Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
There isn`t any urine in a vagina, or at least there shouldn`t be. It comes out in a different place, slightly above the vag. ((I agree with what you`re saying though.))
second and as a man, it has so much more meaning lol
But frankly what people do in their private lives is their own business, don`t judge it based on YOUR preferences. Plus homosexuality doesn`t automatically mean anal sex.
Under Kentucky state law, those are the 4 degrees of Sodomy.
Actually, it isn`t. Lawrence v. Texas overturned all anti-sodomy laws in the United States in 2003.
"Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of `liberty` protected by due process... It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."
First I was like ":-D", but then I was like ":-("
Any Christian who has actually, y`know, read the Bible wouldn`t spew such hatred, since it is repeatedly said by Jesus NOT to hate.
Also, many churches have affirming congregations.
The woman should have left her opinions out, and focused on the bill.
You have to be careful making statements like that, you`re better off researching the bill itself, and then making assertion about the bill and not the general concept of the bill. Gay marriage should be voted in, but the bill instating it should not allow the subjecting of children to pornography, would be a more accurate way of saying what I think you`re saying.
I call that being hypocritical.
Also, I stand by my first statement, if allowing gay marriage allows also gay porn to be shown to 5th graders, it should have never been voted in.
I couldn`t agree more, but sexual preferences should be discussed in terms of tolerance.
Man the states must be hard to live in. I come across the occasional bigot up here (my brother being one) but for the most part people keep it to themselves or at least temper it by saying something stupid like "I don`t care if people are gay, it just weirds me out."
BTW: I`m opting out. It`s pointless to even argue against you elkingo. The fact you stated something and then denied it, when i showed you that you did INFACT state it, you still denied it, then your just as bad as the Xians. You tried redeem yourself by saying a little after note stating all pornographic material to underage children should be condemned, but alas, calling me an ignorant hypocrite, when there wasn`t a single hypocritical part about my rant went on shows only how you perceive things in your world.
Do you honestly think that is the case?
The video did portray her disgust for the act, allowing something doesn`t mean you have to think it is a good thing, that is called tolerance.
For example: I think being a drunk is revolting, that doesn`t mean I am against alcohol sales.
Like I said, this woman in the video is clearly ignorant, but what she brought up should be checked into. If they are showing that sort of material in the classroom, it should be stopped.
Now, you know how American laws work.. Someone votes for lower taxes, and attached to that bill is a stimulus for something no one would vote for. If that is the case with this: Allowing Gay marriage has the tack on allowing pornography in the classroom, then yes it should be revisited and reconsidered.
Her point made was: Pornographic material has came in on this bill as an umbrella.
They could have voted in world peace, that doesn`t make it right to show pornographic material to children.
I didn`t say I was for or against homosexuality, but if voting that in allows for pornographic material to be shown to elementary aged children, it is wrong.
I am arguing that regardless of one`s stance on homosexuality, it should not be taught in the school using a method that includes full frontal nudity, and showing the "how to`s" of any sexual act. Not just homosexuality.
The point of this woman`s rant on the vote, was plain: There was no pornographic material before the vote on same sex marriage, so maybe it should be reconsidered.
You did make a stance on gay sex teaching in school whether you meant to or not, because in stating that pornographic material is unsuitable for young children (agreed), and then extending that assertion by stating any lifestyle promotion that allows the showing of pornographic material should be "outed", you are saying you would rather gay sex not be taught. I agree at 5th grade level the details of any sex should be carefully limited, but the idea that safe sex should be practiced in any regard including the often ignored oral sex, but to say that promoting a lifestyle as acceptable in our society does not endanger anyone. It protects them.
And yes, you did say that. BTW did you ever think that for 1) It is illegal to show any kind of porn to any child under 18 years of age, and 2) They likely, if showing gay "porn" which probably consisted of telling them the hygiene of anal sex (I mean, seriously...its sex ed. it likely to help the kids in the future, not stunt them.) and 2) If Gay Porn was shown, would you consider straight porn shown? Not everyone democrat are out to eat your babies and rape the women...
I didn`t give my opinion at all on same sex marriage, I simply stated it is wrong to show pornographic material to 5th graders. I don`t care what you are voting on for that matter, if it allows pornographic material to be shown to 5th graders it should be outed.
I know that, I just don`t like to categorize all right wingers as nut jobs, because they aren`t all nut jobs, and I have no problem with most Christians as long as they recognize my right to not believe in Christian values.
By that argument, for that age group, any naked people having sexual relations is wrong to show to 5th graders.
I`d like to see this "pornographic" material everyone is talking about. Let`s think about this, there is a distinction between pornography and nudity. I doubt that the state jumped from hardly any sex education, to gay sex being ok and exposing youngsters to porn being ok too. Unless we can see the material in question we cannot make accurate judgments. Further more gay sex has nothing to do with pornography. The inclusion of gay sex in safe sex teaching should be included to promote safety. If you`re a right wing nut job who thinks "let all the gays have unsafe sex, and let the AIDS get them",
Actually, Sodomy is a crime in Kentucky.
