Reading an article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/26/education.secretary.pbs.ap/index.html) regarding statements the US's new Education Secretary Margaret Spellings had made on an episode of a children’s show produced by PBS which was apparently to casually feature two same-sex couples got me thinking a bit about the state of sex education in the United States, and what it's likely to look like for the next four years.

Secretary Spelling's comments, and repeated reference to "The homosexual life style"--which is sort of a polite right-wing buzz word for "homosexual agenda" which so near as I can tell is a term conservatives use to talk about their fears that homosexuals want to molest their children--Shows quite clearly her own personal bent when it comes to the issue of homosexuals and education, that being that they ought to be invisible.

Being that we're starting a new term of the same old Bush, I figured it might be appropriate to have a discussion about his administrations sex education policies in general. Does abstinence only education really prepare kids for the real world? Can shaking the bible and telling people that they'll get pregnant, get herpes, and die really be a powerful enough message that it can override their collective sex-drives and keep them from humping?

Is it perhaps a little myopic to believe that giving kids the nitty-grity real story about sex is immoral? It's nice to sit back and hope our kids aren't having sex, but we were their age once, too, and if your memory of your particular attitude toward sex at that time isn't so fresh, allow me to remind you that it's all you ever thought about. Ahh right, it's coming back, isn't it; That's why you failed algebra three times, isn't it?

Why should information, such as the proper use of contraceptives, like condoms, be withheld from American teens? Is it just me or is there some sort of original sin mentality here? Some seem to feel that if kids are made aware that they can reduce the risk of pregnancy or disease transmission then somehow their innocence is lost, and they'll be cast of out paradise. As such they are forbidden to eat of the fruit from this particular tree. Unfortunately this doesn't reflect the reality of the situation! Kids are going to screw whether we tell them they shouldn't or not, and we do nothing but hurt them by not doing everything we can to prepare them for that experience.

To give a little anecdotal support to this idea I'd like to tell you a little bit about the experience I had with sex ed, and then that of my little sister. My Jr. High and High school years were back in the 90s, Clinton was in office, and teachers were allowed to actually educate about sex. I didn't think of myself as being gay at the time, and so that wasn't much of an issue, but looking back on it now, it didn't matter, because teachers were also able to go into the details about different kinds of sex and the different risks that they could pose. When I started actively taking an interest in other guys, I at least knew that anal and oral sex "counted", and in my history I have had experiences that I think perhaps should have been thought through a bit better, but I always knew exactly what steps to take in order to ensure that one dumb night probably wouldn't come back to haunt me for the rest of my life.

By contrast, my little sister, currently in High school, her and her peers have been in since the Bush administration took office and enacted it's education through omission policies. She is luckily smart enough to understand the extreme short falling of her health education in this particular area, but often has stories to tell me and our parents about the attitude her peers seem to take. Most of her friends insist that "oral doesn't count" and practice it as a "safe alternative to sex". She's tried to tell them better, but of course as they've been lead to believe by their education by omission, you can't get pregnant from oral, so "it doesn't count".

Don't we owe it to our youth to let them know that if you can get herpes from it, then it counts? Shouldn't we be teaching them better than, "Don't do it at all ever" when we know that they won't listen? When with these messages drilled into their heads finally find themselves in a sexual position all they'll know is that they very much want to do something that they know is wrong, not that they ought to be doing it right!

And finally, a question to conservatives: Why is it so wrong to bring up homosexual acts in a sex education class? Not much would have to be said about it. I don't see the harm in letting dumb little gay boys know that they're just as vulnerable to disease as anyone else and all that. What's this stigma we seem to have in this nation about "teaching it in the schools" really all about?

What do you think causes the "Oral doesn’t count" sentiment? I tend to think it is the lack of imagination inherent in the "abstinence education" mindset. People begin to believe that sex, this thing they are being told not to do ever, is something that takes place in the back of a car, or in boys rooms when parents aren’t home. They think these things because their education is all geared towards prevention, and things to look out for or avoid. They also are smart enough to figure out generally what mechanical prosesses sex actualy involves on their own, even thought they are being told not to even think about it. They do have all of biology fueling their curiosity after all. But when they are confronted with something unconventional, something that they didn't expect, because the creators of abstinence education have no imagination... something like a friend offering to just use there mouth... Well, that doesn’t sound like what they learned about in abstinence class... does it?

I was under the impression that the most abortions and teenage sex etc was in the states that voted most heavily for Bush in the bible belt.

I was under the impression that the most abortions and teenage sex etc was in the states that voted most heavily for Bush in the bible belt.

I've heard the same, under Bush abortions are on the rise. The pundits on Air America Radio try to pin that to more women feeling that they are economicaly unable to support a child. Let's see if we can't find a link showing some teen pregnancy numbers in the lats four years compared to the last eight.

parents should have no say in weather there kid gets taught sex ed any more than they should have a say in wether they are taught english. If thats the way that sex was delt with we might not have such a problem with aids and other STD's as well as teenage pregnancys. The schools should look at it that this is as important or MORE so than basic reading and writing. Hell you can probaby go through life illeterate but i doubt many people die in there old age without ever having some form of sexual experiance

Ah ha, I knew it was on a blog I found at Christmas:
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/14TeenPregnancy.cfm

"In 2000, the teen pregnancy rate reached a new low. Among female teens ages 15 to 19, the rate declined from 116.3 per 1,000 in 1990 to 84.5 in 2000. Teens ages 15 to 17 experienced a decline of more than thirty percent, from 80.3 in 1990 to 53.5 per 1,000 in 2000. The rates for teens 18 to 19 also declined between 1991 (166.5 per 1,000) and 2000 (129.9 per 1,000). (See Figure 1)"

OK, so thats Clinton exonerated for spreading sexual immorality, right?


http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/11/red_stateblue_s_1.php
"Okay, this isn't looking good, is it? How about rates of teen pregnancy. I'm sure those family values folks who don't believe in all that fancy sex education stuff do much better than us immoral blue state liberals who let our child run wild. Well, not quite. 6 of the 10 states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy are blue states; 7 of the 10 states with the highest rates were red states. Texas, by the way, is one of only 5 states with a rate above 100 per 100,000 in population (3 of which are red states), and their school board just approved a set of sex education textbooks that do not even mention contraception. Yeah, that oughta help. Teen pregnancy, by the way, went down every single year after 1991, while those immoral liberals were in charge in Washington, with a national average of a 26% decline. But of the 10 states that showed the smallest decline? You guessed it, they were red states, with Texas leading the way."

Does abstinence only education really prepare kids for the real world? Can shaking the bible and telling people that they'll get pregnant, get herpes, and die really be a powerful enough message that it can override their collective sex-drives and keep them from humping?

Abstinence education should, I take it, speak about all the STDs. It could even contain factual infomation about contraceptions, as long as contraceptions aren't endorsed. Let the contraceptive manufactures teach our children, their prospective buyers, how to use their products, but don't let my tax money go to <em>that</em>.


And finally, a question to conservatives: Why is it so wrong to bring up homosexual acts in a sex education class? Not much would have to be said about it. I don't see the harm in letting dumb little gay boys know that they're just as vulnerable to disease as anyone else and all that. What's this stigma we seem to have in this nation about "teaching it in the schools" really all about?

It's not that it's wrong but that it causes a conflict of interest. Is the teacher, by talking about homosexuality, somehow unduly supporting it? Shouldn't parents have the right to tell them homosexuality is wrong or abnormal? They have every right, I believe. So, when a teacher desires to tell them all how homosexuality is normal, it goes against the parent's desire. Now, there's a difference between respect, and guidance. That is to say, teachers have should teach children to respect homosexuals, but this respect doesn't entail endorsement.

Abstinence education should, I take it, speak about all the STDs. It could even contain factual infomation about contraceptions, as long as contraceptions aren't endorsed. Let the contraceptive manufactures teach our children, their prospective buyers, how to use their products, but don't let my tax money go to <em>that</em>.

Well that's why they call it abstience only, though, they don't talk about contraception, just abstinence.

It's not that it's wrong but that it causes a conflict of interest. Is the teacher, by talking about homosexuality, somehow unduly supporting it? Shouldn't parents have the right to tell them homosexuality is wrong or abnormal? They have every right, I believe. So, when a teacher desires to tell them all how homosexuality is normal, it goes against the parent's desire. Now, there's a difference between respect, and guidance. That is to say, teachers have should teach children to respect homosexuals, but this respect doesn't entail endorsement.

What are you smoking? Parents are free to indoctrinate their children with whatever hate filled nazi bullcrap they want, but generaly it's not the school's place to try to create an environment where children ought to be left with rediculously bigoted fears of some minority group.

By your logic it would be just as vile for schools to teach black history because parents may want their children to hate nigers.

Well that's why they call it abstience only, though, they don't talk about contraception, just abstinence.

