Languish.org

I think this guy ends up coming across quite well, if inadvertantly hilarious. The gay marriage campaign may have a chance of getting his support and I think they should try if it's about persuasion not just wallowing in self-righteousness:

QuoteDavid Davies, Conservative MP: 'I may well be wrong'
Tory MP David Davies caused a row when he called plans to legalise gay marriage 'barking mad'. In his only interview since then, he explains why he's so opposed – well, sort of
Decca Aitkenhead
The Guardian, Friday 21 December 2012 18.30 GMT

By the time David Davies and I part company, he is looking anxious. "The easiest thing for me to do would have been not to do this interview with you, that's the truth," he worries.

"I haven't done years of diversity training, so sometimes I say things which are probably tactless, and I don't mean to, to be honest, I don't mean to do that. But these feelings are hard to articulate, and the trouble is that if you try to, and get it wrong, which I probably, frankly, am doing now, you're going to get no end of abuse for it, and upset a whole load of people, some of whom I actually quite like. This law is going to happen, and the best thing to do is just shut up and accept it, really, which is probably why I shouldn't have accepted this interview. Too late now."

It's two weeks since the Tory MP told Radio Wales that gay marriage was "barking mad", and that "most parents would prefer their children not to be gay". He seems a bit shell-shocked by the subsequent uproar, so his decision to give his only follow-up interview to us, "the enemy", is impressively brave. At times there is a hint of hung-for-a-sheep recklessness about him, at others a bewildered but cheery hilarity ("My favourite tweet was: 'If you were gay you'd have a nice suit that fitted and wear product in your hair.' Do you think I should retweet it?"), and most of the time it's as if he's not giving an interview so much as thinking aloud. There's no spin, let alone a line, and the sincerity of his soul-searching is really charming, even if he is all over the place. Davies's confusion about homosexuality isn't all that unusual, and you will have come across it before – just probably not in anyone running the country. He is without a doubt the most guileless and gauche politician I have ever met.

His big worry about gay marriage, he explains, is that it will necessitate a revision of sex education. "This is where it gets sensitive, but I've got three kids, and I know a lot of people with children have got this concern. I hate to say this, I hate to say this, and I don't want it to cause outrage or offence ... " He looks down and shifts awkwardly. "But I suppose, at a certain level, I see heterosexual sex as being – and it's probably the wrong word to use – but the norm. I think it's reasonable to say that the vast majority of people are not gay." He hesitates, sighing. "I just worry if children are going to be taught that [heterosexuality] isn't necessarily the norm, and that you can carry on doing all sorts of other things, are we going to have a situation where the teacher's saying, 'Right, this is straight sex, this is gay sex, feel free to choose, it's perfectly normal to want to do both. And you know, why not try both out?' I mean, are we going to have that?

"Can I say something else as well?" he adds. "It may or may not be relevant." When Davies was 16, a popular school friend had announced he was gay. Davies ran into him again at 19, "And it turned out the guy had got engaged. To a woman! And he absolutely didn't want to talk about what had gone on between the age of 16 and 19. He'd started coming down to the pub at 16 with, you know, splits in his jeans, and started buying Erasure albums, and all the rest of it – and three years later he's suddenly horrified by the whole thing!

"I suppose what I'm trying to say, in a very clumsy way, which will again probably cause offence, is that some people might be going through a bit of a funny phase between the age of 15 and 20 when they're not sure. And I'm not absolutely convinced it's a good idea to be changing sex education in school to try and say to people, 'Feel free to go out and experiment and do this, that and the other.'"

Had Davies's teacher told him that when he was 10, would he have been tempted to try being gay? He practically jumps out of his seat, exploding in incredulous giggles. "I reckon in my case, almost certainly not." So what exactly is his worry? "You see, it's not so much telling them it happens. It's explaining in a certain amount of detail how it happens." I must confess to having never obsessed about the details of sex education. What does he mean? "If you're going to explain the facts of life you've got to explain at some point, penis, vagina, they go together, this is how children are made. Well, do you also have to start explaining in similar detail how gay sex is carried out?" I'm far from sure you do, actually, but more to the point, no amount of familiarity with homosexual mechanics would have turned my 10-year-old self into a lesbian.

"But you're a lady, you're a woman, so you wouldn't have felt quite the same way. I mean, at school the girls all went out and bought Erasure without any issue." He's being perfectly serious. But what about the lesbians in my class – what would have helped them? "Oh, I don't know what they went out and bought." No, I mean what about them feeling confused and excluded? "I wish there was some way round this that meant they didn't feel excluded, I really do."

Let's say he's absolutely right. Gay marriage will mean more gay sex education, which will make more of us gay. Can he explain what would be so bad about that?

"No, I don't think I can, to be honest. I don't think I can explain it. I can see immediately, if I did, that it would cause offence to some people – and that's wrong, isn't it? But I'm not even sure that I can answer your question very well, anyway. I can only say I have a slight sense of unease."

One thing he does want to make very clear is that when he said most parents would rather their children were not gay, he did not mean they would reject a gay child. "If one of my children were gay I don't think it would make any difference to the way I felt about them at all. I would want them to be happy and contented." Surely, then, he would want a society which made that possible? "I think you're probably right." Suddenly he looks a bit lost. "And it's something I've got to search for myself. It's just very difficult for me to answer your questions."

When I ask why he hopes none of his children will be gay, he admits again, "I don't know why. I find it hard to explain, frankly. But I'm uncomfortable with it. I suppose it's a grandchildren issue, perhaps?" he offers doubtfully. "Isn't it a natural instinct? Maybe that's the problem – it's hard to rationalise an instinct with politics in a logical way, which you're trying to do. But I've got this sense of unease. I think it's widely shared – I know it's widely shared; you should see the emails I get. I think a lot of people have this slight sense of unease, which isn't very well articulated. And I'm afraid I haven't articulated it very well."

Sometimes, I tell him, when I find an argument really hard to articulate, that's because it's wrong. "You may be right. I may very well be wrong about this. But I'm not sure I'm wrong. It may just be that I'm a victim of the era I was brought up in."

Born in 1970, Davies grew up in Newport, joining the Territorial Army in his teens. After comprehensive school he went travelling in Australia, before returning to work as a lorry driver for his family's haulage company. Having campaigned against devolution in Wales, in 1999 he was elected to the Welsh Assembly on a platform of opposition to any further devolution, and won Monmouth for the Conservatives in 2005. He is a special constable, and an amateur boxer.

"I make no bones about it, I'm a product of my upbringing and of the time I was brought up, so I'm not going to pretend not to be. It's not like I was brought up in San Francisco or somewhere like that.

"But I'm changing. This is going to sound quite appalling, but nobody in my circle of friends in 1986 would have admitted liking Erasure, or would have been seen dead going out and buying a Boy George CD. Now I've got Boy George's greatest hits, and I love it!"

When civil partnerships were first introduced, "I probably wouldn't have been a huge fan, let me be honest," but now he's changed his mind. Section 28? "Mmm, I probably would have worried about repealing that." Reducing the homosexual age of consent? "I'd have probably been against it, in truth." But he wouldn't dream of reversing these policies now, "So yes, I take your point, I am changing." Given time, could gay marriage be another one? "It might well be, it might well be, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that you may be right."

