean it is a good thing. Cancer is found in nature, heart disease, murder, incest, rape, theft and violence are all characteristic of life in this world. So that some are attracted to the same sex isn’t good by virtue of the existence of this behavior. That being said, I believe one’s sex life is a private matter and one of my biggest objections to the homosexual agenda is their desire if not their demand that their sexual practices be explicitly made public, that they be taught in schools, that private businesses are sued or harassed (can we say Chik Fil A?) because they do not champion this cause. If homosexuals want to engage in legal (as in consenting adults) and private sexual activity…hey it’s your life and your business. I just do not want to hear about it any more than I want to hear about my many years’ married neighbors sex life.

Then we can also conclude that attraction to the opposite sex is not good by virtue of the existence of the behavior in in nature as well. I suppose that heterosexual practices should also not be made public. And I’d ask where sexual practices of any kind are explicitly made public. Would you also say that heterosexual practices should not be taught in the appropriate grade at school either?

 

[LisaA]

Then we can also conclude that attraction to the opposite sex is not good by virtue of the existence of the behavior in in nature as well. I suppose that heterosexual practices should also not be made public. And I’d ask where sexual practices of any kind are explicitly made public. Would you also say that heterosexual practices should not be taught in the appropriate grade at school either?

Your first sentence is entirely lacking in logic or meaning. “Natural” is used to promote homosexuality in that it occurs in nature. That it occurs is neither good or bad, it just IS. So no you can’t conclude that attraction to the opposite sex is “bad” because it’s natural. However, basic biology would indicate that since the only way for a species to survive is to procreate, therefore even a dispassionate scientist would consider opposite sex attraction positive with respect to its impact on the species.

And absolutely heterosexual practices do not need to made public. I think we could have all lived nicely without children hearing about oral sex with the Clinton escapade. As to where sexual practices are made public, since you are obviously a homosexual or a homosexual apologist pray tell me you have never observed a “Gay Pride” parade, or walked around in the Castro district for example. Further, very explicit homosexual and heterosexual practices are part of some school curricula.

And no sexual PRACTICES should not be taught at school. Are you kidding? Basic biology taught by a scientist not an activist makes sense in school curricula. A health class that discusses the risks of STDs or other public health issues like the need for vaccines or head lice treatment is something that makes sense. Telling children about using oral dams to make oral sex “safe” or how to put on condoms isn’t something that children should hear about in schools.

Given the dire warnings should school children not be instructed on how Heather’s two mommies “pleasure” each other they will be forever emotionally scarred, it’s a wonder our species survived without all of the homosexual activists making sure our education system helps promote their agenda.

Lisa

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I think Ill just let Lisa do the talking from now on

Maybe she can talk to my uncle and school him too.

 

[epan]

Your first sentence is entirely lacking in logic or meaning. “Natural” is used to promote homosexuality in that it occurs in nature. That it occurs is neither good or bad, it just IS. So no you can’t conclude that attraction to the opposite sex is “bad” because it’s natural. However, basic biology would indicate that since the only way for a species to survive is to procreate, therefore even a dispassionate scientist would consider opposite sex attraction positive with respect to its impact on the species.

And absolutely heterosexual practices do not need to made public. I think we could have all lived nicely without children hearing about oral sex with the Clinton escapade. As to where sexual practices are made public, since you are obviously a homosexual or a homosexual apologist pray tell me you have never observed a “Gay Pride” parade, or walked around in the Castro district for example. Further, very explicit homosexual and heterosexual practices are part of some school curricula.

And no sexual PRACTICES should not be taught at school. Are you kidding? Basic biology taught by a scientist not an activist makes sense in school curricula. A health class that discusses the risks of STDs or other public health issues like the need for vaccines or head lice treatment is something that makes sense. Telling children about using oral dams to make oral sex “safe” or how to put on condoms isn’t something that children should hear about in schools.

Given the dire warnings should school children not be instructed on how Heather’s two mommies “pleasure” each other they will be forever emotionally scarred, it’s a wonder our species survived without all of the homosexual activists making sure our education system helps promote their agenda.

Lisa

According to the CDC, 42% or males, and 43% of females, aged 15-19 have had sexual intercourse. So, I don’t see how you can justify not teaching the proper use of condoms, and STD protection. Even the majority of Catholics, in the US and worldwide use contraception. Why would you not want kids who are experimenting sexually to be uninformed. That sounds like extreme negligence to me, when you consider the potential consequences. What if a kid has not been taught this at home? Should the minor suffer for the negligence of the parents?

 

[edwest2]

Actually it seems that thinking is optional, facts are pesky little things. It’s FEEEEELLLLINNNNNNGS that count for the Left.

Lisa

I was listening to an interview with a woman from Canada on Catholic radio. It was the Al Kresta show. She said that she was outspoken about being against gay marriage but was then officially told she couldn’t talk about it in Canada, so here she was in the US, talking about it. When her host asked why she was told she could not express her views, she replied: “I guess they think I’ll hurt their feelings.”

Truth is truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

According to the CDC, 42% or males, and 43% of females, aged 15-19 have had sexual intercourse. So, I don’t see how you can justify not teaching the proper use of condoms, and STD protection. Even the majority of Catholics, in the US and worldwide use contraception. Why would you not want kids who are experimenting sexually to be uninformed. That sounds like extreme negligence to me, when you consider the potential consequences. What if a kid has not been taught this at home? Should the minor suffer for the negligence of the parents?

Well you presume that the children are engaging in sex BECAUSE they are uninformed but that isn’t necessarily the case. Why do you presume that they will be totally ignorant (think Blue Lagoon) if the schools don’t provide this information?

Also you might have noted in my post I specifically said health classes can deal with issues like STDs and biology classes can provide information on how babies are made…assuming there is a 15 year old somewhere in this country who is unaware. I sincerely doubt it.

The problem I have with “sex education” is that instead of a dispassionate and facts based approach, it’s often overly provacative, assumes all of the children are engaged in sex or want to be, instead of truly thinking of the children’s best interests and giving them the downside of engaging in pre-marital sex and use of contraception, particularly the Pill, Plan B and other strong hormone based medications. In reality the only safe sex is no sex, although being realistic I realize that all teens are not going to be chaste. But to either presume, to entice with specifics about techniques and practices, and not to give the downside is IMO a compltely wrongheaded approach.

Even back in the stone ages when I was in high school, we did hear about pregnancy prevention but it was all in the mode of “well if you can’t be good, be careful” instead of letting young women know that birth control pills are extremely strong medications, a class 1 carcinogen, and can wreak havoc with their reproductive systems for years to come. STDs which used to be limited to those who frequented prostitutes or Sailors who went into foreign ports are now rampant, particularly the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer. AIDS is still a serious, if not deadly, condition although thankfully and predictably it never took hold in the non drug using heterosexual community. And Herpes has ruined the life of more than one young lady or young man.

Again, what I see is overly glamorizing sex, titilating the kids with rather vulgar and overly graphic material and a near failure to discuss the truly dreadful potential consequences of sex outside of a monogamous male/female marriage.

I realize many think the Church is mired somewhere in the Middle Ages but if you read the material, particularly the writings of Blessed JPII, you’ll find that it is not simply prudery or being mired in the past. Our bodies were meant to function a certain way and the more we stray from what God intended, the more likely the adverse consequences.

Lisa