(02-20-2012 12:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:35 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

Got to discuss Asphyxia and fisting. Vorarephilia. Scat. Caning and whipping. Water sports. Bukkake. Bondage, domination, ball torture, ass-to-mouth. Can't whitewash one deviant lifestyle and discriminate against and ostracize other consenting partners for their preferred private home entertainment.

Given your signiture, it looks like you are into watersports.

Btw, sounds like a fun discussion. Where can I join.

One of my favorite sayings is..."thats golden like a shower"...LOL

(02-20-2012 11:51 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

Honestly if we removed all discussion of sex from K8 Education I would be fine... Of course the left would not be.

You might be Max but we both know the party of 'sex ed from birth' is the democrats and anybody on the left who takes a position that it's ok to ignore the subject until high school is either an oddity or a liar.

Have you ever met a stereotype or generalization you won't run with?

Personally, I would rather teach it myself to my children. But I would have no issue with it being taught in school as long as the basic curriculum was made known to parents beforehand and an option to opt out for your children was given.

(02-20-2012 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 11:51 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

Honestly if we removed all discussion of sex from K8 Education I would be fine... Of course the left would not be.

You might be Max but we both know the party of 'sex ed from birth' is the democrats and anybody on the left who takes a position that it's ok to ignore the subject until high school is either an oddity or a liar.

Have you ever met a stereotype or generalization you won't run with?

Personally, I would rather teach it myself to my children. But I would have no issue with it being taught in school as long as the basic curriculum was made known to parents beforehand and an option to opt out for your children was given.

More and more districts are making it difficult to opt out for parents.

(02-16-2012 04:48 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:24 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  It's a proven fact that the more forbidden something becomes, the more a child is curious about it.

Oh, so your thinking about the kids and trying to save them from experimenting with something that goes against their natural inclinations. Well that makes it just dandy then. Excuse me, I have to sneeze. Kabullshit. Bless me. Now, where were we. Oh that's right, Max telling us how EVERYTHING is unconstitutional.

Okay, so you don't know developmental psychology.

It's horseshit and patently untrue, whatever you try to call it.

Do you even have kids?

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

So now it's discrimination to teach about the one and only way that mankind can perpetuate itself. You libs are out of your ******* minds.

(02-20-2012 01:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 04:48 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:24 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  It's a proven fact that the more forbidden something becomes, the more a child is curious about it.

Oh, so your thinking about the kids and trying to save them from experimenting with something that goes against their natural inclinations. Well that makes it just dandy then. Excuse me, I have to sneeze. Kabullshit. Bless me. Now, where were we. Oh that's right, Max telling us how EVERYTHING is unconstitutional.

Okay, so you don't know developmental psychology.

It's horseshit and patently untrue, whatever you try to call it.

Keep on believing that. Go get an education in psychology, if you really want to know the facts about the issue.

(02-20-2012 10:25 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 01:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 04:48 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:24 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  It's a proven fact that the more forbidden something becomes, the more a child is curious about it.

Oh, so your thinking about the kids and trying to save them from experimenting with something that goes against their natural inclinations. Well that makes it just dandy then. Excuse me, I have to sneeze. Kabullshit. Bless me. Now, where were we. Oh that's right, Max telling us how EVERYTHING is unconstitutional.

Okay, so you don't know developmental psychology.

It's horseshit and patently untrue, whatever you try to call it.

Keep on believing that. Go get an education in psychology, if you really want to know the facts about the issue.

At what point would you want to educate children on the specifics of gay sex? How old must they be? If you have children, how much detail would you want them to learn and at what age?

Or, should we let the children define their own sexuality and educate them solely on the human reproductive system? Leaving homo/hetero out of the curriculum?

(02-21-2012 09:01 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Or, should we let the children define their own sexuality and educate them solely on the human reproductive system? Leaving homo/hetero out of the curriculum?

This would be fine, if that was the spirit of the law. However I have a feeling it has more to do with the "anti-gay agenda".

(02-21-2012 09:17 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 09:01 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Or, should we let the children define their own sexuality and educate them solely on the human reproductive system? Leaving homo/hetero out of the curriculum?

This would be fine, if that was the spirit of the law. However I have a feeling it has more to do with the "anti-gay agenda".

We call it a pro-straight, pro-moral (and some may say pro-Christian) agenda. By calling it anti-anything and turning it into a negative you're putting straight, moral people on the defensive when they shouldn't be. What's wrong with being straight and moral?

The "anti-gay agenda" is curbing the gay agenda.

(02-21-2012 09:17 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 09:01 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Or, should we let the children define their own sexuality and educate them solely on the human reproductive system? Leaving homo/hetero out of the curriculum?

This would be fine, if that was the spirit of the law. However I have a feeling it has more to do with the "anti-gay agenda".