Anal isn`t just for gay guys!
Yes I am an elitist that believes I know what is best for the rest of society; that would be extinction; or if not extinction, then you already said my next two most favorable opinions. Breed humans like we do all the species we have domesticated, and forcefully sterilize all others.
No, I`m not. Sometimes absurdity needs to be pointed out through absurdity and/or sarcasm.
Socialism works best in small countries where it is easier for a bigger part of the population to relate to their guvornment. or atleast that`s how I see it.
The need for freedom is relative. In a socialistic world, you don`t NEED all that freedom, a concept that is hard for the Average Joe to grasp.
Obvious troll is obvious. You almost had me there. (^.~)v
No, I suspect your on a fishing expedition.
The answer is, It`s none of your business. I wouldn`t answer it before because it`s irrelevant.
However, I suspect you`d have some criticism either way right ?
You`d either tell me my kids are going to grow up ignorant and on Jerry Springer, Or that I`d have no right to talk about the issue.
Too bad, I don`t fall for traps like that.
I forgot you live in Europe where Socialism is sacrosanct. My gosh socialism is the best system on the planet! <sarcasm>
This is an American issue, We have freedoms here that you don`t. And one of them is the freedom to raise our children they way WE want, Not the way the state wants.
"Are YOU a father, Crackr?"
Just looking for perspective here...
Incorrect sir, But I believe it`s the parents primary responsibility. I`m glad to hear you prepared your children, That`s what good parents do.
How a kid is prepared for those realities should only be up to their parents, Regardless if you believe they`ll do a good job or not. It`s not for you or the state to judge or take over another parent`s responsibilities.
Again, the "They are going to do it anyway" is a falsehood. I didn`t do drugs, Drink alcohol, Or have premarital sex. Nor, Was I ignorant of the risks of each.
You wouldn`t want me teaching my values to your kids, or visa versa. So why would you believe the state would do a better job than either of us ?
Since when was Socialism a Bad Word? The rest of the f*cking planet runs on socialism, and we`re all doing good. Europe, Scandanavia, The Far East, The Middle East, Africa... Including China which makes all you f*cking stuff. Christ, the list goes on. Why are you clingling on to this McCarthyist Communism-is-a-threat bullsh*t? The USSR is dead, old man. Let it go, move on with the times.
The delicious irony here crakrjak, is that obviously their parents ARE NOT educating them, hence the reason why they end up on Maury Povich. At least with State Education, kids are getting something that they`re clearly not getting at home.
And I repeat my question, not to be an ass, but because it`s relevant: Are YOU a father, Crackr?
Then that`s complete and total irresponsible parenting isn`t it ?I don`t believe the argument that the state knows best overruling and undermining a parents responsibilities. You are talking socialism here, Take the kids away from their parents and have the state educate them.
And I, as a Dad, would rather have them prepared for the reality of life in the 21st century, rather than shielded from it. Are YOU a father, Crackr?
Crakrjak, I fail to understand at a very fundamental level where you come from when you suggest denial of basic education to children on things that they are going to be exposed to everyday. It saddens me.
You advocate denying children information on such issues as alcohol, drugs, sexual intercourse, homosexuality (and apparently nuclear physics, but we`ll ignore that for now, as you objected).
Dude, some of the most f*cked up people I know, are that way, because they weren`t educated in the implications of what they were doing.
Let`s take the example of sex, to pick one at random. In my world, children would be educated at school (because, let`s face it, some parents won`t address the issue) about sex. They would learn about contraception, what intercourse is, and what it can lead to. You`d hide them from the reality of sexual intercourse.
So you`re an elitist that believes they know what best for the rest of society eh ? I guess you`ll want to see Eugenics and Forced Sterilization next.
I didn`t `Link` them. I was making a point about the issuance of information to irresponsible parties and how that it dangerous.
Nice try at deflection there. :-P
...then what the hell is the damn thing worth if it doesn`t work then? Hello? I`m saying it`s up to the useless people squirting out babies and then never taking any freaking responsibility to teach them about the world! That includes an educated look at sexuality, drinking and smoking. Not just some tripe that they toss out to shut them up!
And you think that`s caused by kids being taught about the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol is school? Seriously?
Then that`s the fault of their idiot parent isn`t it ? Still doesn`t justify your argument.
Yeah, That`s why teens smoke more than adults (1 in 4 vs. 1 in 5) and are involved in more alcohol related car accidents than adults.
Let`s inform them about auto-erotic asphyxiation as well and see how that goes. Let`s give Iran the info they need to build high grade nuclear weapons too. Information in irresponsible hands can be and is dangerous.
