GAY TEACHER READS HOMOSEXUAL STORY TO 3RD GRADERS

Sex ed used to be about teaching students the dangers of being sexually active. That was... well, as an elective, I guess it's okay. When you want to start talking about things other than the dangers of sex, then I have to wonder what the goal is.

From what I understand, this notion of teaching about homosexuality is not the dangers of homosexual behavior. So... what's the agenda?

 

You mean like the Netherlands decriminalizing homosexuality in 1811 along with the Dutch East Indies?

Or Brazil in 1830? Or Portugal in 1852? Or Italy in 1889?

Those Christian values?

 

darned doop

 

The 'agenda' is to normalise homosexuality.

However, when a school goes out of its way to specify that which must be tolerated and embraced, it practices bias. What about people with really bad skin, or those with a repaired cleft palate, or autistic people? What about boys whose voices don't break? What about girls who are over 6 feet tall? What about the thousand and one other variants our kids need to learn to accept and respect regardless? No mention of these - other than in sweeping anti-bullying sentiments. LGBT gets special focus, and that's the problem.

 

Normalizing homosexuality is the same thing as "gay the world". That's an unacceptable agenda, and why sex ed. should no longer be considered acceptable in public schools. Sorry, but you don't let schools push boundaries. You give them some slack, but only if it is not taken advantage of, which this homosexual nonsense certainly does.

I remember having some sex ed. classes in JHS, and all that did was gross everybody out. It seems that's still the case, but with the added twist of social engineering thrown in.

 

Well given that LBGT gets special opposition focus and those others do not, then it makes sense that it gets special attention in trying to move it to a point where it's just another variant of humanity.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are some topics I do not think need to be taught in school, such as orgasms per se', beyond the basics of what happens during sex. Now proper condom use, and birth control possibilities are fine. How the body works, both for sex and reproduction, and of course the dangers, including pregnancy and STI's. As far as LBGT goes, yes cover this is what heterosexuality is, this is what homosexuality is, bisexuality, and these are some of the stereotypes falsehoods (such as gay males all "flame"). Now while I am one to say all these things need to be taught, I do believe in an abstinence stressed program, one that encourages kids to wait till adulthood. Not til marriage, because that is a religious tenet and some don't follow that religion's particular subsets and thus we should not be trying to shove that on them any more than they should try to shove the idea that one should have sex when their body is ready to.

 

Agree on the sex ed. It should not exist in schools as a compulsory course. And it should be opted into, not opted out of, if voluntary.

Schools have no business socially engineering beyond 'be kind, work hard'.

 