All of a sudden, he seems to panic. "So far all we've talked about is gay marriage. And I want to tell you I'm not obsessed with the issue. I don't spend every waking moment of the day speaking about gay marriage, at all."

That is unquestionably true. In fact, I'd guess he's given less thought to it than not just most MPs but most people in the country. After all, there can't be many left who would share Davies's mystification at something a closeted gay colleague said to him years ago.

"We were at party conference and he was saying to me – and this is a direct quote – 'Look at all these poofters! Bloody poofters, eh?' He was quite senior in the party, and I knew he was gay, but I don't think he knew I knew. And I thought, why are you saying this? Why are you pretending to mind all about all these 'poofters'? Why?"

In a way it's quite comical that Davies should end up at the forefront of a debate about something he cheerfully admits to not really understanding at all. He's much more concerned about "issues affecting lower-middle-class, working-class people", and lists deficit reduction ("if anything I might go faster"), law and order ("I do think prison can work"), immigration, multiculturalism and Europe ("I'd want a referendum, and I'd probably vote out"). It sounds a lot like what Ukip stands for.

"Well, maybe what Ukip's saying represents what a lot of Conservatives stand for – that's a different way of looking at it." He says he would never defect, but his own mother – a working-class miner's daughter, and lifelong party activist – already has. "And it's a real worry. The Tory party's core supporters are peeling off to support Ukip."

Davies wishes our mainstream parties could debate what the Americans call culture wars, "without everyone jumping up and down in a rage". Why, only the other day he was having a conversation with someone at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and wished it could have been in private. "Because he was telling me what it was like to be a young black man searched by a police officer. And I could have told him," he exclaims delightedly, "what it's like to be a police officer, trying to search someone who didn't want to be searched!"

For a moment I think he's joking, but Davies really does see these two experiences as analogous. Registering my amazement, his face falls.

"What? Oh no. Have I said something wrong again? Have I said something really bad? What did I say?"

I don't think Erasure's had so much press in years :lol:

There is a certain amount of honesty there that you have to admire.  I don't think it's strange that a man might desire his children to take after their father.  Father's have wanted that since time immemorable.  They've often been disappointed since time immemorable.  There is not much that can really be done about that.  Not really a state issue.

Yeah, I think there's a real charm in his honesty. When it first blew up and people were saying he was anti-gay he said he had no problem with gay people, as an amateur boxer he'd once fought a gay man :lol:

Isn't that rather dangerous? I mean, boxers tend to bleed all over the place...

surely gay marriage and sex education are totally seperate subjects?

I have to admit I've thought about sex education a fair  bit with homosexuality added in. could make it a bit too....sex related rather than the dry man+woman=baby thing it is today. for kids to see homosexuality as normal and no big deal is great but how to do  that without exposing them to too much of the messy business....it is a tricky one.

edit- my tablet is an idiot and put seperate as desperate....

Quote from: Tyr on December 27, 2012, 11:50:31 AM
surely gay marriage and sex education are totally desperate subjects?

I have to admit I've thought about sex education a fair  bit with homosexuality added in. could make it a bit too....sex related rather than the dry man+woman=baby thing it is today. for kids to see homosexuality as normal and no big deal is great but how to do  that without exposing them to too much of the messy business....it is a tricky one

My sex ed focused on telling us how unhealty gay sex is.

I think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.

If the sexual ed class at the relevant level covers mechanics of the actual sexual act(s), then you could direct those interested in it, to information (presented with a similar degree of detail) concerning homosexual sex - but do not need to cover it in the compulsory curriculum for all.

So essentially, you would be covering the emotional/relationship side of homosexuality in the class for all students, but have anal male-on-male sex and scissoring as extra-curricular topics. :P

Why?

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 11:23:04 AM
Why?

Why what? Why mention homosexuality in the sex ed class at all or why not to include homosexual sex acts in the general curriculum?

Quote from: Tyr on December 27, 2012, 11:50:31 AM

...

I have to admit I've thought about sex education a fair  bit with homosexuality added in. could make it a bit too....sex related rather than the dry man+woman=baby thing it is today. for kids to see homosexuality as normal and no big deal is great but how to do  that without exposing them to too much of the messy business....it is a tricky one.

...

What part of homosexuality don't you understand?  If being homosexual is normal/ok then logically what goes on between 2 homosexuals should also be normal/ok...  But I understand what you mean - it's ok to be gay so long as there's no sex involved...  The man was charming indeed but he's beating around the bush - he doesn't want kids to be faced with graphic descriptions of gay sex because he doesn't want to have to face those himself.  That's the source of his unease.

What sex ed should emphasize is the fact that human sexuality is first and foremost a mental construct and thus it can take as many forms and shapes as there are individuals.  And that as such there is no difference between a sexual preference and a culinary preference - it's a matter of individual taste.

So the 'norm' - as in the desirable behavior of a majority - will remain so since no matter how much (or how colourful) sex ed there is - the majority of human males (and this is an issue mostly with them...) will remain heterosexuals.





G.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:24:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 11:23:04 AM
Why?

Why what? Why mention homosexuality in the sex ed class at all or why not to include homosexual sex acts in the general curriculum?

Why teach them

QuoteI think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 11:27:53 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:24:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 11:23:04 AM
Why?

Why what? Why mention homosexuality in the sex ed class at all or why not to include homosexual sex acts in the general curriculum?

Why teach them

QuoteI think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.

Because health class is where they teach you about those sorts of topics?

Uhm, because it is a fact of life and because we want to increase acceptance of all sexual orientations by the public.

Besides, as far as I know (and garbon's post confirms this) sex ed classes already teach about homosexuality - only that in many cases, it is presented in a negative light, often mentioned in the same breath as deviant or dysfunctional forms of sexual expression. So it is more a matter of changing the way it is presented than introducing it completely.

I am not sure if you are trolling or if it was a legitimate question.  :huh:

We want to teach acceptance of people with handicaps, but that doesn't mean it's not dysfunctional.

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 10:43:16 AM
My sex ed focused on telling us how unhealty gay sex is.

I suppose anything's dangerous if you do it wrong.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:20:13 AM
I think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.

If the sexual ed class at the relevant level covers mechanics of the actual sexual act(s), then you could direct those interested in it, to information (presented with a similar degree of detail) concerning homosexual sex - but do not need to cover it in the compulsory curriculum for all.

So essentially, you would be covering the emotional/relationship side of homosexuality in the class for all students, but have anal male-on-male sex and scissoring as extra-curricular topics. :P

Can't really see that working TBH.
"OK kids. Now run along to Mr Brown to continue your lesson. Though if you want to stay here then I'm going to talk about gay sex next. Jimmy, you're into musical theatre aren't you? This might be your sort of thing".
Even if a kid is gay and knows he is then no way is he going to make it so obvious in front of everyone, that would be a death sentence for his standing. Not to mention that his probally straight teacher likely knows a lot less about it than he does.
I really couldn't imagine my biology teacher speaking about gay sex....you could tell he felt uncomfortable enough speaking matter of factly about mundane straight stuff.