I agree. I'd much rather have a system of education where sexual orientation is left out of the curriculum and human reproductive system is the basic education...

(02-21-2012 10:35 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 09:17 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 09:01 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Or, should we let the children define their own sexuality and educate them solely on the human reproductive system? Leaving homo/hetero out of the curriculum?

This would be fine, if that was the spirit of the law. However I have a feeling it has more to do with the "anti-gay agenda".

I agree. I'd much rather have a system of education where sexual orientation is left out of the curriculum and human reproductive system is the basic education...

That necessarily means straight sex and an exclusion of gay sex.

(02-21-2012 11:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:35 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 09:17 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 09:01 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Or, should we let the children define their own sexuality and educate them solely on the human reproductive system? Leaving homo/hetero out of the curriculum?

This would be fine, if that was the spirit of the law. However I have a feeling it has more to do with the "anti-gay agenda".

I agree. I'd much rather have a system of education where sexual orientation is left out of the curriculum and human reproductive system is the basic education...

That necessarily means straight sex and an exclusion of gay sex.

Not really. A discussion on human reproduction taught strictly from a biological standpoint could be included in nothing more than a lesson on how life is created(not to be confused with creationism). But I see your point...and that was my point. Even basic biology emphasizes the male/female relationship. There isn't any reason a homosexual relationship should be taught in any sense of the word. I don't think sexual orientation should be discussed at all, even when discussing historical figures.

When discussing A. Lincoln maybe mention his wife was a hag or if you live in California maybe mention H. Milk had a male partner....but then does that lead to conversations/questions that school age children shouldn't be having/asking...I think so. Slippery slope my friend...there is a fine line between teaching and indoctrination.

If you want to teach about procreativity, fine, but a biology course teaching procreativity to the exclusion of gay sex should also exclude straight non-procreative sex. Gay sex and straight sex aren't mutually exclusive. Gay sex (BJs and anal) is practiced by (lucky) straight people too. (Except, what, reach arounds?) Drawing the line at "gay" allows talk about the very same acts gays are doing. Maybe the bill's sponsor meant that he only wanted sex taught for procreation and didn't want to target gays but he did a piss poor job of tailoring the bill then for that reason.

(02-22-2012 12:22 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If you want to teach about procreativity, fine, but a biology course teaching procreativity to the exclusion of gay sex should also exclude straight non-procreative sex. Gay sex and straight sex aren't mutually exclusive. Gay sex (BJs and anal) is practiced by (lucky) straight people too. (Except, what, reach arounds?) Drawing the line at "gay" allows talk about the very same acts gays are doing. Maybe the bill's sponsor meant that he only wanted sex taught for procreation and didn't want to target gays but he did a piss poor job of tailoring the bill then for that reason.

I agree. The rest is nonsense.

(02-16-2012 10:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Even if anti-homosexual laws are secular though, it still violates 14th Amendment substantive due process because there is no legitimate government interest in doing so.

You don't want that fight, you'll lose it.

I know your post-modern principles don't include facts, but if you go there, you won't like what you'll find.

don't tell that to the US 9th circuit court...

(02-16-2012 10:13 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I think even Scalia would balk at the gays = Nazis analogy.

If the state wants to abridge speech it needs a compelling reason to do so. There is no compelling reason to "not talk about homosexuality." There would arguably be compelling reasons to support the other bans you're talking about.

What about parental dissent? We're not talking geography or math here, we're talking opinion, not fact. And what about that long lost concept of morals?

Exactly. We're talking about opinion. We're talking about the government banning discussion of a perfectly harmless, law abiding lifestyle because of the opinion of a bunch of homophobes. The only conceivable purpose is to further humiliate and embarass gay people by passing a law saying they can't be talked about. There is no objective moral reason to do this.

I don't want my kid learning about a teacher's opinion, I want him to learn facts. How about if the teacher had an opinion that Bush caused 911, the world is flat, slavery is good, so is pedophilia, or had a strong pro-religious opinion that he shared in class. What if the teacher shared an anti-union opinion?

you're going to have one f***ed up kid once they get out of your sheltered little world...

(02-20-2012 08:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

So now it's discrimination to teach about the one and only way that mankind can perpetuate itself.

so what of people who can't have kids...guess they don't matter to you.

(02-22-2012 12:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 08:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

So now it's discrimination to teach about the one and only way that mankind can perpetuate itself.

so what of people who can't have kids...guess they don't matter to you.

So you're trying to use infertility as a reason to teach homosexuality?

(02-22-2012 12:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Even if anti-homosexual laws are secular though, it still violates 14th Amendment substantive due process because there is no legitimate government interest in doing so.

You don't want that fight, you'll lose it.

I know your post-modern principles don't include facts, but if you go there, you won't like what you'll find.

don't tell that to the US 9th circuit court...

Yes, they'll try to persecute me. Nice freedom we've got going on.