So following your insane logic we better include the following too!
Paraphilia Focus of erotic interest
Andromimetophilia Trans men[3][8]
Anililagnia Attraction by young men to older women[9]
Anthropophagolagnia Raping and then cannibalizing another person.[10]
Anthropophagy Ingesting human flesh[10]
Asphyxiophilia Being asphyxiated or strangled[4]
Autoandrophilia A biological female imagining herself as a male[15][16]
Autoerotic asphyxiation Self-induced asphyxiation, sometimes to the point of near unconsciousness[14]
Autogynephilia A biological male imagining himself as a female[17]
Autozoophilia The image of one's self in the form of an animal or anthropomorphized animal.[19]
Biastophilia Raping a person.[4]
Chronophilia Partners of a widely differing chronological age[13]
Coprophilia Feces; also known as scat, scatophilia or fecophilia[2][22]
Emetophilia Vomit[3]
Erotic asphyxiation Asphyxia of oneself or others[27]
Exhibitionism Exposing one's genitals to unsuspecting and nonconsenting others[2]
Formicophilia Being crawled on by insects[13][29]
Frotteurism Rubbing against a non-consenting person[2]
Gynandromorphophilia/Gynemimetophilia Transsexual or transgender women[3][31]
Hematolagnia Drinking or looking at blood[32]
Heterophilia Idealization of heterosexuality and/or people who are "straight-acting," especially by non-heterosexual people.[33][34][35]
Homeovestism Wearing clothing emblematic of one's own sex[36][37]
Infantophilia Pedophilia with a focus on children less than five years old, a recently suggested term that is not in general use[40]
Klismaphilia Enemas, arousal and enjoyment in receiving, administering, or both[3]
Lingophilia ultra-oral, any sexual use of tongue, licking lips, vulva, exposed parts of body
Masochism Suffering or humiliation; being beaten, bound or otherwise abused[2]
Mazophilia Highly atypical sexual interest focused on female breasts.
Mysophilia Dirtiness, soiled or decaying things[3]
Narratophilia Obscene words[3]
Necrophilia Corpses[2][3][47]
Partialism Specific, non-genital body parts[2][3]
Pedophilia Prepubescent children, also spelled paedophilia; often confused with ****philia, ephebophilia, and pederasty[2][50]
Pedovestism Dressing like a child[51]
Pellohilia progressive sex excitement touching skin
Peodeiktophilia Exposing one's penis[4]
Pictophilia Pornography or erotic art, particularly pictures[3][13]
Raptophilia Committing rape, possibly consensual rape fantasy[13]
Sadism Inflicting pain on others[2]
Sexual fetishism Nonliving objects[2]
Somnophilia Sleeping or unconscious people[3][13]
Stigmatophilia Body piercings and tattoos[4][41]
Symphorophilia Witnessing or staging disasters such as car accidents[4]
Toucherism Touching an unsuspecting, non-consenting person with the hand[60]
Transvestic fetishism Wearing clothes associated with the opposite sex; also known as transvestism[2]
Transvestophilia A transvestite sexual partner[13]
Troilism Cuckoldism, watching one's partner have sex with someone else, possibly without the third party's knowledge[14][61]
Urolagnia Urination, particularly in public, on others, and/or being urinated on. Also referred to as "water sports"[2][3][13][14]
Vorarephilia The idea of one person or creature eating or being eaten by another; usually swallowed whole, in one piece[64]
Voyeurism Watching others while naked or having sex, generally without their knowledge; also known as scopophilia or scoptophilia[2][14]
Wet and messy fetishism Messy situations, including, but not limited to, being pied, gunged or covered in mud
Zoophilia Animals[2][3][13]

So you confirm my assertion that THE GOAL OF THE PERVERTED LIBERAL AGENDA IS TO DO AWAY WITH HETEROSEXISM AND GENDER CONFORMITY(OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NORMAL HUMAN CONDITION) AND TO TEACH HOMOsexuality AND OTHER PERVERSIONS by all means possible such as indoctrination at a young and impressionable age in schools ,TV , movies , and social media .

"AND YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILIES AND RELIGION ON CHILDREN". People can this be any clearer what the Goals are of the perverted liberals to do away with the only weapons we have to combat these perversions. If you want you Country to turn into a Country where you are constantly barraged with perversion such as gender neutral bathrooms , every TV show and movie full of HOMOsexual & TRANS WHATEVER CONTENT , & HOMOsexual PRIDE PARADES then KEEP VOTING LIBERALS INTO POSITIONS OF POWER !!!!

 

Gay people have no more 'opposition' in 2017, than people in wheelchairs (in the form of difficult access etc) - and there are no school programs on that. Down Syndrome people meet all kinds of 'opposition', yet no school programs. The list of people who experience opposition is pretty much endless.

There is zero justification for focusing on LGBT issues in schools. Like religion, it's all or nothing. Teach all, or teach none.

 

This is why we need separation of schooling and state. Get the government out of the business of schooling.

 

I'm VERY opposed to all sex ed in schools. It's extremely problematic. We are intelligent mammals, and live in the 21stC. No teenager needs things explained. That premise is absurd and insulting .. not to mention grotesquely creepy and interfering.

