Vilepagan wrote: There was nothing in your response that was on topic, and I'm not at all interested in yet again reading what you imagine I think.Are you trying to convince forum members that we imagined your posts regarding the topic: Re: High School Be Allowed To Give Out Condoms On Prom Night
I don't have a problem with the distribution of condoms at a high school event, in a high school, or by the "nurse" if there is one.
http://occonnect.com/community/viewtopi ... &start=200
Parents may be competent to tell their kids what they believe is "right" from a moral perspective, but are most parents competent to discuss the role of a condom in preventing STD's?
http://occonnect.com/community/viewtopi ... &start=160
I think educating students about condom use is perfectly ethical. I don't consider a condom a "sexual aid".
o there's no "ethical" issue for me with the fact that some people might disagree with what the school teaches.
I have no problem with the meals, the physical education/conditioning, or the sex education, and I have no idea what you mean when you refer to assisting/encouraging sexual behavior or the teaching of "techniques"...you have some examples of this sort of thing?
I don't buy the argument that because I teach about condoms or even make them available, that I'm recommending that kids be sexually active.http://occonnect.com/community/viewtopi ... &start=140
Why would you even say such a thing, when you know that anyone can look up what you have said without any trouble at all? Can you tell us why you said I imagined what you think when the facts are easily obtained that prove you are lying?
By the way, regarding the text in red, your words are disingenuous because the topic of discussion was that a high school announced plans to pass out condoms on prom night.
Fordama wrote: Who gives a rat's patooty what "Christians" call it, it's what the government says it is that legally counts.You should because 80% of Americans claim to be Christians.
Vilepagan wrote: There was nothing in your response that was on topic, and I'm not at all interested in yet again reading what you imagine I think.Here is the link to a page in the thread: Common core forces ebonics, 'pimps and mobstaz' on 4th g
It shows your statements regarding your approval of assigning the book The Bluest Eye to high school students. The Bluest Eye is about a pedophile having a sexual relationship with a little girl told from a sympathetic view of the pedophile. The book is full of descriptions of graphic sexual acts. None of which belong in our education system.
http://occonnect.com/community/viewtopi ... e&start=40
So, once again why would you write that I imagined what you believe Vilepagan when your own words prove it? Are you saying that you were lying when you made the statements or are you lying now? You can't have it both ways.
Vilepagan wrote: What you write about gays is offensive which makes your complaints about gay marriage offending you rather moot...I don't have to imagine it, it's there for everyone to read.I haven't written anything about gays that isn't already common knowledge. Which is why gays are only just now pushing the idea of marriage rather than centuries ago.
Everyone on this forum should be offended at your lies. Do you think we are all idiots? Where do you get the nerve? You are a moderator who is supposed to uphold the highest standards.
MDDad wrote: By now, I think every American with an IQ over 80 believes that gays should receive all legal rights that come with being married. The issue seems to be with the use of the terms "marriage", "matrimony" and "getting married", because those words are imbued with a kind of historical and religious sanctity that is precious and inviolable to many.I agree MDDad, I think you solved the problem.
The solution seems simple. All unions, whether straight or gay, receive the same legal rights. Marriage, matrimony and getting married are the terms used by heterosexuals, while garriage, gatrimony and getting garried are used by gays. Where's the problem?
2,000 years of tradition unhindered by progress.
Of course you did, you posted your opinions regarding gays, that they're perverted and aberrations. Those are opinions, not "common knowledge". Of course you're entitled to have your opinions and I wouldn't expect you to hold any other opinion about gays because your opinions of others are typically ignorant and bigoted, so there's no surprise.
Do you think we are all idiots?
Certainly not. There are many people on this forum who I don't think are idiots.
I agree that it's a "tired old argument". I thought the notion of "separate but equal" died in the 50's with Brown v. Board of Education but it's alive and well apparently. Perhaps if the gay-marriage opponents could find a better argument, they'd get more respect for their position.
I see two men are going to be married during the Rose Parade on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s float "Living the Dream". Is this the first float focused on a sexually transmitted diseases? Maybe next year we can have a float about gonorrhoea or syphilis.
Vilepagan wrote: Of course you did, you posted your opinions regarding gays, that they're perverted and aberrations. Those are opinions, not "common knowledge". Of course you're entitled to have your opinions and I wouldn't expect you to hold any other opinion about gays because your opinions of others are typically ignorant and bigoted, so there's no surprise.As I said, the opinions I posted are common knowledge otherwise it would not have take centuries for gays to just recently come out of the closet and now to push for legalized marriage. So you know what you can do with your ignorant and bigoted labels. Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean that you can discount hundreds of years of history.
What about your dishonesty regarding what I imagined you believe about handing out condoms at school dances and assigning pornographic books to be read by high school kids? You have been proven wrong, I posted the facts, your own words. So why are you ignoring your assertions that it was all my imagination? Come on Vilepagan, deal with it.
I'd vote for gonorrhea. Then all the spectators along the parade route could "clap" as the float went by.Tommy Tar wrote:Maybe next year we can have a float about gonorrhoea or syphilis.
I admit that this can be a little confusing, but HIV and AIDS prevention requires more than practicing safe sex. Sure, HIV can be transmitted sexually and therefore is considered an STD, but HIV is not, in and of itself, AIDS and AIDS cannot be transmitted sexually. Additionally, having another STD can increase your likelihood of getting HIV and further increase your likelihood of acquiring AIDS if you do get HIV as it further reduces your bodies immune system.
It shows your statements regarding your approval of assigning the book The Bluest Eye to high school students. The Bluest Eye is about a pedophile having a sexual relationship with a little girl told from a sympathetic view of the pedophile. The book is full of descriptions of graphic sexual acts. None of which belong in our education system.This is almost completely wrong.
Have you read the book at all?
You're breaking it down incorrectly. It would be like saying 1984 shouldn't be assigned to high schoolers because it has graphic acts of sex that goes into too much detail.
So, I doubt if you know what you are talking about considering the passages I posted were of a graphic nature. And, the author herself said that she wrote the book a sympathetic point of view for the pedophile. But, go ahead. What is your analysis? What am I wrong about?
And what you linked to did not seem to have anything from the Bluest Eye pertaining to that. Am I missing something from the link?