Book banning in Alabama

It's a conspiracy, Hades.  Don't tell the kids about STDs, don't talk about homosexuality.  Then the young homos figure "well, we're not gonna get pregnant, so no need to use condoms."

Then, when (surprise surprise) the homosexuals have higher rates of STDs, the powers can point to that as justification for why homosexuality is bad and shouldn't be taught in school.

Genius, really.

 

if we dont tell homo sexuals about condoms and such "evolution" will take care of getting rid of them

Ejp414 wrote: usafpilot07 wrote: if we dont tell homo sexuals about condoms and such "evolution" will take care of getting rid of them I can't believe it; I really can't. I told myself, "Gosh, I bet that if I were to go look into that thread at usafpilot07's post, then I'd come out thinking, 'What an idiot!'" And, my, was I right!

well thats not fair, your stereotyping me just because of my name

and yes, i realize thats sort of hypocritical

Your name has nothing to do with it.

No need to rub his idiocy in... oh wait, yes there is.

DBibeau855 wrote: Its funny you used the word evolution, evolution and the like has nothing to do with homosexuality. How can homosexuality be passed on.. Homosexuals dont breed!

At the risk of completely hijacking this thread...   This statement furthers a common misunderstanding of the nature of evolution.  Evolution can generate biological homosexuality just fine, and evolution can pass it on to future generations if it good for survival. 

EDIT - and, of course, your premise is wrong:  Plenty of homosexuals have children.  But that is irrelevant to the evolutionary point.

Edited by Clark Kent

too bad evolution has been proved wrong, at least, original spontaneous life has

Clark Kent wrote: It's a conspiracy, Hades.  Don't tell the kids about STDs, don't talk about homosexuality.  Then the young homos figure "well, we're not gonna get pregnant, so no need to use condoms." Then, when (surprise surprise) the homosexuals have higher rates of STDs, the powers can point to that as justification for why homosexuality is bad and shouldn't be taught in school. Genius, really.

Ha . . .Ha . . .

My point is that there is no safe way to teach homosexual sex ed in a classroom full of teenagers.

Maybe you havent been in high school latley but its FULL of immature twits.  We had a play for the laramie (sp?) project, its mentioned in the article on the first page.  Half the kids were either laughing, mocking the play or doing other stupid stuff to show their dislike of the play.  Heck, a group of our resident emo/punk kids ran up the stairs screaming how they hate homosexuals.  For those of you that have seen the play, when they show the protesters with the signs (I wont go into what they say, not forum appropriate) the majority of the kids cheered and clapped at them like they were funny.

Imagine a unit on homosexual sex ed.  The one or two or few homosexuals in the room are going to feel very akward and after the lesson the tools are going to give them hell.  Also, every kid in the school knows who is homosexual and who is not, you cant try and hide it.  You cant take them to a seperate room because that means more hell for them.  I suppose you could try and intergrate the two carefully so it never focuses on homosexual safe sex or heterosexual safe sex but it would make getting the message across difficult.

I'm sorry, I just dont see how your going to do it without more problems.  You can think all the happy thoughts you want but I cant see a room with a group of ignorent teens making it through that unit without humilating the few homosexuals there.

You are going to quote a theologian from the 1700s, you havent proved anything.

DBibeau855 wrote: You are going to quote a theologian from the 1700s, you havent proved anything.

As much as I dissagree with usfa on what he said, in all fairness GS cited his beloved book a hundread times without sharing a tidbit of info from it