I'll have to read up on this. It seems to me that the term could be applied to any education which is predominately based upon abstinence techniques. While there could be some mention of the factual information about contraception, the aim of the program is to sell the children the idea of abstinence until marriage(or other monagamous relationship). The rationale for this are that any child who doesn't know the basics about contraception is too young to use the contraceptive, and abstinence is the only sure way.


What are you smoking? Parents are free to indoctrinate their children with whatever hate filled nazi bullcrap they want, but generaly it's not the school's place to try to create an environment where children ought to be left with rediculously bigoted fears of some minority group.

By your logic it would be just as vile for schools to teach black history because parents may want their children to hate nigers.

What I mean is that parents should teach their children that homosexual activity is wrong, but should further bring a message of tolerance. That is to say, just because someone does something wrong, doesn't mean we should be bigots. The answer is not "everything is right and everything we do is right", but rather "some things are wrong and we do somethings wrong." Underscoring this idea, the parents shouldn't be faced with a situation where the teacher says one thing, while they believe another.

What I mean is that parents should teach their children that homosexual activity is wrong, but should further bring a message of tolerance.

That's like saying being black is wrong, or having a British accent is wrong, but we should tolerate it.

You fucking bigot. ;)

Are you being purposely obtuse? Teaching kids to hate fags is no better than teaching them to hate niggers.

I know you Christians dispute this, but you can ask Mystech; being gay isn't something you do, it's something you are. Just the same as with heterosexuality. Gays don't stop being gay by no longer having sex any more than us straights do. I haven't had the pleasure of a womans intimate company in quite a few years, it hasn't changed my attraction to them.

So parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong? Then a fair number of parents would be teaching their gay kids that their very existence is wrong.

The only reason for condemning homosexuality is Christianity. As we do not live in a theocracy, the state has no reason to condemn this behavior. And in the interest of fairness to the gay kids out there, the state does have an interest in teaching them not to hate themselves just because narrow minded religious dogmatists hate them.

Okay, this isn't looking good, is it? How about rates of teen pregnancy. I'm sure those family values folks who don't believe in all that fancy sex education stuff do much better than us immoral blue state liberals who let our child run wild. Well, not quite. 6 of the 10 states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy are blue states; 7 of the 10 states with the highest rates were red states. Texas, by the way, is one of only 5 states with a rate above 100 per 100,000 in population (3 of which are red states), and their school board just approved a set of sex education textbooks that do not even mention contraception. Yeah, that oughta help. Teen pregnancy, by the way, went down every single year after 1991, while those immoral liberals were in charge in Washington, with a national average of a 26% decline. But of the 10 states that showed the smallest decline? You guessed it, they were red states, with Texas leading the way."

Out of curiosity, did that blog happen to mention the ethnicity of those pregnant teens? My guess would be that most of those states are southern border states. Where I live, in the 90's at one point, it had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. I love em, but darn Mexicans breed like rabbits!

- N

hehe, something like 1 in 16 teens here get pregnant, at least we have the DBP to support them

Neildo, do you know that it was the mexicans who had the high teenage pregnancy rate? After all, its perfeclty possible to breed like rabbits within a marriage.

The rationale for this are that any child who doesn't know the basics about contraception is too young to use the contraceptive, and abstinence is the only sure way.

They don't know the basics, so let's not teach them the basics<Sub>i</Sub>

What I mean is that parents should teach their children that homosexual activity is wrong, but should further bring a message of tolerance. That is to say, just because someone does something wrong, doesn't mean we should be bigots. The answer is not "everything is right and everything we do is right", but rather "some things are wrong and we do somethings wrong." Underscoring this idea, the parents shouldn't be faced with a situation where the teacher says one thing, while they believe another.

This all, of course, is based on the very assumption that homosexuality is wrong. Which is inherently pretty baseless.

Neildo, do you know that it was the mexicans who had the high teenage pregnancy rate?

Personal experience. I can almost say with certaintly that they have the highest teen pregnancy rate, but since I'm not the one doing studies, I just wanted confirmation. And I bet the second highest would probably be white people living in the Midwest or South with nothing better to do than do drugs and have sex. You can say I'm shallow, but hey, I call it like I see it.

After all, its perfeclty possible to breed like rabbits within a marriage

Yes, I know, but Mexican culture is unlike what most Americans think of a traditional marriage. When they're teens, they're ready for breeding and marriage even to elder men. It's not uncommon to see a man walking around with what one would think to be his daugher, but isn't.

Also you mention it's perfectly possible to breed like rabbits within "a marriage" yet the subject is about teens. Just how many pregnant teens do you know of that are married? Even just talking adults, not teens, I'd still say Mexicans have the highest birth rate. Again, I have nothing against Mexicans, I love em. Mexican culture is apart of me even though I'm white due to where I grew up and have lived all my life. I was just curious about the "official statistics".

- N

Well, even leaving mexicans out of it, there still the predilection for divorce amongst American Protestants. So marriage is so sacred you can bail out of it?

OKINRUS... so you want to send out double-bind messages to kids and guk their heads up even more. you suggest telling them homoseuxal relationships and sex is wrong, yet they must tolerate...?

i am Queer, and i know what it is like to grow up with a sense of non-acceptance around. you can try and mask that non-acceptance and call it 'tolerance' but that's all it will be, a masking of INtolerance

Look, you have got all shades os sxuality. many people who fancy women fancy girls do just that. telling them that Gay sex is just as good isn't going to change them. and If they wish to experiment then that is up to them
Beter that than the mixed-up-ness you seem to prescribe. it is of the same mindset that tells children drugs are bad and then forces them to take ritalin etc so as to fit in school!

Sorry, I don't follow, Guthrie. What's divorce and/or marriage have to do with how many kids one pops out, especially considering we're also talking about teen pregnancy? Marriage and/or divorce isn't required for procreation, let alone how often one does the act.

- N

you suggest telling them homoseuxal relationships and sex is wrong, yet they must tolerate...?

Yes, I don't see the the problem with this. How are kids to be taught tolerance if they are taught to like everyone? The whole point of tolerance is to be compassionate to whom you don't like, and to be nice to those who act angrily. Here, being tolerant is to those who do wrong but do not break the law.




i am Queer, and i know what it is like to grow up with a sense of non-acceptance around. you can try and mask that non-acceptance and call it 'tolerance' but that's all it will be, a masking of INtolerance

Okay, but there are many other groups, some of which have clearly done wrong. For instance, obese people. Clearly most of them have done something wrong to their heath. They've ate too much. Should we as people immediately say they haven't done something wrong to their health? No, to do so would be to endorse bad health. But we should still be tolerant toward them. Even though we recognize they may not have made all the right health decisions, we also know we've made some bad ones, too, and above all we must preserve their human dignity, not putting down but alwas raising up.


Beter that than the mixed-up-ness you seem to prescribe. it is of the same mindset that tells children drugs are bad and then forces them to take ritalin etc so as to fit in school!

Usually when someone says "drugs are bad" they mean illegal ones, not the ones prescribed by doctors to treat illness. Different contexs, really different meanings.

Yes, I don't see the the problem with this. How are kids to be taught tolerance if they are taught to like everyone? The whole point of tolerance is to be compassionate to whom you don't like, and to be nice to those who act angrily. Here, being tolerant is to those who do wrong but do not break the law.

d__you are talking about hypocrisy and i hate that! Compassion isn't a false mask of tolerance. It is seeing the other as a human being who is equal to you. the actual term 'com-passion' MEANS 'shared-suffering'. We ALL suffer so we are all equal. i would fukin HATe some self-superior' clowm 'tolerating' me yet thinking i am wrong. i don not want that. i'd sooner you hated me than that crap


Okay, but there are many other groups, some of which have clearly done wrong. For instance, obese people. Clearly most of them have done something wrong to their heath. They've ate too much. Should we as people immediately say they haven't done something wrong to their health? No, to do so would be to endorse bad health. But we should still be tolerant toward them. Even though we recognize they may not have made all the right health decisions, we also know we've made some bad ones, too, and above all we must preserve their human dignity, not putting down but alwas raising up.

d__Oh, you get better dont you. hah...what you gonna do with a FAt queer person then?!
look. fatness is a choice a person might make. being Queer isn't. some people who are fat seem to enjoy being so. we have a comedian herer who is fat aND IS QUITE HAPPY. IF YOU CAME WITH YOUR HYPOCRITICAL shit she'd tear you to shreds.
i agree that if people are fat and want advice they should get support. but it's not the same for Gays. you have no right to think of it that way, by comparing them with being fat, or shoppin too much, or alcoholism. you really have a strange mind dude!