My thinking with why homosexuality in sex education is dodgy is that it brings in too much sex.
Even when just speaking of straight sex it is kept largely matter of fact. Introduce gay sex and you start talking a bit too much about sex for fun. You're opening the door to oral, anal and other business which...is too sexy for school.
Already there is a smidgin of this I suppose. Teaching about safe sex and contraception is important and is touched upon, needs to be talked about more really. But the actual "ins and outs" of the act.....hmm....

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2013, 11:39:13 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 10:43:16 AM
My sex ed focused on telling us how unhealty gay sex is.

I suppose anything's dangerous if you do it wrong.

My class focused on how it should always be an exit only/do not enter zone.

Pfft, weak.

Quote from: Tyr on January 02, 2013, 11:59:18 AM
Can't really see that working TBH.
"OK kids. Now run along to Mr Brown to continue your lesson. Though if you want to stay here then I'm going to talk about gay sex next. Jimmy, you're into musical theatre aren't you? This might be your sort of thing".
Even if a kid is gay and knows he is then no way is he going to make it so obvious in front of everyone, that would be a death sentence for his standing. Not to mention that his probally straight teacher likely knows a lot less about it than he does.

Maybe among barbarians. My high school has plenty of out gays by the time my sister showed up there.
I really couldn't imagine my biology teacher speaking about gay sex....you could tell he felt uncomfortable enough speaking matter of factly about mundane straight stuff.

Quote from: Tyr on January 02, 2013, 11:59:18 AM
My thinking with why homosexuality in sex education is dodgy is that it brings in too much sex.
Even when just speaking of straight sex it is kept largely matter of fact. Introduce gay sex and you start talking a bit too much about sex for fun. You're opening the door to oral, anal and other business which...is too sexy for school.
Already there is a smidgin of this I suppose. Teaching about safe sex and contraception is important and is touched upon, needs to be talked about more really. But the actual "ins and outs" of the act.....hmm....

I don't think it is any more racy then the drug education that we also had in health class. That said I agree that you don't really need a middle school/high school teacher telling kids sexual techniques.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2013, 12:02:37 PM
Pfft, weak.

Agreed though that woman later offed herself too, so make what you will of her instructions.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:20:13 AM
I think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.
If the sexual ed class at the relevant level covers mechanics of the actual sexual act(s), then you could direct those interested in it, to information (presented with a similar degree of detail) concerning homosexual sex - but do not need to cover it in the compulsory curriculum for all.

So essentially, you would be covering the emotional/relationship side of homosexuality in the class for all students, but have anal male-on-male sex and scissoring as extra-curricular topics. :P

I agree with most of what you say, though I don't believe the bolded part is appropriate.

The point of this is information, not moral judgments in either direction.

Quote from: Tyr on January 02, 2013, 11:59:18 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:20:13 AM
I think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.

If the sexual ed class at the relevant level covers mechanics of the actual sexual act(s), then you could direct those interested in it, to information (presented with a similar degree of detail) concerning homosexual sex - but do not need to cover it in the compulsory curriculum for all.

So essentially, you would be covering the emotional/relationship side of homosexuality in the class for all students, but have anal male-on-male sex and scissoring as extra-curricular topics. :P

Can't really see that working TBH.
"OK kids. Now run along to Mr Brown to continue your lesson. Though if you want to stay here then I'm going to talk about gay sex next. Jimmy, you're into musical theatre aren't you? This might be your sort of thing".

You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex. And obviously it would not be done at the age when you refer to the students as "kids".

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 01:53:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:20:13 AM
I think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.
If the sexual ed class at the relevant level covers mechanics of the actual sexual act(s), then you could direct those interested in it, to information (presented with a similar degree of detail) concerning homosexual sex - but do not need to cover it in the compulsory curriculum for all.

So essentially, you would be covering the emotional/relationship side of homosexuality in the class for all students, but have anal male-on-male sex and scissoring as extra-curricular topics. :P

I agree with most of what you say, though I don't believe the bolded part is appropriate.

The point of this is information, not moral judgments in either direction.

Wow. Just wow. It is not a moral judgement - it is the current understanding of human sexuality by psychologists (that is what the term "sexual orientation" means as opposed to a "fetish" or "sexual deviancy").

It's always things like these with you uneducated, ignorant breeders. One thinks you are enlightened, and then you surprise us with something out of the left field like this.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex.

But what if they can't read?  :huh:

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 12:09:18 PMI don't think it is any more racy then the drug education that we also had in health class. That said I agree that you don't really need a middle school/high school teacher telling kids sexual techniques.

Ok maybe I wasn't clear.

I don't mean teaching them techniques as such, but I mean teaching them about dangers such as exposure to certain STDs and the risks involved. And if you do it, you kinda have to at least refer to various forms of sex (vaginal, anal, oral) as these differ from one to another.

To be honest, I never had sex ed classes so I don't know what is being taught to students that are at the sexually active age (say, 15 y.o.) these days. If, for example, they are being taught about the method of vaginal penetration to e.g. not cause harm to the partner, then similar discussion should be provided for anal sex (but as I said, since this is, statistically, less likely to be of interest to the entire class, making brochures and the like available would be sufficient).

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2013, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex.

But what if they can't read?  :huh:

Gays are more intelligent and educated so they can clearly read.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 02:02:15 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2013, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex.

But what if they can't read?  :huh:

Gays are more intelligent and educated so they can clearly read.

Is this the point where open expression of hetrophobia leads to somebody being banned and a thread closed.

Quote from: Viking on January 02, 2013, 02:05:08 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 02:02:15 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2013, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex.

But what if they can't read?  :huh:

Gays are more intelligent and educated so they can clearly read.

Is this the point where open expression of hetrophobia leads to somebody being banned and a thread closed.

Why would it be a "phobia"? One clearly is not afraid of one's lessers.  :huh:

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 02:06:36 PM

Why would it be a "phobia"? One clearly is not afraid of one's lessers.  :huh:

Then I suppose you aren't as high up the food chain as you thought.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 02:06:36 PM

Quote from: Viking on January 02, 2013, 02:05:08 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 02:02:15 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2013, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex.

But what if they can't read?  :huh:

Gays are more intelligent and educated so they can clearly read.

Is this the point where open expression of hetrophobia leads to somebody being banned and a thread closed.

Why would it be a "phobia"? One clearly is not afraid of one's lessers.  :huh:

Seedy!!! He's being raciss again!!!111oneoneone :cry:

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
And obviously it would not be done at the age when you refer to the students as "kids".

Might be a language thing but you could easily still use kids to describe those in middle school / high school.

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 02:10:26 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
And obviously it would not be done at the age when you refer to the students as "kids".

Might be a language thing but you could easily still use kids to describe those in middle school / high school.