Well that was mainly an idea to help parents decide what would be appropriate for their children. It doesn`t work. You still get parents buying Gears of War and Grand Theft Auto for their youngsters (under 16) AFTER the sales clerk has warned them about the content (because no one reads the damn box in the first place) and they still buy it, go home, see little Timmy beat up a prostitute or get sawed in half, and then go all the way back to the store to complain to the SALES CLERK why THEY should help parent someone ELSE`S child.
By that same logic Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal too, Let`s demand training in those activities for our kids as well. <sarcasm>
You learned what you learned as an adult, That`s your business. Kids at age 10-11 do not need this information fed to them by the state. Parents should be in control of what their kids see and learn.
After all isn`t that why there are ratings labels on Games, TV Shows, Dvds, Etc.. ? To keep kids safe.
Stick to 4chan dude, they need more people like you over there.
Rome fell because they spread themselves too thin and hired mercenaries from the lands they had just conquered. Not because they were banging each other. If they fell due to sex, humans wouldn`t have a society period unless everyone was in chastity belts.
Why yes, yes she is. What was the giveaway?
No GAY man would touch her, no straight man would either.
LOL technically you are correct, which makes it funnier.
Should they be taught it`s not OK? Everything is okay if it`s consensual and safe, and that is all that`s being taught (unless abstinence is being taught, which is the only thing I find to NOT be OK).
In third and fourth, it was basically "you have a penis." In fifth, it was "girls have vaginae. Babies are made by sticking your penis inside the vagina. Here`s some deodorant." In middle school (the first time boys and girls weren`t separated), it was about sexual health, proper usage of contraceptives, and an opportunity for (anonymous) questions to be put forward.
I think that this method worked fine. As for anal sex, it should be included from a safety point of view (7th grade), but should not be depicted for 5th graders. At that age, it should be "this is what a penis does, this is what a vagina does, and this is what happens when you put them together." I`m sure they don`t provide images of handjobs, blowjobs, BDSM, masturbation, etc.
Alright there are a few things wrong with this statement (whoa I can get in debate mode way to fast) A) She is referring to 5th graders who would be hitting puberty, and trust me, as member of the current generation some kids (far from all) are doing stuff. B) sex ed to some degree should be taught from birth. I friggin called my vagina a PP for god knows how long and got into an extensive fight with a friends older brother about how I had PP and he did not since he referred to his own as such. C) Coming from Canadian schools myself, and having nieces and nephews in school across the prairie provinces and BC, I doubt that the sex ed in your kids class has anything to do with porn.
Now 7-year-olds are being shown graphic sex? Are you serious? What the hell happened since 2003?
That`s only red Twizzlers. Black Twizzlers contain liquorice which is also a mild natural laxative.
Been there. Done that. World didn`t end. I didn`t die.
Anyone know a better video?
Oh lawdy I am SO glad I gave up that crap. XD
Peloos, I love the idea of Satan being God`s crazy ex. I have to write that now, it works too well.
man, i haven`t watched tv in a while . .
And to all those who don`t like anal, don`t do it. Think it`s wrong? Don`t do it. You can`t stop other from doing it though... So let them be safe. Human safety is something we should all have access to.
As far as enemas or douches go, has anyone heard of a high-fiber diet?
GOD IS GAY!!! :0
She`s from the deep south right??
She`s right, This should not be taught as a `Normal` sexual activity.
Also, is she using "I think gay sex is gross" as an argument against gay marriage? HOW DID SHE GET ELECTED?!
somebody had a bad experience methinks...
I`d like to know how she feels about general sex ed. in schools. I mean, you aren`t told by your teachers that "you as seventh graders (in my case) can go and have sex". It`s really "this is what sex is all about. You`ll do it latter in life"
More people need to see all the lights.
That would be called an enema, no?
Just... Words fail me. Right or wrong... Choice or not... People are gay. And with HIV and STI`s and STD`s I think we should allow sexually active teenagers to protect themselves and they can only learn how to do this with education.
Also, gay men douche. She herself NEEDS the education she is trying to work against. She is evidence against her own arguement.
NANCY ELLIOT HAS A SCAT FETISH!
I still am crossing my fingers that there`s a Heaven and anti-homosexual types get up there and God says to them "You thought I didn`t LIKE GAY PEOPLE? Think about it. I live by myself in the penthouse of the universe. Take a look at my home. A little gaudy, huh? I had my son by means of artificial insemination. Satan a fallen angel? Honey, he`s just my bitter ex-boyfriend! All this smiting and cursing, I`m just doing out of boredom and sexual frustration. How did you not realize that I`M gay?"
be prepared for a million frustrated teens hitting on you....
"would I want to have that done to me?"
"who would want to do that to you?" anyone? anyone?