Usually when someone says "drugs are bad" they mean illegal ones, not the ones prescribed by doctors to treat illness. Different contexs, really different meanings.

oh dear, that is what i am saying. When you tell kids drugs are bad, usually you dont tell them the good side right? you just push negative propaganda at them to scare them off.
THEN the next breath you are telling them SOME drugs are good--eg ritalin, etc. Even though this is a calculatedly way to fit the kid into an oppressive routine, and to
stifle natrual reactions to that routine. And even though there have been many reported cases of the drugs doing harm.
so you are confusing the child's mind. it is awful.

most of the damage doen to children's heads is from doulble messages like the ones you are proposing. can you not feel and be honest??

While there could be some mention of the factual information about contraception, the aim of the program is to sell the children the idea of abstinence until marriage(or other monagamous relationship). The rationale for this are that any child who doesn't know the basics about contraception is too young to use the contraceptive, and abstinence is the only sure way.
You can sell abstinence till you're blue in the face. The kids still won't buy it. The problem here is that they aren't just teaching abstinence. They're not teaching sexual education in itself. These kids do not know where to draw the line between what is heavy petting and what constitutes sex. These kids are taught that a man should not put his peepee into the woohoo until the girl has a ring on her finger. What these kids aren't being taught is that anal and oral sex also classify as sexual acts. When you hear these kids say oral sex is not like real sex, you begin to understand how badly the education system as failed. Teaching abstinence is fine. But teaching abstinence and keeping the child completely misinformed about what constitutes a sexual act and what protection they should use if they do wish to have sex is purely irresponsible and frankly dangerous. Blaming the child for not knowing the basic's of contraception is irrational and frankly very childish of you okinrus. I'd blame the adults for keeping the information away from the child who should have been taught about it in the first place.

What I mean is that parents should teach their children that homosexual activity is wrong, but should further bring a message of tolerance. That is to say, just because someone does something wrong, doesn't mean we should be bigots. The answer is not "everything is right and everything we do is right", but rather "some things are wrong and we do somethings wrong." Underscoring this idea, the parents shouldn't be faced with a situation where the teacher says one thing, while they believe another.
The hypocrisy in that statement is astounding. You sound like the Catholic Church with their line of 'we must be tolerant of homosexuals but they must not dare breach the step into the church because they are committing a sin and they are wrong'. Give me a break.

Yes, I don't see the the problem with this. How are kids to be taught tolerance if they are taught to like everyone? The whole point of tolerance is to be compassionate to whom you don't like, and to be nice to those who act angrily. Here, being tolerant is to those who do wrong but do not break the law.

This gets worse and worse.

One cannot teach a child that it is wrong to be something but at the same time teach them that they must be tolerant of it. What happens if the child is taught that it is wrong to be homosexual but they must tolerate them, and that child reaches their teens and they find themselves attracted to the same sex and have no interest in the other sex? That would be one screwed up child wouldn't it? After all, they'd been taught that they were wrong. Good grief okinrus. You can't hate something but be accepting of it in the same breath. You can't say something is fundamentally wrong and then say it must be tolerated. If you think it's that wrong, why would you tolerate it? All you would be doing would be sending the child mixed messages and making him/her more confused than they already are. Homosexuals can't help being homosexual, just as I can't help that I was born with naturally curly hair. Telling a child that it's wrong but they must accept it would only lead to utter confusion and pain if that child was in fact homosexual. It could even lead to suicide.

Okay, but there are many other groups, some of which have clearly done wrong. For instance, obese people. Clearly most of them have done something wrong to their heath. They've ate too much. Should we as people immediately say they haven't done something wrong to their health? No, to do so would be to endorse bad health. But we should still be tolerant toward them. Even though we recognize they may not have made all the right health decisions, we also know we've made some bad ones, too, and above all we must preserve their human dignity, not putting down but alwas raising up.
Are you stoned? You are aware that many obese people are obese because of hormonal imbalances, malfunctioning glands and because of other medical problems? By simply saying they ate too much you're making yourself sound like a simpleton. Most of them haven't done something wrong with their health. Many obese individuals do in fact suffer from medical conditions which do lead to their obesity. In fact, genetics may contribute as much as 25% to 40% to the development of obesity. So should we look at obese people with pity and say 'at some point in your family tree someone ate too much'? Then we also have those with psychological problems that lead to binge eating. Should we point the finger and say they made the wrong decision in what to eat when on a binge? How about asthmatics who are put on steroid treatments that can ultimately lead to obesity? Did they over eat as well? Did they do something wrong? How about the ones who are obese because their parents set them on the path to obesity by plying them with the wrong foods and by telling them that they can solve all their problems with food. Did they do something wrong, or did their parents and their upbringing?

Usually when someone says "drugs are bad" they mean illegal ones, not the ones prescribed by doctors to treat illness. Different contexs, really different meanings.
Prescribed drugs are bad for people it's not prescribed for. Many people die by taking unprescribed medication. Many children die or suffer brain damage for taking medication that they should not, but was prescribed for another to treat an illness. All drugs are in effect bad okinrus.

Just as refusing to teach a child about sex and contraception is bad because we want them to be virgins on their wedding days. Maybe we should look to teaching what constitutes a sexual act and how to protect yourself if you do decide to try it, instead of putting the child at risk of a childhood pregnancy or worse, an STD or AIDS because we think that they are going to practice abstinence till marriage because we tell them to. Think back to what you were taught as a child. What you were told was right and wrong. You're telling me that because your parents said this is wrong, you never once did it? I remember being told as a small child how smoking was bad for you, how that's why kids weren't allowed to smoke. Didn't stop me and my cousins sneaking cigarrettes into the garage when no one was looking and lighting up. Kids experiment. And they will experiment with sex. It's better the child experiments with knowledge and understanding than complete ignorance because their parents or schools want them to be virgins till the wedding day. It's better that kids are taught that if they have any form of sex, be it vaginal, oral or anal sex, they should use a condom. Hell it would be a start if these kids are taught that sex does not just constitute a penis in a vagina. Your education system would go forwards in leaps and bounds if just one child realises that oral sex is sex and a condom is needed.

Selling abstinence is fine. But these kids should also be educated about what sex actually is and when a condom is needed. Teaching kids not to have sex until they are married only leads the child to think that only vaginal sex is really sex, as not having vaginal sex will ensure they are virgins to their wedding beds. What they should be taught is that oral and anal sex are also sexual acts as much as vaginal sex is a sexual act. The kids who experiment with sex aren't guilty if something goes wrong and they end up pregnant or sick. Their parents and the education system is ultimately to blame for pushing their ignorance and stupidity on these kids. If a child isn't taught that oral or anal sex is in fact sex, how else would they know? If they're taught that they should remain virgins till the wedding, they should also be taught that sex does not solely constitute a penis inserted in a vagina. They should be taught that if they are going to experiment while remaining 'virgins' per se, they should still use a condom because oral and anal sex is still sex.

oh dear, that is what i am saying. When you tell kids drugs are bad, usually you dont tell them the good side right? you just push negative propaganda at them to scare them off.

duendy, no, I don't tell kids all drugs, are bad. There are some drugs that are good and some that are bad. There are some drugs that are good for a specific place and time but bad at another place and time. And, here, most parents qualify which drugs and which time. They don't want their kids taking cocaine.


so you are confusing the child's mind. it is awful.most of the damage doen to children's heads is from doulble messages like the ones you are proposing. can you not feel and be honest??

I've never had a problem with double messages. But most everything you can find a different point of view. Combining both views or accepting one is part of decision making, and is fairly normal.


You can sell abstinence till you're blue in the face. The kids still won't buy it. The problem here is that they aren't just teaching abstinence. They're not teaching sexual education in itself. These kids do not know where to draw the line between what is heavy petting and what constitutes sex. These kids are taught that a man should not put his peepee into the woohoo until the girl has a ring on her finger. What these kids aren't being taught is that anal and oral sex also classify as sexual acts. When you hear these kids say oral sex is not like real sex, you begin to understand how badly the education system as failed. Teaching abstinence is fine. But teaching abstinence and keeping the child completely misinformed about what constitutes a sexual act and what protection they should use if they do wish to have sex is purely irresponsible and frankly dangerous. Blaming the child for not knowing the basic's of contraception is irrational and frankly very childish of you okinrus. I'd blame the adults for keeping the information away from the child who should have been taught about it in the first place.



The hypocrisy in that statement is astounding. You sound like the Catholic Church with their line of 'we must be tolerant of homosexuals but they must not dare breach the step into the church because they are committing a sin and they are wrong'. Give me a break.

Homosexuals(even those practicing) are allowed into the Church. But they shouldn't receive communion, because homosexual acts are a mortal sin. Now, priests doesn't go so far as enforce this. They don't know a gay person's conscious and they can't judge whether that person has committed a mortal sin.


One cannot teach a child that it is wrong to be something but at the same time teach them that they must be tolerant of it.

I didn't say "to be." What I said was that there a certain things people do that is wrong, only one of which are homosexual acts. The only wrong with "to be" is "to not be" which is certainly wrong.