Fuck, I refer to people as kids if they are younger then 30.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:58:36 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 01:53:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:20:13 AM
I think a sensible approach would be to say in the sex ed class that there is a thing called sexual orientation based on which people may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or to their own sex, or to both, and that each is equally valid and not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour.
If the sexual ed class at the relevant level covers mechanics of the actual sexual act(s), then you could direct those interested in it, to information (presented with a similar degree of detail) concerning homosexual sex - but do not need to cover it in the compulsory curriculum for all.

So essentially, you would be covering the emotional/relationship side of homosexuality in the class for all students, but have anal male-on-male sex and scissoring as extra-curricular topics. :P

I agree with most of what you say, though I don't believe the bolded part is appropriate.

The point of this is information, not moral judgments in either direction.

Wow. Just wow. It is not a moral judgement - it is the current understanding of human sexuality by psychologists (that is what the term "sexual orientation" means as opposed to a "fetish" or "sexual deviancy").

It's always things like these with you uneducated, ignorant breeders. One thinks you are enlightened, and then you surprise us with something out of the left field like this.

Saying that it's "not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour" is the current moral belief on the subject at hand, as is any number of other "sexual deviancies" and various interpretations on what constitutes a "mental health problem". It isn't a science. It's a general opinion based on the day's moral codes and understanding of the human mind and body to the best of their ability. I happen to agree with this interpretation, but that doesn't make it any less of a "moral judgment".

Besides which, I do not want a door opened that allows a teacher to offer their interpretation of whether or not sexuality is "right" or "wrong", a "deviancy" or part of the "norm". It's unnecessary. To provide the information in a matter-of-fact format alongside the information for heterosexual relationships MAKES IT NORMATIVE without the phrasing that you added. What you added simply provides those who are dead-set against all of this the foot-hold they need to say, "See???? They're FORCING us to say it's okay, even though we don't believe that it is!! TEH GAYS ARE AGAINST CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But then, that's what you want, isn't it?

I am morally judging Martinus.  It's funny how much less he is than pretty much anyone else I've encountered on Languish.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 02:18:56 PM
Saying that it's "not a deviant/dysfunctional sexual behaviour" is the current moral belief on the subject at hand, as is any number of other "sexual deviancies" and various interpretations on what constitutes a "mental health problem". It isn't a science. It's a general opinion based on the day's moral codes and understanding of the human mind and body to the best of their ability. I happen to agree with this interpretation, but that doesn't make it any less of a "moral judgment".

Besides which, I do not want a door opened that allows a teacher to offer their interpretation of whether or not sexuality is "right" or "wrong", a "deviancy" or part of the "norm". It's unnecessary. To provide the information in a matter-of-fact format alongside the information for heterosexual relationships MAKES IT NORMATIVE without the phrasing that you added. What you added simply provides those who are dead-set against all of this the foot-hold they need to say, "See???? They're FORCING us to say it's okay, even though we don't believe that it is!! TEH GAYS ARE AGAINST CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But then, that's what you want, isn't it?

Doesn't health class inevitably consist of moral judgments given that they are many different perspectives on how one should treat one's bodies?

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 03:05:59 PM
Doesn't health class inevitably consist of moral judgments given that they are many different perspectives on how one should treat one's bodies?

How so? I don't remember any moral guidance. Rather, I was told the implications of not doing certain things and doing certain things. As in, if you don't wash, you will smell and others will notice. If you do use a condom, you are less likely to get pregnant or an STD.

Those are facts, not judgments.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 03:16:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 03:05:59 PM
Doesn't health class inevitably consist of moral judgments given that they are many different perspectives on how one should treat one's bodies?

How so? I don't remember any moral guidance. Rather, I was told the implications of not doing certain things and doing certain things. As in, if you don't wash, you will smell and others will notice. If you do use a condom, you are less likely to get pregnant or an STD.

Those are facts, not judgments.

Well my experience with health classes were very different. Some moralizing:

Anal sex is terrible and dangerous (already mentioned here in discussion with Seedy)
Smoking kills, don't do it.
Drugs are terrible, here's what they can do to you, don't do them.
Rhythm method is a bad form of birth control (which also tacitly suggests that we as teens should be using birth control).

I'm sure there were more but those were the ones that sprung to mind.

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM
Anal sex is terrible

Well at least one thing Marty can agree with.

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM
Well my experience with health classes were very different. Some moralizing:

Anal sex is terrible and dangerous (already mentioned here in discussion with Seedy)
Smoking kills, don't do it.
Drugs are terrible, here's what they can do to you, don't do them.
Rhythm method is a bad form of birth control (which also tacitly suggests that we as teens should be using birth control).

I'm sure there were more but those were the ones that sprung to mind.

You and Meri seem to be describing the same things, except Meri calls it information and you call it moralizing.  I tend to side with Meri.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 04:11:29 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM
Well my experience with health classes were very different. Some moralizing:

Anal sex is terrible and dangerous (already mentioned here in discussion with Seedy)
Smoking kills, don't do it.
Drugs are terrible, here's what they can do to you, don't do them.
Rhythm method is a bad form of birth control (which also tacitly suggests that we as teens should be using birth control).

I'm sure there were more but those were the ones that sprung to mind.

You and Meri seem to be describing the same things, except Meri calls it information and you call it moralizing.  I tend to side with Meri.

It isn't moralizing when you instruct students specifically not to do certain things - but is moralizing if you say homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable choice? :huh:

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM

Anal sex can be dangerous
Smoking kills.
Here's what drugs can do to you.
Rhythm method is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The pill is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The condom is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate, and prevents STDs.

This is what I was taught.

Quote from: Viking on January 02, 2013, 02:10:06 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 02:06:36 PM

Quote from: Viking on January 02, 2013, 02:05:08 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 02:02:15 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2013, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex.

But what if they can't read?  :huh:

Gays are more intelligent and educated so they can clearly read.

Is this the point where open expression of hetrophobia leads to somebody being banned and a thread closed.

Why would it be a "phobia"? One clearly is not afraid of one's lessers.  :huh:

Seedy!!! He's being raciss again!!!111oneoneone :cry:

MugglesBreeders are not a race.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 04:11:29 PM
You and Meri seem to be describing the same things, except Meri calls it information and you call it moralizing.  I tend to side with Meri.

What he's describing is moralizing while providing information. That's exactly what I think should not be happening in the schools.

I hate it that whenever I grow to like merri, she never fails to come up with some absolutely ignorant viewpoint.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:17:03 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 04:11:29 PM
You and Meri seem to be describing the same things, except Meri calls it information and you call it moralizing.  I tend to side with Meri.

What he's describing is moralizing while providing information. That's exactly what I think should not be happening in the schools.

that's like saying that teaching that homosexuality is not a choice is moralizing...

Not to mention, saying that schools should not be teaching morals is fucking retarded too.

At least schools are better prepared for that than some ignorant broads like merri.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:16:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM

Anal sex can be dangerous
Smoking kills.
Here's what drugs can do to you.
Rhythm method is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The pill is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The condom is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate, and prevents STDs.

This is what I was taught.

But you said that you didn't get moral guidance but then went on to say: "What he's describing is moralizing while providing information. That's exactly what I think should not be happening in the schools."

