Roy Moore stands with homophobic supporters

1) Animals can figure it out. They have no access to the internet. Please explain how animals manage to keep shagging and breeding without sex education, parents who like to talk to their kids about adult issues, and the internet.

2) Social mores are an aid to social cohesion. A society can only function well if people with anti-social urges suppress or shed them - for the good of the group.

3) Actually, it's 'so wrong I don't know where to start' to talk to children about something which only concerns adults. Children are not sexual beings. Sex is a private bodily function, associated with adulthood. It is not the purview of parents. The purview of parents, when it comes to the future sex lives of their children, should be limited to modelling abstinence in youth, and monogamy in adulthood (assuming our kids aren't singles for life, by choice). Such young people rarely ever encounter sex-related issues in life. Why would they, if they're not 'sleeping around' or having relationships all over the place? If they have few or no relationships prior to marriage (to someone of a similar attitude), there is a world of discovery to be enjoyed, safely, and a lifetime in which to do so.

The problem with the western proponent of late 20thC attitudes to sex, is that they imagine everyone is necessarily going to run amok with their pants down from age 14 onwards. It's such an incredibly naive and narrow perspective, and causes the sort of ignorance of the wide variety of other approaches and outcomes that we see in your post. Worse, it basically condemns our kids to do just that, if not at least trying to. They're treated as though they will inevitably get jiggy at a young age, so the child's subconscious assumes it's normal and correct. That's a horrible thing to do. Not all teenagers are having sex FFS!

 

The "right" label is still homophobic because it is an irrational fear of homosexuals.

 

Setting aside that this analogy is horrifically flawed because humans are one of the only species that can have children all year long, that humans are one of the only species that has sex for fun...animals also die all the time from STIs and pregnancy gone wrong.

Animals also drink water straight from the ground/stream. But I am still going to sanitize my water before drinking it because I am smarter.

 

Sexual assault of children by adults or by other children is a thing.

Also, this notion that children are not going to be exposed to sex unless they are just "sleeping around" or "having relationships all over the place" is a prime example of some backass victim blaming bullshit. So, instead of just educating children about the potential risks of sex, we let them get sick or pregnant or sexually assaulted and then say, "you deserved it?"

 

Pedophiles and Homophobes of the world unite... in Alabama.

 

Mmmmmkay!

 

What is up with the modern left and their "phobias"? Phobic this, phobic that. lol

A phobia is a fear of something. I doubt the people you are addressing are in fear of homosexuals. I think they just do not like to normalize what they perceive as abnormal. And to them, they see even more abnormal behavior as being normalized, even to the point to grown men being able to use the female's restrooms. lol And just because these gender confused men think they should be allowed to be in the same room as women who are taking care of their private needs, and the modern left think this is perfectly fine for this to be the law of the land.

And so if americans are against such things, then the modern left pulls out the "phobia" card, when these people are just indulging in common decency. So common decency and respecting the rights of heterosexual women, becomes some kind of phobia!

The trouble is, the modern left have lost all common sense, and are far too extreme in what they want this society to look like. That we should all be equal under the law has its common sense limits. Trying to say that the law should allow men to use the women's rest room is nonsense. And the attempt to force others into accepting homosexuality as being natural, in a universe which thinks procreation is so important as to hard wire the lessor animals with the drive to procreate, which can only be done with the opposite sex, is not in line with nature. And when something isn't in line with the rest of nature, we used to call this "queer behavior" for that indeed describes it from the big picture view.

I believe homosexuality to be an issue in the development of the brain, that something went wrong, and that is disgusts many heterosexuals is as natural as anything can be. And to force another belief upon these people, is stupidity in action. To attempt to make these people feel guilty for what comes natural is a problem. So, of course all humans should have equal protection under the law, regardless if they are mentally affected or not. But it should end there instead of crossing the line into trying to force a belief onto others who do not buy into the detached from nature behavior.

But Carlin hit the nail on the head in regards to male homo behavior. For heterosexual men, this leaves more women for ourselves. Less competition. Every homosexual act, removes two men from the pool of competition. Which might serve a society IF there were a shortage of females, as you see in China, due to their birth control laws put into place long ago to control population. Sons were wanted if one could only have one child, legally. The result of that is a population where there are not enough females to go around. So, china needs a large gay male population. And one wonders if nature then kicks out more homos in order to address this? If so, then this would make homosexuality natural, right? Something that nature does when there is an insufficient number of females? In order to achieve or work towards some sense of balance?

 

Your posts are always such rambling, stream of conscious absurdist positions.

Entertaining at least, but not worth my time to go through and spend 30 minutes trying to point out all the points where it goes wrong.

 

You're not an American are you?

 

Watching Kellyanne Conway argue that tax policy is more important than electing a child molester, was priceless - sad but priceless. She could barely force herself to utter the words. You can see the tension in her face and she continually stumbles.