What happens if the child is taught that it is wrong to be homosexual but they must tolerate them, and that child reaches their teens and they find themselves attracted to the same sex and have no interest in the other sex? That would be one screwed up child wouldn't it?

In a certain sense that child would have an abnormal desire, and if treatement could be found, he or she should be treated. Same-sex attraction in of itself is not a sin, but a sinful desire. Obviously most people have sinful desires, but homosexuals might have a stronger desire to do a particuar sin. Because the normal attraction is male-female, homosexuals are abnormal, in this area.


After all, they'd been taught that they were wrong. Good grief okinrus. You can't hate something but be accepting of it in the same breath. You can't say something is fundamentally wrong and then say it must be tolerated. If you think it's that wrong, why would you tolerate it?

The argument for tolerating it is two-fold. First, not tolerating it by violent threats or violence is also wrong, if not more. Second, the benefits of tolerance versus intolerance weigh in the favor of tolerance.


All you would be doing would be sending the child mixed messages and making him/her more confused than they already are. Homosexuals can't help being homosexual, just as I can't help that I was born with naturally curly hair.

Whether homosexuals must always remain attracted to the same sex isn't proven.


Telling a child that it's wrong but they must accept it would only lead to utter confusion and pain if that child was in fact homosexual. It could even lead to suicide.

Your talking about the attraction not the homosexual act. I see nothing wrong with this, really. Millions of parents tell their teenagers not have premarital sex, and tell them it's a sin, and there's no suicide.


Are you stoned? You are aware that many obese people are obese because of hormonal imbalances, malfunctioning glands and because of other medical problems?

Well, it's possible.


By simply saying they ate too much you're making yourself sound like a simpleton. Most of them haven't done something wrong with their health. Many obese individuals do in fact suffer from medical conditions which do lead to their obesity.

No, I don't think so. While the medical condition might predispose them to obesity, they aren't forced to become obese. In the US each generation down to the present have become more and more obese, leading me to think this more cultural and behavioral than a forced physical condition. I should have, however, clarified that I was only speaking of people who were obese because of improper diet. In particular, obesity is a health disease and as such is wrong, health-wise. An improper diet might lead to obesity so it too is wrong.


Prescribed drugs are bad for people it's not prescribed for. Many people die by taking unprescribed medication. Many children die or suffer brain damage for taking medication that they should not, but was prescribed for another to treat an illness. All drugs are in effect bad okinrus.

No, I meant drugs prescribed to them. There not always good either, but it's usually sound advice to follow the doctor.



Selling abstinence is fine. But these kids should also be educated about what sex actually is and when a condom is needed. Teaching kids not to have sex until they are married only leads the child to think that only vaginal sex is really sex, as not having vaginal sex will ensure they are virgins to their wedding beds.

That's unrelated to the issue at hand. Presumably an abstinence program would have to say what is sex. But what most parents will object to is the graphic illustrations and the preconceived viewpoint. That is, by teaching kids how to use condoms, the school system has already assumed that kids will know how to use the condom when the time comes, and that condoms are perfectly safe. But teaching this isn't necessary. If kids are taught the consequences of sex before marriage, that they might get pregnant and get an STD, they either won't have sex or will seek other "safer" means.

Homosexuals(even those practicing) are allowed into the Church. But they shouldn't receive communion, because homosexual acts are a mortal sin. Now, priests doesn't go so far as enforce this. They don't know a gay person's conscious and they can't judge whether that person has committed a mortal sin.

Oh give me a break okinrus. Priests do enforce this and do refuse to give known homosexuals and their families communion. They have no compulsion by having homosexuals as priests however. Hey, whatever boosts up the numbers right? Priests do judge, just as puritanical people such as you judge others. That I think is more of a 'mortal sin' then any sexual act a homosexual could ever commit.

I didn't say "to be." What I said was that there a certain things people do that is wrong, only one of which are homosexual acts. The only wrong with "to be" is "to not be" which is certainly wrong.
So you'd tell the child it's fine to be homosexual, just never ever have sex or else burn in ever lasting hell? How tolerant of you.

In a certain sense that child would have an abnormal desire, and if treatement could be found, he or she should be treated. Same-sex attraction in of itself is not a sin, but a sinful desire. Obviously most people have sinful desires, but homosexuals might have a stronger desire to do a particuar sin. Because the normal attraction is male-female, homosexuals are abnormal, in this area.
Treatment? Please tell me you're not one of those peons who think that homosexuals is mental illness and can be rehabilitated. Tell me something okinrus. Is there treatment for you? Is there treatment for your heterosexuality? Or better yet, is there treatment for a religious puritan who sees everything normal in the world as a sin?

Homosexuals are not abnormal okinrus. Homosexuality occurs everywhere in nature. Homosexual behaviour occurs in most animals on this planet.

The argument for tolerating it is two-fold. First, not tolerating it by violent threats or violence is also wrong, if not more. Second, the benefits of tolerance versus intolerance weigh in the favor of tolerance.
Let me get this straight. You'd teach a child that being a homosexual and participating in homosexual acts and desires is wrong and a mortal sin. But on the other hand you'd teach that very same child that they must be tolerant of it? Do you not see the confusion and hypocrisy in this? By teaching a child that it's a mortal sin to have sexual desires or sex about someone of the same sex, you're not teaching that child tolerance. You're teaching that child to be intolerant of homosexuality.

Whether homosexuals must always remain attracted to the same sex isn't proven.
This isn't about the rehabilitation thing again is it? Therapy? Shock sessions? Hell you'd probably consider attaching electrodes to their genitals if you'd think it'd lead them from their sinful ways and into the arms of your almighty God. Homosexuals do remain attracted to the same sex okinrus. Just as heterosexuals do remain attracted to the opposite sex. We are who we are. I'm a heterosexual and have been since I can remember and I will be till I die. How do I know this? Because it's who I am. The same applies for homosexuals. It's who they are.

Your talking about the attraction not the homosexual act. I see nothing wrong with this, really. Millions of parents tell their teenagers not have premarital sex, and tell them it's a sin, and there's no suicide.
Eh? You're equating a parent telling their child not to have sex before marriage because it's a sin as being the same as a parent who tells a homosexual child that it's wrong to be homosexual, that it's abnormal to be homosexual, that it's a mortal sin to be homosexual, that society shuns homosexuals, that homosexuality is evil? You consider that to be the same?

An improper diet might lead to obesity so it too is wrong.
Too much of anything can be wrong okinrus. Too much church going and bible thumping belief can also be wrong because it could result in clouded judgement and a blindness to common sense and the surrounding world. But I'm guessing that you'd disagree with me on that score.

No, I meant drugs prescribed to them. There not always good either, but it's usually sound advice to follow the doctor.
Doctors are known to make mistakes all the time. Their advice is not always sound and should not always be followed unless a second, third or fourth opinion is also sought.

That's unrelated to the issue at hand. Presumably an abstinence program would have to say what is sex. But what most parents will object to is the graphic illustrations and the preconceived viewpoint. That is, by teaching kids how to use condoms, the school system has already assumed that kids will know how to use the condom when the time comes, and that condoms are perfectly safe. But teaching this isn't necessary. If kids are taught the consequences of sex before marriage, that they might get pregnant and get an STD, they either won't have sex or will seek other "safer" means.
And here I thought the topic was sex education in the US. Hmm..

Abstinence is taught in the sense that a child should not have sex before marriage. Sex is not defined. The kids aren't taught that oral and anal sex also constitute sex. If it was, these kids wouldn't be saying that they are virgins but have oral sex, because it's not sex. I watched a documentary on this very issue a year or so ago. The amount of teenagers in highly religious families where they are made to make a promise to God and their families and communities to not have sex before marriage and then are out having oral and anal sex because they didn't know that was also sex was frightening. These kids think that sex is only in the missionary position. They simply do not know.

That is, by teaching kids how to use condoms, the school system has already assumed that kids will know how to use the condom when the time comes, and that condoms are perfectly safe.
And by not teaching them, the school has ensured that the kids won't use them at all, even during oral sex and anal sex, because the kids won't think they need them since they don't think they're having sex. By not teaching these kids that they need a condom, they are only ensuring that these kids will think that it's safe without one. Condoms are safer than no condoms at all okinrus.

Abstinence is the safest method of all. But how many of these kids are not going to experiment at all? How many of these kids are not going to be participating in acts that need a condom in place? Would you want to take that risk? Being blind to the reality that kids to experiment in all shapes and forms when it comes to sex is no excuse to keep that child in ignorance about how to keep themselves safe. Teach the child abstinence is the best way. But don't neglect to teach the child that if they don't practice abstinence, protection must be used at all times.

