Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?[/quote]

I like comprehensive sex ed in schools because there is a well-set up, organized program run by professionals who know how to deal with these issues. Many parents are unsure how to best approach these issue their kids and appreciate that there is a system set up.

As far as I’m aware, every parent has the authority to keep their kids out of such classes with no repercussions.

But, fine. If you insist on that route, get it out of schools completely and let it be left to parents. Abstinence-only garbage should not be taught either, creating the false impression that the schools have got it covered. When it’s clearly a bad methodology.

But honestly, no I take that back. You should not get to be the decision-makers on this. People that don’t want it are really the marked minority. Only 7% of parents say sex-ed should not be taught at schools.

Your beliefs should not be used to force others to forgo something the vast majority is in favor of. Certainly not when kids whose parents object don’t have to attend the classes.

362

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices.

I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?

Because many parents don’t do their jobs and that shouldn’t constitute a death sentence for their children?
[/quote]

And because 93% of parents think it’s an appropriate topic for schools to cover. And the 7% who don’t are free to exempt their kids.

363

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?

Because many parents don’t do their jobs and that shouldn’t constitute a death sentence for their children?
[/quote]

Ah, the reasoning of tyrants.

364

[quote]Sloth wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?

Because many parents don’t do their jobs and that shouldn’t constitute a death sentence for their children?

Ah, the reasoning of tyrants.[/quote]

Why should the 93% will of the majority who want sex ed in schools be circumvented by you, the 7% minority? Talk about tyranny of the minority.

Is it not one of your arguments that the small number of advocates for gay marriage should not be able to circumvent the will of the majority who oppose it?

The situation here is so much stronger. In that case, it’s only people opposed to the idea of gay marriage and the abstract concern it will weaken the institution of marriage. They are not personally being denied anything.

Here, if you had your way, a 7% minority would be able to DENY a 93% majority something they support and want for their kids.

365

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?

Because many parents don’t do their jobs and that shouldn’t constitute a death sentence for their children?

Ah, the reasoning of tyrants.

Why should the 93% will of the majority who want sex ed in schools be circumvented by you, the 7% minority? Talk about tyranny of the minority.

Is it not one of your arguments that the small number of advocates for gay marriage should not be able to circumvent the will of the majority who oppose it?

The situation here is so much stronger. In that case, it’s only people opposed to the idea of gay marriage and the abstract concern it will weaken the institution of marriage. They are not personally being denied anything.

Here, if you had your way, a 7% minority would be able to DENY a 93% majority something they support and want for their kids. [/quote]

I don’t pay my damn taxes for you people to bring some dope in to demonstrate how to put a friggen condomn on a cucumber. My way doesn’t force the government to take ANY stance.

366

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Is it not one of your arguments that the small number of advocates for gay marriage should not be able to circumvent the will of the majority who oppose it?

[/quote]

No.

367

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?

Because many parents don’t do their jobs and that shouldn’t constitute a death sentence for their children?

Ah, the reasoning of tyrants.

Why should the 93% will of the majority who want sex ed in schools be circumvented by you, the 7% minority? Talk about tyranny of the minority.

Is it not one of your arguments that the small number of advocates for gay marriage should not be able to circumvent the will of the majority who oppose it?

The situation here is so much stronger. In that case, it’s only people opposed to the idea of gay marriage and the abstract concern it will weaken the institution of marriage. They are not personally being denied anything.

Here, if you had your way, a 7% minority would be able to DENY a 93% majority something they support and want for their kids.

I don’t pay my damn taxes for you people to bring some dope in to demonstrate how to put a friggen condomn on a cucumber. My way doesn’t force the government to take ANY stance.[/quote]

You and your 6 buddies can take your damn kid out of the class. Me and 92 other people pay taxes and if we want some dope to show our kids how to put a condom on a cucumber, you and your 6 friends have no fucking right to deny us this.

368

You are simply wrong on this issue. You have no possible argument. No one is forcing anyone else’s kid to participate. Not so long as parents have the right to opt out with no repercussions. I think that’s a must.

But as long as that exists, 7% of people should not get to deny 93% of people something they want for their kids. That’s not how it works.

369

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
You and your 6 buddies can take your damn kid out of the class. Me and 92 other people pay taxes and if we want some dope to show our kids how to put a condom on a cucumber, you and your 6 friends have no fucking right to deny us this.[/quote]

I damn sure do. I pay my taxes, and tolerate it, so that our crappy public education system might actually busy itself with Math, English/Lit, History, and science. I don’t pay them so they can hire goons to pass out latex and advocate the use of contraception. Otherwise, scrap public education (or allow me to recover my taxes) and we won’t have this debate.