I want to know what she says to her daughters.

How low will Conway go for trump before she breaks? I think she was at her limit. But then maybe this proves there is no bottom, nothing too low, for Kellyanne,

You tell 'em Kellyanne! Child molesters over Democrats!!!

 

1. Sex education has to do with self protection, family planning, responsibility, morality, etc. Dogs know NOTHING about that.

2. Any mores we have are not biologically inherited - they are learned. Signing up your son or daughter for the mores of the K-12 children of the local school is unbelievably irresponsible.

3. Children ARE adults by the time they leave high school - at least by law. Parents are in far better position to determine what is appropriate for their children. Shirking that responsibility is pathetic parenting. Parents are (or should be) a far better source of information than the other choices - other kids at school, the internet, etc.

And, remember that the issues don't just have to do with what YOUR kids do - they need to be aware of issues of safety.

Every bit of this is important regardless of whether your kid is having sex. In fact, it is likely to lead less and more responsible behavior.

 

I'm not sure about that one but, given the OP, maybe we should have Roy Moore weigh in?

 

I am so pleased my absurdist outbursts entertain you. And if you feel it is not worth your time to try to point out where I am wrong, then so be it. But I suspect you pointing out where I am wrong is just another exercise in modern liberal, faux liberal thinking and conditioning.

Is it that you want to force your own views on others who do not agree with your own thinking? And if someone speaks out against that, they become rambling absurdists? For there was something that I said, and many others have said, that chaffs your arse. And instead of addressing those points which you disagree with, you take the cheap shot and just insult. I see so much of this from the faux liberals and it has been going on for years. Of course we see it from the other side too.

 

It's 'irrational' to you because you feel differently. It's entirely rational to them.

They regard your support as irrational, FTR.

 

The flawed logic is that humans can't figure out how to procreate unless they're taught how to (in childhood). That is so far past flawed that it's actually absurd.

 

This is where the failure of this social experiment is highlighted. This is about raising kids to want better for themselves than sex too young, and sex with too many different people. Kids who honour themselves via abstinence are not the victims of anything - other than in rare unfortunate cases of criminal assault - it's the kids who've been led to believe that sex is inevitable (the child mind reads it as compulsory) in teenage-hood who are the real victims. That leaves them wide open to the horrors mentioned in your post, bolded. In inadvertently insisting that they have sex young, you basically expose them to all manner of bad stuff. And I note you didn't even mention what is probably the most common, and arguably the most damaging, of all consequences - the emotional dysfunction which often results from young people engaging in intense 'romances'.

 

Thankfully, no. I live in one of those far more liberal, socialist democracies. You know, where people sometimes explore all the options when it comes to parenting, instead of lazily relying on a familiar and culturally limited social experiment dating back to the late 1960s.

 

It's shocking to see how far the RNC has fallen on moral principles.

 

1) everyone knows how babies are made by the time they're 14. ergo, everyone knows how to not make a baby. why do some people think teenagers are as stupid as dogs? or is this just the excuse used to give permission to talk sex with children?

2) yes, 'morality' is basically codified survival techniques. when we started living in groups, we needed rules and regulations, and techniques for encouraging the adherence to same. shaming, was one such technique.

3) children should not be having sex while still in high school - that's the flipping point!. they are too young. anyone who is okay with their kids doing so, is the irresponsible parent. how you can argue that with a straight face is beyond comprehension. parents have no business commenting on the later adult married sex lives of their kids, meantime. who the f### does that.

4) safety comes from NOT HAVING SEX, obviously. outside of that, there is only the same risk all kids have of being assaulted in a criminal fashion.

5) no, it isn't. if you have the slightest doubt, consider the stats for sex-related problems in American teenagers, and sex-related problems in Asian teenagers. which group is receiving all the education on sex and drugs etc? you really can't argue this. the very best way to keep our kids safe is to support abstinence for as long as possible, and to encourage them, via modelling, to enter into and stay in monogamous marriages.

 

You clearly don't have an understanding of what is happening in the US.

And, your idea that parents shouldn't be involved make me shudder.

 

[/QUOTE]
Sex education doesn't start OR end at 14. And, you have a highly limited concept of subject matter.

Shaming does NOT solve anything.

Sex education is about kids NOT having sex in high school. It's also about personal safety. And, since "just say no" is a total failure, teens need to understand prophylaxis, health concerns, etc.

What model? You have already stated that parents shouldn't be involved. In that case, the models end up being others at school.

Also, you have the order of events backwards. Faced with sex and drugs problems as well as the disengagement of parents, it became more important for schools to work on this problem - and, not as the only approach. The "just say no" and abstinence training have both been tried and they failed spectacularly.

 

Oh, please.

Nobody believes that nonsense.

 

What business is trying to be taken from you?

 

That's not what sex ed in school is teaching. Now we see why you have been so confused.

 

You mean no one in lib la la land admits it