If kids are taught the consequences of sex before marriage, that they might get pregnant and get an STD, they either won't have sex or will seek other "safer" means.
How would they seek other safer means if they aren't taught or told what's out there? Who would they go and ask if they wished to know? Their parents who don't want them to have sex before marriage? Their teachers who are teaching them abstinence as being the only way? Their friends who are probably just as ignorant as they are? Unless you teach these kids what the safer means are, they won't know.

Teach the child that the consequences of unprotected sex before marriage might be pregnancy and STD's. But teach them that UNPROTECTED sex could lead to that. And then teach them what protection there is out there. And THEN teach them that abstinence is the only way to ensure their safety if need be. By not teaching them, you're only ensuring their ignorance.

bell he must be about 90 years old. He cant rember that guys and girls alike in there teens think about sex 95% of the time. hell even NOW my GF cant go for a week without needing to get off so what is the chances of a teenager never doing it and once they HAVE they will NEVER stop untill they are old and dicreped and cant keep it up so they critises the next lot of teenages because they can do what you cant

Having no sex ed it stupid and idiotic. Its saying that out of a whole school NO ONE will ever have sex. HA my foot they wont. HALF of kids ATLEAST have had sex once by year 12, even the kids from religious familys

a friend of my GF's who was 18 and i were talking a while back and she was telling me that she was getting maried that year just so that she could fuck her BF. She had been giving and i asume reciving oral for as long as they had been going out but she was going to throw everything in and marry at 18 just so they could fuck. I am sitting there going "what if in 6 months you realise he isnt what you want?" what if he cant manage money at all? what if one of a 1000 things that would make him an undersirable long term mate for her was true and because they had never even LIVED together and were so young she had no idea? so rather than encorage her to experiment and find herself her family were going to throw her into a life time arangment at just 18 and not knowing any better she agreed. But i wonder how she will feel about it in 20 years????

OKI*NRUS...i am xperiencing compassion....yip. i am not being sarcastic, i began to read your last post and got to the bit where you suggested we Queers need 'treatment' and i stopped in bemused shock--with sense of humour. now..i could have bgun cusing you--i am not a stranger to cursing. but i just felt a sadness for you mate. that your caufght up in a static worldview that is really life-sapping, in that it blocks you from really stretching out and exploring diversity, and L I F E


you know, it is dead easy to say ...'treatment' isn't it. a quick term then you move onto another point. but the ACTUALITy of it. Shit. i have seen and heard people who werer around in the 1950s when being Queer was supposed to be a 'mental illness' the shrinks have changed their minds now (it's all a load of pseudoscience they do anyhow). Please i urge you to take some time....5minutes-10mins to just stop and with COMPAssion imagine. EMPATHIZE WITH A PERSON WHO FINDS THEY arE qUEER. THEIR WHOLE BEING WANTS TO HAVE INTIMATE RELAIONS WITH A MEMBER OF THEIR OWN SEX. loving........now imagine that that person for whatever reason gets into the hands of the shrinks who then begin doing lobotoimoys, ECTS, drugs, all the horrors that happened to Gay men at that time. can you not realize how HORRIBLE all that is?
how misguided, ignorant, arrogant, fasicistic, unloving, etc?....and then imagine someone who has been through that hell, delivered by ignoramouses who are totally blind about the human CONDITION never mind about what being Queer means

Yu are a christian aen't you. can you find ONE passage where 'Jesus' says Queers need 'tratment' or even MENTIONS Queers?

you know..i would love a reality TV show to find people like you. what could happen is simple. you simply have to communicate with Queers on their own turf. go out with them. have a laugh with them. so you can xperience them, not as some strange thing over there doing stuff that frightens you, and makes you think of 'hell', but as REAL human beings all different and unique and adding to the diversity of this wonderful life----Wonderful if people would accept diversity

Oh give me a break okinrus. Priests do enforce this and do refuse to give known homosexuals and their families communion.

Bells, well, I disagree. The sin that they'd refuse is if by having them receive communion creates scandal. So, for instance, if someone's really gone public, and is openly defiant towards the sacrament, then a priest might refuse in order to avoid committing sacriledge. But homosexual acts are no different than any other mortal sin. A priest cannot refuse even someone he knows is homosexual. How is he suppose to guess whether that someone has gone to confession or not?


They have no compulsion by having homosexuals as priests however. Hey, whatever boosts up the numbers right?

They are supposed to put some screening in place. A homosexual could actually become a priest, but the life demands that they avoid having sex.


Treatment? Please tell me you're not one of those peons who think that homosexuals is mental illness and can be rehabilitated. Tell me something okinrus. Is there treatment for you? Is there treatment for your heterosexuality? Or better yet, is there treatment for a religious puritan who sees everything normal in the world as a sin?

Same-sex attraction is a mental illness, similar to sexual addiction, I believe. Somehow or other the natural attraction to the other sex is repressed, and engaging in homosexual acts might reinforce this tendancy. As for rehabilation, I do think it's possible, but it's like quiting a drug if not more difficult.


Homosexuals are not abnormal okinrus. Homosexuality occurs everywhere in nature. Homosexual behaviour occurs in most animals on this planet.

No, I said homosexuality is abnormal. I didn't qualify or extend this to the people themselves, but to only this particular behavior or attraction.


Eh? You're equating a parent telling their child not to have sex before marriage because it's a sin as being the same as a parent who tells a homosexual child that it's wrong to be homosexual, that it's abnormal to be homosexual, that it's a mortal sin to be homosexual, that society shuns homosexuals, that homosexuality is evil? You consider that to be the same?

Homosexuality isn't a mortal sin, but an unnatural attraction to the same-sex. As for sex-before marriage, they are the same level of severity as homosexual acts. Homosexual acts might do more damage to the person physically, but that remains to be seen.



And by not teaching them, the school has ensured that the kids won't use them at all, even during oral sex and anal sex, because the kids won't think they need them since they don't think they're having sex. By not teaching these kids that they need a condom, they are only ensuring that these kids will think that it's safe without one. Condoms are safer than no condoms at all okinrus.

I wouldn't catogorically state that. While for an individual engaging in premarital sex, contraceptions will reduce the chance of STDs, whether condoms are actually safer for society requires looking at the introduction of condoms on the society at large, before and after. I don't have any studies, and to be sure there are other factors for our society's change, but I'm sure the introduction of contraception has created a mentality of no consequence. We can't go back, however; not at this time.


How would they seek other safer means if they aren't taught or told what's out there? Who would they go and ask if they wished to know? Their parents who don't want them to have sex before marriage? Their teachers who are teaching them abstinence as being the only way? Their friends who are probably just as ignorant as they are? Unless you teach these kids what the safer means are, they won't know.

My problem is not only with the exaggerated claims by some teachers, who not wanting to scare kids don't tell them the risks of contraception, but with the graphical depictions of how to use condoms. The former is plainly wrong. For the later, students should be able to get from condom manufactors, and we therefore shouldn't be wasting tax payers money with this type of instruction. How this relates to abstinence, I don't know. Teaching about the existence of condoms and a rudimenally idea of what they doesn't seem something that an abstinence instructor couldn't teach.


Yu are a christian aen't you. can you find ONE passage where 'Jesus' says Queers need 'tratment' or even MENTIONS Queers?

I don't think the homosexual lifestyle is as fulfilling. A homosexual will almost never, in good faith, be able to raise kids or have a family except through adoption, and this is strenuous at best. I have no problem, however, being tolerant or even compassionate, nor do I mean to single out homosexuals. It's one sin and one particular fault.

Okinirus...dont 'tolerate' me....HATe me, but dont act the fukin hypocriste. you know ...you = 'pure' and 'saved' and brimming with 'mental health' and me 'damned' and 'mentally ill'
have the courage of your convictions. feel your HATE. maybe doing that there might be some insight

you are a very narrowminded sad person. one day you may wake up to that fact. maybe not. bt what
ever you say wont make the slightest difference to me. i have heard it all before

what is so ironic, is that in your narrowminded dead worldview, you dont even know what the origins of your very religion is, and what 'sacramant' really means. i assure you it wasn't just dry bread and insipid wine
you are stuck in a cage of tour thinking. you may appear 'harmless' now with your views, but you actually are the enemy of Queers, and people whose lifestyles you dont agree with. you would live quite comfortably and smugly whilst your scapegoats were lcoked up, having all manner of tests done enforcibly on them , persecuations, hate crimes. all of that your ignoreance would condone

so......FUCK YOU

duendy, your overreacting. Why would they go and do test and such?


Okinirus...dont 'tolerate' me....HATe me, but dont act the fukin hypocriste.

Nope, no I don't hate anyone. To be sure, I might not aggree with you, totally and completely, but you shouldn't extend that to hate.


you know ...you = 'pure' and 'saved' and brimming with 'mental health' and me 'damned' and 'mentally ill'

Nope, I never said I was "pure" or "mentally healthy".

duendy, your overreacting. Why would they go and do test and such?

d__hmmmmlike when is it appropriate to overact then?
Have you researched what happened to Gay men when they were catergorized 'mentally ill' and 'criminals'?