370

Damn, I missed the part of the argument where it went from being creepily homophobic to the part were it went to being flat out ignorant. The last time I checked, they made me and the Mrs. sign a dozen forms to make sure it was alright for them to talk about reproductive responsibility with my kid.

Not that he hadn’t heard the same stuff from us, but because apparently there are a bunch of numbnuts out there that think “purity pledges” and religious instruction is really going to keep teenagers sexually inactive.

371

[quote]Amused59 wrote:
Not that he hadn’t heard the same stuff from us, but because apparently there are a bunch of numbnuts out there that think “purity pledges” and religious instruction is really going to keep teenagers sexually inactive. [/quote]

And there you have it. Of course THIS ideology is enforced with tax money. Hey, privatize the schools. You can teach dry-humping as an alternative at your chosen school, for all I care.

372

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
You and your 6 buddies can take your damn kid out of the class. Me and 92 other people pay taxes and if we want some dope to show our kids how to put a condom on a cucumber, you and your 6 friends have no fucking right to deny us this.

I damn sure do. I pay my taxes, and tolerate it, so that our crappy public education system might actually busy itself with Math, English/Lit, History, and science.

I don’t pay them so they can hire goons to pass out latex and advocate the use of contraception. Otherwise, scrap public education (or allow me to recover my taxes) and we won’t have this debate.[/quote]

I don’t give a shit why you think you pay them. Start an initiative for conscientious objectors to get back the small percentage of taxes that go towards sex ed.

The bottom line is that 7% of taxpayers don’t get to veto something 93% of taxpayers want. And pay for.

There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxes to fund. Too damn bad. There’s no government in the world where you can pick and choose each indiviudal iniative you fund.

Now I think I know what kind of government you want. And it’s not conservatism. it’s Anarchy. By that, I don’t mean chaos. But the political philosophy of anarchism: a society free from coercive authority of any kind. Doesn’t work. Never has. It’s been tried.

Then again, you seem to want to be able to tell OTHER people how to live their lives. So, I really don’t know what you want. Maybe a Sloth-opia.

373

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

The bottom line is that 7% of taxpayers don’t get to veto something 93% of taxpayers want. And pay for.

[/quote]

Yeah, and I live in a country that was supposed to be founded on limited government, and one that protected the minority from the kooky ideas of the majority.

But here we are, my tax dollars used to fund sex education in government schools. If you want the minority to shut up, release us from the system. Give us a credit, returning all tax dollars that go to public education.

374

By the way, shouldn’t you add the 7% no sex ed. figure to the 15% abstinence only figure?

375

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, shouldn’t you add the 7% no sex ed. figure to the 15% abstinence only figure?[/quote]

No. The 15% still wants sex ed in schools. They have a beef with the 78% over what the contents should be.

376

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

The bottom line is that 7% of taxpayers don’t get to veto something 93% of taxpayers want. And pay for.

Yeah, and I live in a country that was supposed to be founded on limited government, and one that protected the minority from the kooky ideas of the majority. But here we are, my tax dollars used to fund sex education in government schools.

If you want the minority to shut up, release us from the system. Give us a credit, returning all tax dollars that go to public education.[/quote]

Take that up with your State legislature.

377

Why not the Federal Government, too? Did they not spend billions in 2006? Of course, I don’t see that enumerated power anywhere.

378

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why not the Federal Government, too? Did they not spend billions in 2006? Of course, I don’t see that enumerated power anywhere.[/quote]

I dont’ think the federal government should really be involved with education at all.

But as it stands, 91% of education is funded by State and local taxes. As it should be (if not entirely). And the State and schools districts themselves are the ones who make these kind of decisions. As it should be.

379

Although, the piece-of-shit administration did try to make it a federal issue by funding abstinence-only education and not funding any other type.

And it has unfortunately been pretty successful. A coercive, ridiculous use of federal power to control something that should be left to state taxpayers.

380

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Although, the piece-of-shit administration did try to make it a federal issue by funding abstinence-only education and not funding any other type.

And it has unfortunately been pretty successful. A coercive, ridiculous use of federal power to control something that should be left to state taxpayers.[/quote]

They’d funded sex education before that.