Ah, well. I don't really give a sh*t.
The point was directed to DSD, while in response to you.
Because it was a stupid question. My point about treating homosexuality like a disease is to think that it can be "cured." It's not about how you actually treat people.
That's why I asked the question, because I wasn't sure on your reference.
You, however, never gave me any examples of people disliking homosexuality that weren't religious. Hop on that, could you? I mean, you enjoy blasting people for pages and pages when they ignore one of your questions. I'm sure this was just a mistake, right?
No it wasn't because I don't recall you specifically asking me to provide you with examples.
But, I'll answer your question anyway.
First, I responded earlier to Nali (I don't know which thread now that they have blended) that Christians have their own personal reasons against homosexuality. The one's that say "It's a sin" are simply using religion as a scapegoat for their reasons. That is unless, they are not purposely "sinning" in any other area.
But to answer your question in the least amount of words, "The **** goes in the vagina".
This is just going to open a can of worms of other topics that you'll just be biased against. You'll respond with "love is not defined by sex" and then I'll respond with "Either or, As an adult, I can't date a 16 year old and say 'we're in love with each other, we aren't having sex, so it's ok'". Then you'll respond with "That's against the law and that I'm talking about two consenting adults". I respond with the fact that you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement. You'll respond that you're giving up and that it's a waste of time to argue with me. Pages later, we'll rinse and repeat.
Then what would be the point...?
To orient you to your sex, hence "Sex Ed". In Biology, you're going over the body parts from more of a natural science point of view. In a **** Ed class, you're talking about your body from a more social science point of view. You can discuss the stages of puberty and how the body works. That doesn't mean you have to talk about the difference between and a BJ and a HJ.
Meh, if the shoe fits...
Exactly my point. You're just making up stuff.
As am I. I had my first crush in the fourth grade. My first "boyfriend" (if you can call holding hands in the lunch line a boyfriend, which we did) in the sixth grade. While I may not have gotten past the holding hands part in the sixth grade, plenty of my friends did. One of my friends had a pregnancy scare in the seventh grade.
I'm not denying that stuff happens. My point is at that age, I don't want a teacher giving my child their opinions on sex. I admit that society changes throughout time and we become more and more sexual, but you can't assume that everyone or the majority of the children are having sexual relations before the 8th grade.
So what if they had a full-blown **** class (everything you would want to know)in the 8th grade? What help does that do if your children are having **** in the 7th grade? This is why parents have to be involved. Unless you start teaching students **** Ed from Pre-k, waiting till your local schools systematically teach your children about **** may be too late.
Oh, and by the way, this bill doesn't keep teachers from talking about **** to your eleven year old. Just **** sex. So if your eleven year old girl fancies boys, her teacher can still give them advice all day long.
Yeah, **** sex is the issue. Not "certain topics." And you're being willfully ignorant of what I'm saying. Not surprising, but there it is.
I've already said that the bill was silly, but I would have to read the whole bill in order to have a fair judgement.
So, if you want to focus purely on the bill, then I think the bill is incomplete and should include all sexuality.