Nope, no I don't hate anyone. To be sure, I might not aggree with you, totally and completely, but you shouldn't extend that to hate.

d_-Well what Is hate then. you are being Orwellian with language here.

Nope, I never said I was "pure" or "mentally healthy".

so are you 'mentally ill' then?

so are you 'mentally ill' then?

No, at least I don't think so. I'm not the pinnacle of mental health either, however.

Bells, well, I disagree. The sin that they'd refuse is if by having them receive communion creates scandal. So, for instance, if someone's really gone public, and is openly defiant towards the sacrament, then a priest might refuse in order to avoid committing sacriledge. But homosexual acts are no different than any other mortal sin. A priest cannot refuse even someone he knows is homosexual. How is he suppose to guess whether that someone has gone to confession or not?

Ah yes, scandal. Church must try to avoid that shouldn't it? Okinrus, if someone is openly homosexual, the church does refuse them communion, whether they are defiant or not. It's happened many times here in Australia and the ensuing scandal was quite nasty. They didn't just refuse to give known homosexuals communion, I remember in one case they refused to give the mother of one of the homosexuals communion because she was in support of her son. But then as one of the supporters of homosexual rights, it seems she also may not qualify:

On March 25, 2002, Pentecost Sunday, Archbishop George Pell refused 70 sodomite Catholics and their supporters from receiving sacrilegious Communion. The Archbishop said, "It's not a question of refusing homosexuals, but the rule is basically for all Catholics. A person who publicly defines himself at any given time as supporting or practicing activities contrary to Church teaching in a serious matter is not entitled to receive Holy Communion."
Link (http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=10413)


Support? So by merely tolerating it, you could be seen to be showing support. I'm still laughing at the 'sodomite' comment as well in that article. But then again I guess Archbishop Pell, now Cardinal Pell, should really uphold the Catholic bretheren, seeing how supportive he has been in the past of priests convicted of child sexual abuse. Hell he has been accused himself. But hey, he can take and give communion. How's that for amazingly sick. But then I guess that God doesn't say that one must not be a peadophile.

Same-sex attraction is a mental illness, similar to sexual addiction, I believe. Somehow or other the natural attraction to the other sex is repressed, and engaging in homosexual acts might reinforce this tendancy. As for rehabilation, I do think it's possible, but it's like quiting a drug if not more difficult.
You believe a lot of things don't you? Even with the plethora of scientific evidence pointing to the contrary to your belief, you still believe. You do realise that the world had stopped seeing homosexuality as being a mental illness that needed treatment since around 30 years or so ago, don't you? Or do you just fail to keep up with things okinrus? You do realise that it was society's prejudices which classified homosexuality as a mental illness in the first place, don't you okinrus? One cannot be cured from being a homosexual, just as one can't be cured of being a heterosexual. There is no treatment because it's not an illness.

No, I said homosexuality is abnormal. I didn't qualify or extend this to the people themselves, but to only this particular behavior or attraction.
Abnormal how? Because it doesn't fit in with what your holy book says? It exists everywhere in the animal kingdom okinrus. Hardly abnormal.

Homosexuality isn't a mortal sin, but an unnatural attraction to the same-sex. As for sex-before marriage, they are the same level of severity as homosexual acts. Homosexual acts might do more damage to the person physically, but that remains to be seen.
Un-natural for you, but not for a homosexual. I'm sure you feel a certain attraction to your Bible. I find that un-natural, but I'm sure you wouldn't. You seem to be jumping back and forth with the mortal sin part too okinrus. First it's a mortal sin to partake in homosexual activity, but now you're saying it's not a mortal sin to be a homosexual. Hell, I must be committing so many mortal sins, I must have a seat reserved in hell since I have committed the mortal sin of sex before marriage. I wonder if the baby I am now carrying also going to burn in hell for being the product of so much sin. I'd classify a priest defiling a small child as being a greater sin than any homosexual or person having sex before marriage could ever do. But then I guess that's just me.

I wouldn't catogorically state that. While for an individual engaging in premarital sex, contraceptions will reduce the chance of STDs, whether condoms are actually safer for society requires looking at the introduction of condoms on the society at large, before and after. I don't have any studies, and to be sure there are other factors for our society's change, but I'm sure the introduction of contraception has created a mentality of no consequence. We can't go back, however; not at this time.
Of course you don't have any studies. You still think homosexuality is a mental illness. Condoms ensure not only a safe means of protection against STD's, it also provides protection against pregnancy. The introduction of contraception has ensured that people aren't lumped with children they never want and condoms has also ensured that diseases don't spread as well. You wish to see the effects of no condoms? Do some research into the spread of AIDS in Africa, in light of the Catholic church threatening to pull back aid if the governments and aid organisations teach the people about the use of condoms and also give out condoms. AIDS has become a pandemic in Africa okinrus, and just think how much the numbers of new cases would go down if the use of condoms were widely taught in the communities, and more importantly, if they were readily available.

My problem is not only with the exaggerated claims by some teachers, who not wanting to scare kids don't tell them the risks of contraception, but with the graphical depictions of how to use condoms. The former is plainly wrong. For the later, students should be able to get from condom manufactors, and we therefore shouldn't be wasting tax payers money with this type of instruction. How this relates to abstinence, I don't know. Teaching about the existence of condoms and a rudimenally idea of what they doesn't seem something that an abstinence instructor couldn't teach.
Risk of contraception? What risk? That they're going to go out and fornicate and commit mortal sins? Good grief okinrus. They're teenagers with raging hormones in their bodies. Of course they're going to experiment. Telling them to remain virgins till their marriage is one thing, but denying them the information needed if they do wish to partake in sexual activity is dangerous. I find not telling them more scary then telling them. Graphical depictions of how to use a condom? What do you think? They get a male model into the classroom and get him to pull down his pants and roll one on? What they usually do is open a condom packet and show them what it looks like and tell them how it is put on. You may think it's a waste of tax payer dollar to teach kids how to use a condom, but just think how much more your tax payer dollars are being used when those very dollars have to be put to teenage pregnancy classes for teenage mothers and also to treat the increasing number of teenagers with STD's and AIDS. Hmmm lets see now, the money could be put to preventing teenage pregnancies, STD's and AIDS, or it could be put to treating these teenagers for the very things it could have prevented with just one class.

The problem is okinrus is that teachers teaching abstinance don't teach the kids about sex. They tell them sex before marriage is wrong and leave it at that. Condoms aren't taught in that lesson, nor are any safe sex measures taught. Abstinance teaches the kids to just not have sex before marriage, to remain virgins till marriage. They don't teach the kids that oral sex and anal sex is also sex and can be dangerous unless protection is used. It's not a matter of teaching these kids to have sex. It should be about making these kids aware of what sex actually is and what protection there is out there. I'm not saying that abstinance shouldn't be taught. I'm merely saying that it should only be one part of the lesson. Kids need to have sexual education to make them aware.

I don't think the homosexual lifestyle is as fulfilling. A homosexual will almost never, in good faith, be able to raise kids or have a family except through adoption, and this is strenuous at best. I have no problem, however, being tolerant or even compassionate, nor do I mean to single out homosexuals. It's one sin and one particular fault.
And it's your sin to be so damning and so misinformed. And if you think you're being tolerant or compassionate by calling it a mental illness, you're in deeper denial than I'd originally thought.

No, at least I don't think so. I'm not the pinnacle of mental health either, however.

Actually, Okinrus, i am not going to play your 'mental health/illness' game. i have already dont the research and have seen through that myth....for a more in-depth look yourself checkout www.szaszmaterials.com

actually the present myth of 'mental illness' and your theocratic beliefs which belong in the Middle Ags are commensurate. only the language is changed. the 'damned', Queers, heretics, witches..etc become now the 'mentally ill', and whereas before they had exclusion, excommunication, torture, burnin, hangin, and murder........psychiatry did similar. you should checkout the HISTORY of psychiatry...they used to be called 'Alienists'...read and study The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement

yes. so what they use now is medical control. so see it, Okinaris. listen very very VERy closely. cause you can how it workds in action--not just on paper. the example involves your evidenced behaviour in this debate:
ok. YOU do no agree with Queers. reasons being the beliefs you hold to. SO you--from THERE--label what you do not agree with 'mental illness'. and then want its 'treatment'.

there it is in a nutshell. cause you don't agree with A behaviour, you call it an illness, and want it cured. period

Ah yes, scandal. Church must try to avoid that shouldn't it? Okinrus, if someone is openly homosexual, the church does refuse them communion, whether they are defiant or not. It's happened many times here in Australia and the ensuing scandal was quite nasty. They didn't just refuse to give known homosexuals communion, I remember in one case they refused to give the mother of one of the homosexuals communion because she was in support of her son. But then as one of the supporters of homosexual rights, it seems she also may not qualify:

There is no obligation here to refuse homosexuals or even those who commit homosexual act. This refusal is for those who publicly support and continue to support issues in gross contrast to the Church.