Which is it? :huh:

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:15:31 PM
It isn't moralizing when you instruct students specifically not to do certain things - but is moralizing if you say homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable choice? :huh:

Notice I said tend to agree.  That's a qualifier.

Let's say we're discussing heroin.  Teacher says if you start doing heroin you will suck dicks for money for two years before you die.  This is not pleasant, so I suggest you not do heroin. 

That's not exactly my idea of moralizing.  Moralizing to me is more like only really bad people do heroin.

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:16:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM

Anal sex can be dangerous
Smoking kills.
Here's what drugs can do to you.
Rhythm method is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The pill is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The condom is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate, and prevents STDs.

This is what I was taught.

But you said that you didn't get moral guidance but then went on to say: "What he's describing is moralizing while providing information. That's exactly what I think should not be happening in the schools."

Which is it? :huh:

I don't see moralizing in what I was taught. I see information. What you were taught, however, included information AND moralizing.

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:16:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM

Anal sex can be dangerous
Smoking kills.
Here's what drugs can do to you.
Rhythm method is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The pill is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The condom is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate, and prevents STDs.

This is what I was taught.

But you said that you didn't get moral guidance but then went on to say: "What he's describing is moralizing while providing information. That's exactly what I think should not be happening in the schools."

Which is it? :huh:

It's remarkable how you are trying to keep decorum and straighten this out with her without being a bitch about it because you two met. Or at least really fun to watch.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 04:18:16 PM
I hate it that whenever I grow to like merri, she never fails to come up with some absolutely ignorant viewpoint.

Shocking that you and I would disagree on how to teach children... and you'd call me ignorant for my viewpoint on it.

I'm devestated. :mellow:

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:24:21 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:16:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM

Anal sex can be dangerous
Smoking kills.
Here's what drugs can do to you.
Rhythm method is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The pill is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate. The condom is a form of birth control that results in XX% of pregnancy rate, and prevents STDs.

This is what I was taught.

But you said that you didn't get moral guidance but then went on to say: "What he's describing is moralizing while providing information. That's exactly what I think should not be happening in the schools."

Which is it? :huh:

I don't see moralizing in what I was taught. I see information. What you were taught, however, included information AND moralizing.

Gotcha, okay.

Also I realized I fucked up on that first one, it was "anal sex can be dangerous, so don't do it. designed as an exit only area, not an entrance."

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 04:26:19 PM
It's remarkable how you are trying to keep decorum and straighten this out with her without being a bitch about it because you two met. Or at least really fun to watch.

I don't see how that's true at all. As in, I don't see what bearing that has.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 04:23:36 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:15:31 PM
It isn't moralizing when you instruct students specifically not to do certain things - but is moralizing if you say homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable choice? :huh:

Notice I said tend to agree.  That's a qualifier.

Let's say we're discussing heroin.  Teacher says if you start doing heroin you will suck dicks for money for two years before you die.  This is not pleasant, so I suggest you not do heroin. 

That's not exactly my idea of moralizing.  Moralizing to me is more like only really bad people do heroin.

Except that it isn't a polite suggestion but rather a "do not do this". Pretty sure that's a comment on what's right and what's wrong.  See how I amended that anal sex one. Pretty much suggested to me at the time that it'd be wrong to have anal sex - which I recall struck me as rather homophobic.

I wonder, Marti, how pleased you'd be if the teacher taught that while homosexuality is no longer believed to be a mental illness nor a choice, it is still considered an abhoration by the majority of the population and it's better to not allow others to know if that's what you are.

This is moralizing while providing information. It doesn't belong in the classroom.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:30:58 PM
I wonder, Marti, how pleased you'd be if the teacher taught that while homosexuality is no longer believed to be a mental illness nor a choice, it is still considered an abhoration by the majority of the population and it's better to not allow others to know if that's what you are.

This is moralizing while providing information. It doesn't belong in the classroom.

Except that teaching that human sexual orientations are "equal" (unlike, say, pedophilia, which is a mutation of existing sexuality) is not a moral judgement but the understanding of modern psychology.

As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 04:32:42 PM
As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

Well do you mean the attraction or the physical acts?

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:30:58 PM
I wonder, Marti, how pleased you'd be if the teacher taught that while homosexuality is no longer believed to be a mental illness nor a choice, it is still considered an abhoration by the majority of the population and it's better to not allow others to know if that's what you are.

This is moralizing while providing information. It doesn't belong in the classroom.

Considering that it can be emotionally damaging to stay in the closet - I'd hope schools wouldn't promote that. ;)

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:37:03 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 04:32:42 PM
As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

Well do you mean the attraction or the physical acts?

Attraction.

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:30:34 PM
Except that it isn't a polite suggestion but rather a "do not do this". Pretty sure that's a comment on what's right and what's wrong.  See how I amended that anal sex one. Pretty much suggested to me at the time that it'd be wrong to have anal sex - which I recall struck me as rather homophobic.

Again, I see a difference between do not do this because of all the terrible consequences I mentioned and do not do this because it's a sin/depraved act/whatever.

Out of curiosity, did your guy say don't have unprotected anal sex or don't have anal sex at all?

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 04:32:42 PM

Except that teaching that human sexual orientations are "equal" (unlike, say, pedophilia, which is a mutation of existing sexuality) is not a moral judgement but the understanding of modern psychology.

I have no problem adding "under the law" in there, because it's a statement of fact. Saying that one thing is equal to another, however, means that one has to assign value to both, which I just don't think a teacher should be doing. Not because I don't think that it's true (which you know that I do), but because I do not want a teacher who thinks otherwise to have the opportunity to assign value which finds homosexuality wanting. Don't open that door. Instead, just provide the information. Allow the kids to work out that they're equally valid lifestyles for themselves based on the fact that no one is assigning any kind of value to either of them. It just is, just as eating, breathing, and blinking just are.

Quote
As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

I believe that's the case, but I have never seen anything that shows it to be "scientific fact". The last that I heard, any studies on that end have been ambiguous at best. I would absolutely love to see a study that shows definitively that this is the case. It would certainly shut up a few people that I know. :glare:

If those cannot be provided, however, then isn't it better to say, "Logically speaking, it is most commonly assumed that homosexuality is not a choice"? You obviously don't know kids if you think that stating something is scientific fact without a study - or three - that absolutely shows this to be true will fly for those who disagree. Imagine making a claim like that here without at least a single citation. Kids are no different, and most of them are worse than Raz when it comes to arguing for the sake of arguing if they hold a different viewpoint.

When you provide facts, you give them no opportunity to argue. It just is. It's not about whether it's right or wrong, morally acceptable or an abomination. It just is. This is life. Period.

That's how you change homosexuality from being seen as less-than. By simply treating it as a statement of fact, just like heterosexuality.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex. And obviously it would not be done at the age when you refer to the students as "kids".

If they're still in compulsory education they're still kids.
Sex education definitely comes on the borderline between body-wise (though definitely not mentally) being adults and kids. Leave it too late and they figure it out on their own and get each other pregnant.