And there's that weird notion that abstinence is related to Christianity. Waiting until marriage is common in many parts of the world .. and only a small percentage of those who practice it are Christians. Many are not religious at all.

 

What evidence is there that homosexuality is the result of indoctrination and not of instinctual sexual orientation?

 

Should your question have anything to do with a polity's system of governance?

 

Well if some gay people claim that 'getting them young' will result in more gay people, you have to assume that there is nothing like absolute consensus. While it remains in question, it ought not be broached with children.

 

Seriously? Did you not read his post at all? He is holding the same position as you! He posted the quote as an example of the so called LBGT agenda. ROFLMFAO!!!!!!

 

I'm not seeing any kind of organized opposition to Down Syndrome, with claims of it being not natural and it's a sinful choice. Maybe you can point me to some of this opposition?

 

All you need is to define your terms. What do we mean when we call somebody a man or a woman? X and Y chromosomes? Once you have that out of the way, then you have to look at what sort of instinct do we have as humans to distinguish between men and women. We have our senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, but those aren't enough to distinguish between a man and a woman. We make judgments of which gender somebody might be all the time, but those are based on our senses which are not capable of truly discriminating between chromosomes.

So how could homosexuality or heterosexuality be instinctual when we are not capable of accurately discriminating between genders using our senses?

 

My bad and I apologize , Just take my post as affirming his position. It doesn't invalidate or diminish my remarks against the Liberal perversions.

 

That's why I put the word opposition in quotes. Figure of speech. The point is that there are many variants of 'normal' which attract negative responses/actions, for a myriad of reasons (each reason being particular to the individual giving the negative response). The only logical and unbiased approach to a reduction in negative responses (again, the particular flavour of the negative response is irrelevant because it's idiosyncratic, and therefore can't be sensibly categorised) is to reinforce positive response regardless of the details of someone's 'difference'. The details, after all, are as irrelevant as the details of individual negative responses.

When you (GY) focus in on the details of the negative response and/or the details of the individual in receipt of the response, you're no longer actually doing it to reduce negative responses. There can be only two reasons for this: a) you're an idiot, and never bothered to think through the implications, or b) there is a hidden agenda.

 

You're not seeing that because it is considered immoral to do that. Morality is intersubective (subjective but defined by society, rather than individuals). So really, it's about telling teachers who are employees of uncle Sam, that it is not the state's job to define what is good and bad. That is for society to determine. If we think homosexuality is gross, then that is what we think. If you disagree, then fine! But leave the state out of it.

That means public school teachers need to stay out of the business of teaching morality.

 

We have them teaching that segregation is bad and immoral, now. Should we have them stop doing that? It's not the state's job to do that, per your argument.

 

Yes, they should stop that. It's not up to the state to define what is good or bad. That goes whether it's patriotism or homosexuality or segregation or racism. Just the facts, ma'am.

 

Are you suggesting that the modern teen is, in the absence of schools telling them not to, going to freak out about different skin colours when encountering same? Seriously?

Children are the most colourblind people on earth. They don't even register it until some adult comes along and makes a thing of it.

 

Ultimately it will come down to our senses. If one perceives a person to be, say, female, then one will be attracted to them, regardless of what is between their legs, or what was once there. Now that statement assumes initial interactions. There is more. If one then finds out, by intent of accident, that, keeping with the example, the one they thought female has or had a penis, this may change their perception of said person. They may now see them as male not female, regardless of whether or not they continue to use the requested gender designation. On the other hand, despite the presence, current or former, of a penis, they may still perceive the person as female. Thus their orientation of being straight is still intact. Even if the individual is a genetic female that identifies as female, if a person perceives them as male, and assuming that they are straight, then they will not be attracted.

Of course all that is before we even consider how we are not attracted to everyone that is a member of our desired sex/gender. After all attraction is just which gender they are. Sexual orientation only indicates what pool they will be selecting from.