Support? So by merely tolerating it, you could be seen to be showing support. I'm still laughing at the 'sodomite' comment as well in that article. But then again I guess Archbishop Pell, now Cardinal Pell, should really uphold the Catholic bretheren, seeing how supportive he has been in the past of priests convicted of child sexual abuse. Hell he has been accused himself. But hey, he can take and give communion. How's that for amazingly sick. But then I guess that God doesn't say that one must not be a peadophile.

Your changing the issue. Priests aren't supposed to participate in another's sin. To allow someone, for whom they have knowledge, to commit sacriledge is to participate in sacriledge. Now, sometimes in rare cases it's obvious. That is to say, if you went to communion with "support sodomy" written on your shirt, you could be refused. But in other cases,for instance, when a politicion publicly supports abortion, the Archbishop may punish him or her, and his or her repentence will require a public disapproval of abortion.


You believe a lot of things don't you? Even with the plethora of scientific evidence pointing to the contrary to your belief, you still believe. You do realise that the world had stopped seeing homosexuality as being a mental illness that needed treatment since around 30 years or so ago, don't you? Or do you just fail to keep up with things okinrus? You do realise that it was society's prejudices which classified homosexuality as a mental illness in the first place, don't you okinrus? One cannot be cured from being a homosexual, just as one can't be cured of being a heterosexual. There is no treatment because it's not an illness.

Bells, I do not believe homosexuality is the natural state of affairs. I believe it is not what God wants for his creation, but is here because Adam's sin. So I have two choices. Either an individual chooses to be attracted to the same sex or an individual does not. If an individual does not, then where is attraction's origin? Is it not in their mind so to speak?


Abnormal how? Because it doesn't fit in with what your holy book says? It exists everywhere in the animal kingdom okinrus. Hardly abnormal.

Because Adam's sin affected all of creation, it follows that animals are affected too. Moreso, I believe you'd be able to find animals suffering from all sorts of mental illnesses.


Un-natural for you, but not for a homosexual. I'm sure you feel a certain attraction to your Bible. I find that un-natural, but I'm sure you wouldn't. You seem to be jumping back and forth with the mortal sin part too okinrus. First it's a mortal sin to partake in homosexual activity, but now you're saying it's not a mortal sin to be a homosexual.

Yes, to have merely the attraction to the same-sex is not a sin. To lust or to commit homosexual acts is. Also don't confuse by what I mean by mortal sin. That doesn't mean someone doing such has committed a mortal sin. There are a number of conditions such as knowledge that are required to be present if the sin is mortal.


Hell, I must be committing so many mortal sins, I must have a seat reserved in hell since I have committed the mortal sin of sex before marriage.

Again, you'd have know your committing mortal sins. Your conscious, I mean.


I wonder if the baby I am now carrying also going to burn in hell for being the product of so much sin.

No, why?


I'd classify a priest defiling a small child as being a greater sin than any homosexual or person having sex before marriage could ever do. But then I guess that's just me.

I would too.


Condoms ensure not only a safe means of protection against STD's, it also provides protection against pregnancy. The introduction of contraception has ensured that people aren't lumped with children they never want and condoms has also ensured that diseases don't spread as well. You wish to see the effects of no condoms? Do some research into the spread of AIDS in Africa, in light of the Catholic church threatening to pull back aid if the governments and aid organisations teach the people about the use of condoms and also give out condoms. AIDS has become a pandemic in Africa okinrus, and just think how much the numbers of new cases would go down if the use of condoms were widely taught in the communities, and more importantly, if they were readily available.

What I'm telling you is that just because an individual may prevent an STD, the commulative affect on society might not be good. For instance, an aggressive compaign for birth control might increase the rate of extra-marital sex, which might lead to more non-monogamous relationships. Because the introduction of condoms have led to more premarital sex, teenagers face more social acceptance and peer pressure.

Now along time ago Scipio, as related by St. Augustine, posed this argument. He said this. Rome was going to destroy Carthage, eliminating their only real enemy. But if so destroyed, Carthage would no longer be a "thorn in their side". Rome's morality, once great, now would now deteriorated. Of course, Rome did destroyed Carthage, and this, I should think, caused Rome trouble.

What I said before was based by TV. But when I said I didn't have statistics, what I meant was that I had not looked for them. Here's <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CONTRA.TXT">link</a>.



You may think it's a waste of tax payer dollar to teach kids how to use a condom, but just think how much more your tax payer dollars are being used when those very dollars have to be put to teenage pregnancy classes for teenage mothers and also to treat the increasing number of teenagers with STD's and AIDS. Hmmm lets see now, the money could be put to preventing teenage pregnancies, STD's and AIDS, or it could be put to treating these teenagers for the very things it could have prevented with just one class.

Bells, I'm not concerned when my tax money goes to a good cause. But contraceptives is not a good cause. About half of all abortions are from those using contraceptions. It doesn't look like contraceptions are working.

duendy, this view stiffles medical research. But I do not say forced medical treatment. After all, you can find many groups who medical research was administered improperly. But nowdays, even depression is called a medical illness, and even in some cases, it is. So your acting like this is some very bad thing when it's not. Furthermore, many homosexuals, I should think, do not want to remain homosexuals. Research on this area might help them.

I thought it had been made plain to you that being Queer isn't an illness to BEGI with, so saying that Gay people want to be 'cured' is your idea, and for those VERY unfortunate ones, children and adults who find themselves in environments surrounded with sad worldviews like yours then believe they need 'help'.

The ROOT of your ignorance is with your belief in A 'God' who does not agree with males lusting after each other, and having sex with each other.
It made me smile when you claim that the 'sin of Adam' even affected the animal world. I just cannot believe adults BELIVE such rubbish as that. Truly

Your world is like a little box. full of limited concepts. because of that you think, view, and feel the world and other people in a severly restricted way.

your only hope is to take the REAL: sacramaent. you must be bold and go seek to have your bodymind opened. to FEEL the life in you which has been suppressed through godknowshow many years of literalist religious indoctrination.....To rekindle your sensuality, and flow of mind. You must bring EROS back to life for yourself. you are suffocating. when i read your views i can feel your suffocation

why is it wrong for a SECULAR goverment to go in contrast to "the church"? the goverment shouldnt CARE what "god" wants, its there job to do the best for the PEOPLE here and now

Furthermore, many homosexuals, I should think, do not want to remain homosexuals.

No, Okintrus, we want to be just like you! Three cheers for our man!

Research on this area might help them.

If they do do research then they'll find that Homosexuality is not a mental illness, that this is the official professional standing of every credible psychiatric body, including the APA, and that those groups such as NARTH which insist that homosexuality is a disease which can be treated was founded by two self-hating homosexuals who later abandoned the group to go marry, and who's "treatments" do nothing but help homosexuals play on their own self hatred and societaly imposed views that their attractions are basically wrong so that they wind up leaving completely miserable lives and generally still end up having sex with members of the same gender now and again (especially at any NARTH function).

It may, however be argued that theological reasoning is akin to paranoid schizophrenia due to the fact that it's sufferers exhibit symptoms of paranoid irrational delusions about their fellow man, and believe that they can see context and threatening hidden meaning in otherwise mundane and non-encoded events, words, or ancient writings of superstitious desert wandering tribes. As many an atheist bought up in strict Catholic/Mormon/Jehovah’s Witness households can attest, the condition of theological thinking can be cured if only those suffering from the condition can do the proper research and begin to think for themselves.

why is it wrong for a SECULAR goverment to go in contrast to "the church"? the goverment shouldnt CARE what "god" wants, its there job to do the best for the PEOPLE here and now

I couldn't have said it better, that's what the same-sex marriage issue boils down to at any rate. Are we to have a government which caters to first to theological reactionism, or a government which feels obligated first to it's people? Our constitution outlines that it's supposed to work one way and not the other, it's rather a shame that under this administration we've lost sight of that.

I couldn't have said it better, that's what the same-sex marriage issue boils down to at any rate. Are we to have a government which caters to first to theological reactionism, or a government which feels obligated first to it's people? Our constitution outlines that it's supposed to work one way and not the other, it's rather a shame that under this administration we've lost sight of that.

Mystech, the majority of US citizens do not want gay marriage. Whether they support a constitutional ban or whether their opinions change, I don't know. The people cannot really decide what is fair. To do so is to consent to mob rule. At the same time the judges must consider the people for whom their laws affect.


No, Okintrus, we want to be just like you! Three cheers for our man!

No, that's not what I said. There are clearly some homosexuals who do not want to be homosexual. I don't find this suprising.