QuoteIf, for example, they are being taught about the method of vaginal penetration to e.g. not cause harm to the partner, then similar discussion should be provided for anal sex (but as I said, since this is, statistically, less likely to be of interest to the entire class, making brochures and the like available would be sufficient).

Clearly you know nothing about teenage boys if you think they wouldn't be interested in a class about anal sex. :p

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:38:13 PM
Considering that it can be emotionally damaging to stay in the closet - I'd hope schools wouldn't promote that. ;)

The principal at the middle school that I worked at would absolutely have taught that if she had had a voice in things. Instead, the district had a very definitive, clear way of teaching sex ed that did not allow for any kind of moralizing. It was, "This is how things work. These are the different forms of relationships one has - parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, spouse/spouse, sibling/sibling, adoptive or fosterparent/child, etc. The definition of 'family' can be some mix of any of those relationships, and more still."

The principal was (and probably still is) extremely religious and did not believe that homosexuality should even be mentioned in school. Luckily, she had no say on it. The sex ed teacher believed firmly in gay rights. She wasn't allowed to vary from the curriculum, either. It was simply fact, fact, fact, test.

For those who had more questions/concerns regardling their sexuality, there were teachers who had rainbow triangles outside their classroom door so that the kids knew who they could safely go to. The principal wasn't pleased, but the district gave the teachers permission.

Was this an ideal situation? Of course not. Ideal would have been the principal to accept the reality of life rather than trying to create an environment that fit her narrow view of it. But this was a safe, fair, and healthy compromise for the kids.

Middle school kids shouldn't be scewing each other anyway. They have the beginnings of their sexuality there but it isn't fully formed. A lot of what they get up to is just peer pressure enforced- they see older kids getting in relationships and having sex so decide to do the same despite it not really being what they entirely want.
So yeah. Staying in the closet in middle school seems pretty sane to me. Most kids remain pretty outwardly asexual at that time.
At high school though it should be fine to be what you are. 

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:01:22 PM
Well my experience with health classes were very different. Some moralizing:

Anal sex is terrible and dangerous (already mentioned here in discussion with Seedy)
Smoking kills, don't do it.
Drugs are terrible, here's what they can do to you, don't do them.
Rhythm method is a bad form of birth control (which also tacitly suggests that we as teens should be using birth control).

I'm sure there were more but those were the ones that sprung to mind.

Those aren't moral judgments - they are statements about risk.

Saying smoking is bad because it involves putting your own pleasure over the well-being and convenience of others is moral judgment.  Saying smoking is bad because it increases the chance of contracting various life-threatening diseases is not a moral judgment, just a statement about risk.  Saying anal sex is terrible because because God disapproves or because it is "unatural" is a moral judgment; saying anal sex is dangerous because it increases the risk of contracting STDs is a statement about risk.  Saying the rhythm method is a bad form of birth control is an unvarnished statement about risk - it is saying that compared to other forms of birth control rythm is less likely to actual control the likelihood of pregnancy.

It may be the case that the mental process behing the selection of statements of risk to present or not present may be informed by moral considerations, or perhaps it may not be the case.  It may also be that the statements themselves are not accurate.  But they aren't moral judgments in themselves.

Quote from: Tyr on January 02, 2013, 05:07:15 PM
Middle school kids shouldn't be scewing each other anyway. They have the beginnings of their sexuality there but it isn't fully formed. A lot of what they get up to is just peer pressure enforced- they see older kids getting in relationships and having sex so decide to do the same despite it not really being what they entirely want.
So yeah. Staying in the closet in middle school seems pretty sane to me. Most kids remain pretty outwardly asexual at that time.
At high school though it should be fine to be what you are.

:blink:

I'm sorry, but that's just plain assinine. You know that homosexuality is about a lot more than just having sex, right? Fuck, heterosexuality is about more than just having sex!

Middle School is when sex ed should be ending, not starting. By the time a kid is 11-12 years old and the hormones are raging, they should have a hell of a lot of information at their fingertips. Information about things like STDs, pregnancies, the emotional toll sex takes on a person, etc. Studies have shown that having that information helps them make the decision to hold off. The lack of education - or worse, teaching strictly abstention - results in a higher pregnancy rate and higher STD rate in kids of all age groups.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2013, 05:09:39 PM
Those aren't moral judgments - they are statements about risk.

Saying smoking is bad because it involves putting your own pleasure over the well-being and convenience of others is moral judgment.  Saying smoking is bad because it increases the chance of contracting various life-threatening diseases is not a moral judgment, just a statement about risk.  Saying anal sex is terrible because because God disapproves or because it is "unatural" is a moral judgment; saying anal sex is dangerous because it increases the risk of contracting STDs is a statement about risk.  Saying the rhythm method is a bad form of birth control is an unvarnished statement about risk - it is saying that compared to other forms of birth control rythm is less likely to actual control the likelihood of pregnancy.

It may be the case that the mental process behing the selection of statements of risk to present or not present may be informed by moral considerations, or perhaps it may not be the case.  It may also be that the statements themselves are not accurate.  But they aren't moral judgments in themselves.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree. Saying something is "good" or "bad" is, by the very definition, a moral judgment. And it's completely unnecessary, and in fact, is the worst thing you can say to a teenager.

Instead, offer the information. "Having anal sex can cause tears, which increases the chance of STDs. Ways to avoid STDs during any kind of sex include the use of condoms, or by not doing it at all." Let the kids determine for themselves what to do. The moment that you label something "good" or "bad", the kids make a judgment call on whether to do it because they shouldn't, or not do it because it's "bad". The truth is that it's neither good nor bad, it just carries more risks that can be mitigated by something else.

Smoking kills. Period. There is no question that smoking kills. Why say, "It's bad because it kills."? Now you've given it a value to kids. "Oooo, I shouldn't do this... so I'm gonna!" Not all kids are like this of course, but enough are, and the terminology is so irrelevant, that it's best to not go in that direction whatsoever.

Drugs cause physical harm, addiction, and often leads to more serious charges and addictions.

Pregnancy before the age of 18 stunts growth, causes problems with hormone levels, alters your ability to get an education, and will change your life forever.

"Good" and "bad" is just unnecessary.

The use of the word bad or good doesn't really change the substantive character of the statement.  There is no real difference between saying "smoking kills" and "smoking is bad because it kills" except that the latter does incorporate the trivial moral content that life is preferable to death.  Saying rhythm is "bad" form of birth control is just using linguistic shorthand to make a statement about utility.

whether strategically it is effective is eschew the use of those kinds of words when communicating to teenagers is another story.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
The use of the word bad or good doesn't really change the substantive character of the statement.  There is no real difference between saying "smoking kills" and "smoking is bad because it kills" except that the latter does incorporate the trivial moral content that life is preferable to death.  Saying rhythm is "bad" form of birth control is just using linguistic shorthand to make a statement about utility.

That's silly. The very use of the terms "bad" and "good" assigns value. That fact alone makes it a judgment. By saying, "Smoking is bad because it kills", you're taking away the right of the individual to have their own opinion on it. Sure, most likely they're going to agree because most people agree that life is better than death. That doesn't change the fact that it assigns value and makes a judgment on the issue.