If they do do research then they'll find that Homosexuality is not a mental illness, that this is the official professional standing of every credible psychiatric body, including the APA, and that those groups such as NARTH which insist that homosexuality is a disease which can be treated was founded by two self-hating homosexuals who later abandoned the group to go marry, and who's "treatments" do nothing but help homosexuals play on their own self hatred and societaly imposed views that their attractions are basically wrong so that they wind up leaving completely miserable lives and generally still end up having sex with members of the same gender now and again (especially at any NARTH function).

Well, I don't this any set definition of a mental illness. But let's see what we can agree on. A pedophile's attraction is certainly a mental illness. But why? Is it because those who are inflicted believe it's an illness? No, there are some who don't. Is it because pedophila harms society? Perhaps. But that goes back to why I called homosexual attraction a mental illness. In it's proper measure, if all males were attracted to males, society would not exist. But the line is somewhat blurry. Any harm a homosexual does to society is for sure less than a pedophile. And even as I believe that practicing homosexuals harm society, the direct relationship isn't there.

Who Wants Some Sugar?
Seattle PBS "comfortable" with controversial "Buster" cartoon

One of the nice things about living in a "blue" state is that these silly controversies are just that: silly.

Despite PBS's refusal to distribute a "Postcards From Buster" episode to approximately 350 member stations, KCTS/9 has decided to go ahead and air "Sugartime!" Feb. 11 at 4:30 p.m. It originally was scheduled to air nationally yesterday ....

.... WGBH-TV in Boston, the station that produces "Postcards From Buster," made the episode available to stations that wished to air it independently of PBS. KCTS requested it, evaluated it along with a member of its Advisory Board's Education Committee, and added it to its schedule.

"We acknowledge that the topic of same-sex couples is a sensitive one for some people," said general manager Randy Brinson in a press release, "but after screening this episode, we are comfortable that it addresses the issue in an age-appropriate way for the viewers we serve."

McFarland, SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/210570_postcards03.html)

That's right, up here in the land of mountains and evergreens and, apparently, "liberal elitists", the idea of canceling an episode of a television show for failing to condemn homosexuality is just a little strange. In the east half of the state, where "middle American" values run deep, the episode will air on KCTS' sister station KYVE will run the episode out of Yakima. KSPS in Spokane, Washington also hopes to get a little sugar.

According to the editorial board of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Children's television programming can help children understand themselves and their families. When young people see kids like themselves on TV, they gain a better sense of their place in the larger world ....

.... U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings went out of her way to deny visibility and acceptance to one small group of families, kids with lesbian parents ....

.... We admire Seattle's KCTS/9 for insisting on honest portrayal of the diversity of American families and deciding to air the episode at 4:30 p.m. today. It surely took some thought; these aren't easy issues, for Cabinet members, vice presidential families or anyone else.

But solving the quandaries doesn't require rocket science. When The New York Times reporter asked the 12-year-old Chicago girl, Farah Siddique, about showing Emma's family, Farah said she wouldn't want her own younger sister watching "that kind of thing." The reporter asked Farah how she would feel about someone saying they didn't want to watch a Muslim family. Farah immediately replied: "Wow, I hadn't thought about it like that. Can I change what I said? ... Maybe they should show it." Spellings, who became understandably emotional when President Bush honored her with a Cabinet nomination, couldn't think quickly enough to avoid a decision that dishonors some children's families.

SeattlePI.com (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211558_bustered.html)

Secretary Spellings, of course, can't change her answer as easily as the young lady from Chicago. After all, things were fine and it would have been a standoff between WGBH officials in "liberal elitist" Boston and gay-rights advocates. And then Spellings had to go punctuate the situation with a loud farting noise: her condemnation helped make sure this episode made the air. And now, even out in our farm country they're going to go ahead with it, something the "liberal elites" in Boston were not prepared to do until Spellings went and reminded us all by her bigotry that children are, indeed, smarter than politicians.

So, yes. If Secretary Spellings wishes to change her answer, I, for one, will permit it without objection.

Or, to borrow one: Maggie, what have ye done?
____________________

Notes:

McFarland, Melanie. "KCTS/9 will air 'Postcards from Buster' showing lesbian parents". SeattlePI.com. February 3, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/210570_postcards03.html

Editorial. "Buster's real message". SeattlePI.com. February 11, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211558_bustered.html

parents should have no say in weather there kid gets taught sex ed any more than they should have a say in wether they are taught english. If thats the way that sex was delt with we might not have such a problem with aids and other STD's as well as teenage pregnancys. The schools should look at it that this is as important or MORE so than basic reading and writing. Hell you can probaby go through life illeterate but i doubt many people die in there old age without ever having some form of sexual experiance

they dont have a say, the government lists it in the curriculum for health education, therefore it gets taught no matter what the parents say, although most schools will notify parents that they are teaching it as a courtesy

vslayer: thats the way it happerns HERE and from your coments (and common sence) im asuming the same of NZ but that doesnt seem to be the way the US works. Parents bitch and important things get removed. Can you see that EVER happerning in NZ or australia? MAYBE in queensland but nowhere else

Same-sex attraction is a mental illness, similar to sexual addiction, I believe. Somehow or other the natural attraction to the other sex is repressed, and engaging in homosexual acts might reinforce this tendancy. As for rehabilation, I do think it's possible, but it's like quiting a drug if not more difficult.

And you're an adult?

I have some advice for you:

<Big>Learn a thing or two about life!</Big>

I'm sorry, but I just cannot take such ignorance from you. You are just wrong. You have no idea how wrong you are, you're so wrong.

Homosexual acts might do more damage to the person physically [than premarital sex], but that remains to be seen.

Well . . . At least ya used "might". Though it's also very wrong, it's a little more forgivable.

I don't think the homosexual lifestyle is as fulfilling.

How do you know? It could be more fulfilling than a heterosexual lifestyle. After all, two men or two women are more like each other than a man and a woman could ever be.

Think about it. If a man hooks up with another man, he doesn't hafta deal with a complicated, overemotional woman who turns bitchy about every twenty-eight days. If a woman hooks up with another woman, she doesn't hafta deal with an &uuml;ber-horny, overagressive man who doesn't talk during sex and may have certain . . . shortcomings.

What I'm telling you is that just because an individual may prevent an STD, the commulative affect on society might not be good. For instance, an aggressive compaign for birth control might increase the rate of extra-marital sex, which might lead to more non-monogamous relationships. Because the introduction of condoms have led to more premarital sex, teenagers face more social acceptance and peer pressure.

Do ya have any idea how much of a stretch that is?!

Having seen the episode in question, I can't figure out what the hell the problem was.

Had this episode run as scheduled and without comment, I wouldn't even have noticed the lesbians.

Thanks to Margaret Spellings for taking this dispute outside the confines of gay-rights advocates and PBS. It was a good chance to put my daughter in front of the television for a specific reason.

Did the lesbians kiss and tell children that sapphist love was the only way for a woman to truly be satisfied? Or was it "Oh by the way here is a same-sex couple, and they don't want to eat buster even though he's a vulnerable young child"?

Also, Tiassa, would you be interested in devising some sort of scale on which you might rate how damagingly gay this program was, vs Sponge Bob Square Pants, and the Telletubbies?

Buster went to Vermont with his father. Along the way, he learned about the people they were going to see. The first cue was the phrase, "She lives there with her partner, Gillian."

Then the camera strolls up to the door, and we meet a woman who is supposedly an old friend of Buster's mom. She shows them in and introduces them around. While Buster is looking at family pictures with the daughter, Emma, he asks about a picture of the two moms. "Isn't that a lot of moms?"

The story then moves downstairs where the brothers are boxing with a heavy bag. They take a moment to explain that one is a step-brother while the other two are directly related.

That's pretty much it.

As to devising a scale? I'm not sure how to mark the units.

If showing a child rape-pornography, for instance, constitutes a 100% harm factor, I'd estimate the following:

Bush speech: 50%
Dazed and Confused: 45%
Sitcoms: 40%
Card-game cartoons: 33%
War/combat cartoons: 30%
Sponge Bob Square Pants: 20%
Teletubbies: 0-10%
Postcards From Buster, "Sugartime": 0-1%

Then again, children with two moms is what touched off the gay fray in Oregon over a decade ago. Some things never change.

I think the politically-sensitive fear would be that children would form an abstract bond with a television character, such as the children of this Vermont family. As such, when the question comes to the viewing children later in life, they will possibly have greater sympathies to the children of gay families: Don't hurt Emma's parents because it hurts her.

And God only knows, a compassionate child is a threat to national security. At least, in "middle America".

Seriously, if Spellings hadn't opened her trap, I might not have noticed this episode at all. Then again, this sort of controversy is the price we pay when PBS changes from "Community-Cooperative Ready to Learn Grants" to "Ready to Learn/No Child Left Behind Grants". It seems our Education Secretary would like to leave children of gay families behind.