Quotewhether strategically it is effective is eschew the use of those kinds of words when communicating to teenagers is another story.

This is something that is incredibly important, however. Teens crave power. Telling them what to think about a subject by assigning value while discussing it with them denies them the power to make that decision for themselves. That's incredibly important when you're trying to teach kids how best to deal with life, especially the potentially dangerous parts of life like sex, drugs, and personal care.

It may seem like a small thing to an adult, but it's huge to kids. You're saying, in effect, "I'm giving you the information, and I trust you to decide for yourself how best to use that information." Most of the time, the kids who would have rebelled against you will come to the same conclusion that you do, and they'll decide not to do the "bad" thing for no other reason than that they decided it for themselves. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2013, 04:30:34 PM
Except that it isn't a polite suggestion but rather a "do not do this". Pretty sure that's a comment on what's right and what's wrong.  See how I amended that anal sex one. Pretty much suggested to me at the time that it'd be wrong to have anal sex - which I recall struck me as rather homophobic.

Again, I see a difference between do not do this because of all the terrible consequences I mentioned and do not do this because it's a sin/depraved act/whatever.

Out of curiosity, did your guy say don't have unprotected anal sex or don't have anal sex at all?

She said the latter.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 05:45:23 PM
By saying, "Smoking is bad because it kills", you're taking away the right of the individual to have their own opinion on it. Sure, most likely they're going to agree because most people agree that life is better than death. That doesn't change the fact that it assigns value and makes a judgment on the issue.

No - you are just relating a fact about smoking - that it kills while denoting that having that quality is negative.
One can still have the opinion that the benefits gained from smoking outweigh those negative qualities.  After all there are many things that have negative impact on health and yet many still think are worth doing - like driving cars, eating chips, or downhill skiing.

What you and garbon presumably find objectionable is that the information is presenting in a context that makes the statement seem judgmental and definitive.  Ie the statement you are objecting to is the unstated negative implication: " . . . and because smoking has no positive redeeming value, therefore you should not do it."  The value judgment arises from the context of the presentation not the statement itself.

Schools shouldn't be teaching that faggotry is acceptable because that's a lie.  Schools should strive to tell the students the truth, and should only do otherwise if there is a compelling societal interest in doing otherwise.  Not having Martinus' head smashed in with a thrown brick isn't a good enough reason.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 05:12:15 PM

Quote from: Tyr on January 02, 2013, 05:07:15 PM
Middle school kids shouldn't be scewing each other anyway. They have the beginnings of their sexuality there but it isn't fully formed. A lot of what they get up to is just peer pressure enforced- they see older kids getting in relationships and having sex so decide to do the same despite it not really being what they entirely want.
So yeah. Staying in the closet in middle school seems pretty sane to me. Most kids remain pretty outwardly asexual at that time.
At high school though it should be fine to be what you are.

:blink:

I'm sorry, but that's just plain assinine. You know that homosexuality is about a lot more than just having sex, right? Fuck, heterosexuality is about more than just having sex!

Middle School is when sex ed should be ending, not starting. By the time a kid is 11-12 years old and the hormones are raging, they should have a hell of a lot of information at their fingertips. Information about things like STDs, pregnancies, the emotional toll sex takes on a person, etc. Studies have shown that having that information helps them make the decision to hold off. The lack of education - or worse, teaching strictly abstention - results in a higher pregnancy rate and higher STD rate in kids of all age groups.

:blink: if you're doing sex ed wiith 12 year olds then that makes it all the more so that you shouldn't go too much into the sex side and kids shouldn't be declaring themself gay or straight.

and I dont know what you mean about it being more than sex. sex is central to what hetero/homo sexuality is about.

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 04:32:42 PM

As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

You mean "religious idiots" like the atheist People's Republic of China.  I'm sorry Marty but that isn't a "scientific fact", no matter what your body tells you.

Breeders rule, gays drool!

Presumably Meri also objects to teaching children not to play with downed power lines because saying it's "bad" is a moral judgement.

Psychology isn't really much of a science.

Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2013, 08:11:46 PM
Psychology isn't really much of a science.

Nope.  There is a reason they called Head Shrinkers.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2013, 06:16:35 PM
No - you are just relating a fact about smoking - that it kills while denoting that having that quality is negative.
One can still have the opinion that the benefits gained from smoking outweigh those negative qualities.  After all there are many things that have negative impact on health and yet many still think are worth doing - like driving cars, eating chips, or downhill skiing.

What you and garbon presumably find objectionable is that the information is presenting in a context that makes the statement seem judgmental and definitive.  Ie the statement you are objecting to is the unstated negative implication: " . . . and because smoking has no positive redeeming value, therefore you should not do it."  The value judgment arises from the context of the presentation not the statement itself.

Bad and good are not facts. They are judgments. They are also opinions, as there is nothing universally good or universally bad. Death isn't bad to a suicidal person, or someone being tortured, or someone who's 110.

They are also unnecessary in the context that we're talking about, have the risk of being used in a way not in keeping with the preferred way, and could result in the contrary action than intended.

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 08:55:10 PM
Bad and good are not facts. They are judgments. They are also opinions, as there is nothing universally good or universally bad.

A semantic arguement on Languish?  Shocking.  Does the context mean anything here Meri?  If 'good' in this context means a healthy choice and 'bad' being an unhealthy choice then surely you could demonstate which is 'good' and 'bad' using factual arguements.  Or must be absolutely accept that absolutely and 100% of the time your definition of good and bad are the only possible contexts?

And really?  If I torture a toddler to death in front of her parents that is not entirely evil depending on circumstances eh?  What a bunch of moral relativistic garbage.

Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2013, 09:18:15 PM
A semantic arguement on Languish?  Shocking.  Does the context mean anything here Meri?  If 'good' in this context means a healthy choice and 'bad' being an unhealthy choice then surely you could demonstate which is 'good' and 'bad' using factual arguements.  Or must be absolutely accept that absolutely and 100% of the time your definition of good and bad are the only possible contexts?

And really?  If I torture a toddler to death in front of her parents that is not entirely evil depending on circumstances eh?  What a bunch of moral relativistic garbage.

Just curious. Did you read the context of this discussion? Specifically, why I'm arguing this?

My point was - and remains - that when teaching sex ed, it is not appropriate to affix moral terminology. Using terms like "good" and "bad" are not appropriate, imo.

Maybe you've got a time machine and the kid is Hitler!  :P

Quote from: merithyn on January 02, 2013, 04:49:40 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 04:32:42 PM

Except that teaching that human sexual orientations are "equal" (unlike, say, pedophilia, which is a mutation of existing sexuality) is not a moral judgement but the understanding of modern psychology.

I have no problem adding "under the law" in there, because it's a statement of fact. Saying that one thing is equal to another, however, means that one has to assign value to both, which I just don't think a teacher should be doing. Not because I don't think that it's true (which you know that I do), but because I do not want a teacher who thinks otherwise to have the opportunity to assign value which finds homosexuality wanting. Don't open that door. Instead, just provide the information. Allow the kids to work out that they're equally valid lifestyles for themselves based on the fact that no one is assigning any kind of value to either of them. It just is, just as eating, breathing, and blinking just are.

Quote
As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

I believe that's the case, but I have never seen anything that shows it to be "scientific fact". The last that I heard, any studies on that end have been ambiguous at best. I would absolutely love to see a study that shows definitively that this is the case. It would certainly shut up a few people that I know. :glare:

If those cannot be provided, however, then isn't it better to say, "Logically speaking, it is most commonly assumed that homosexuality is not a choice"? You obviously don't know kids if you think that stating something is scientific fact without a study - or three - that absolutely shows this to be true will fly for those who disagree. Imagine making a claim like that here without at least a single citation. Kids are no different, and most of them are worse than Raz when it comes to arguing for the sake of arguing if they hold a different viewpoint.

When you provide facts, you give them no opportunity to argue. It just is. It's not about whether it's right or wrong, morally acceptable or an abomination. It just is. This is life. Period.

That's how you change homosexuality from being seen as less-than. By simply treating it as a statement of fact, just like heterosexuality.

I have no problem with telling students in a sex ed class that many sexual activities are viewed negatively by e.g. certain religions and it is up to them to decide if they agree or not.

But it's not the same as withholding certain facts universally agreed by psychologists (and when I am talking about "facts", I mean things like accepted scientific theories - you know that even the "fact" that gravity exists and what it does is "just" a theory, which could theoretically be disproved one day, right?). And while origins of homosexuality are still debatable, it is more or less a consensus among psychologists that it is an innate and immutable trait and thus not a choice (that is why "curing homosexuality" is not a recognized medical treatment and is starting getting banned in the civilzed world).

You could just as well argue that children should not be taught the theory of evolution because some people might disagree with it.

It's cute when Marty pretends to understand science and then blame all his ills on religion.  Didn't you see a mental health professional recently Mart?

Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2013, 04:12:34 AM
I have no problem with telling students in a sex ed class that many sexual activities are viewed negatively by e.g. certain religions and it is up to them to decide if they agree or not.

I'm not sure that it's necessary to say this. I'm fairly certain that everyone already knows it. :P

That being said, I'm not opposed to it, either. It is a statement of how things are in the real world and offers no value judgment on it.

QuoteBut it's not the same as withholding certain facts universally agreed by psychologists (and when I am talking about "facts", I mean things like accepted scientific theories - you know that even the "fact" that gravity exists and what it does is "just" a theory, which could theoretically be disproved one day, right?). And while origins of homosexuality are still debatable, it is more or less a consensus among psychologists that it is an innate and immutable trait and thus not a choice (that is why "curing homosexuality" is not a recognized medical treatment and is starting getting banned in the civilzed world).

You could just as well argue that children should not be taught the theory of evolution because some people might disagree with it.

My understanding is that there has never been any proof that homosexuality is something a person is born with. As I said, please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to be. You're right that the common belief by most psychologists and psychiatrists is that this is true, but 50 years ago that same esteemed group of folks deemed it a mental illness. So, while I agree with their assessment today, I'm hesitant to use them as The Source for arguing the case.

Just throwing this in as a complete aside, national queer treasure Stephen Fry revealed on a recent episode of QI that most people's hair grows in a clockwise whorl from the crown, but there is a strong correlation between homosexuality in men and a counter-clockwise rotation, a potential strong indicator of a genetic element to sexuality.

Check out Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men, by Dr Amar J S Klart.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf)

Own up, who's got two mirrors out right now? :P

Quote from: merithyn on January 03, 2013, 09:39:32 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2013, 04:12:34 AM
I have no problem with telling students in a sex ed class that many sexual activities are viewed negatively by e.g. certain religions and it is up to them to decide if they agree or not.

I'm not sure that it's necessary to say this. I'm fairly certain that everyone already knows it. :P

That being said, I'm not opposed to it, either. It is a statement of how things are in the real world and offers no value judgment on it.

QuoteBut it's not the same as withholding certain facts universally agreed by psychologists (and when I am talking about "facts", I mean things like accepted scientific theories - you know that even the "fact" that gravity exists and what it does is "just" a theory, which could theoretically be disproved one day, right?). And while origins of homosexuality are still debatable, it is more or less a consensus among psychologists that it is an innate and immutable trait and thus not a choice (that is why "curing homosexuality" is not a recognized medical treatment and is starting getting banned in the civilzed world).

You could just as well argue that children should not be taught the theory of evolution because some people might disagree with it.

My understanding is that there has never been any proof that homosexuality is something a person is born with. As I said, please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to be. You're right that the common belief by most psychologists and psychiatrists is that this is true, but 50 years ago that same esteemed group of folks deemed it a mental illness. So, while I agree with their assessment today, I'm hesitant to use them as The Source for arguing the case.

Again, this is like saying that because astronomers used to think that the Sun orbits the Earth, we should not be teaching the heliocentric model in astronomy classes because they could just as well be wrong. 

For the record, for the sexual orientation to be immutable, it does not necessarily need to be in-born. There are, in general, three types of theories that postulate when sexual orientation develops - the genetic one (which essentially means that sexual orientation is determined when the embryo is created) which is probably least likely; the pre-natal one (which suggests that certain hormonal processes occuring in the mother's womb affect the fetus so that the child born out of it is homosexual) and the post-natal one (which suggests sexual orientation develops in response to certain circumstances within the first 1-5 years of life). There is also one which suggests it is a combination of the above.

Each of these postulates that once sexual orientation is acquired, it cannot be changed - so I am not sure how the argument whether someone is born homosexual or not has any bearing on the argument whether it is an immutable characteristic of a sexually active (pubescent) human being.

Quote from: Brazen on January 03, 2013, 09:51:30 AM
Just throwing this in as a complete aside, national queer treasure Stephen Fry revealed on a recent episode of QI that most people's hair grows in a clockwise whorl from the crown, but there is a strong correlation between homosexuality in men and a counter-clockwise rotation, a potential strong indicator of a genetic element to sexuality.

Check out Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men, by Dr Amar J S Klart.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf)

Own up, who's got two mirrors out right now? :P

It must have been hilarious to see this guy carry out his research, considering he was checking out the back of the head of random gay and straight men on the beach.  :D

Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2013, 10:04:59 AM
Again, this is like saying that because astronomers used to think that the Sun orbits the Earth, we should not be teaching the heliocentric model in astronomy classes because they could just as well be wrong. 

For the record, for the sexual orientation to be immutable, it does not necessarily need to be in-born. There are, in general, three types of theories that postulate when sexual orientation develops - the genetic one (which essentially means that sexual orientation is determined when the embryo is created) which is probably least likely; the pre-natal one (which suggests that certain hormonal processes occuring in the mother's womb affect the fetus so that the child born out of it is homosexual) and the post-natal one (which suggests sexual orientation develops in response to certain circumstances within the first 1-5 years of life). There is also one which suggests it is a combination of the above.

Each of these postulates that once sexual orientation is acquired, it cannot be changed - so I am not sure how the argument whether someone is born homosexual or not has any bearing on the argument whether it is an immutable characteristic of a sexually active (pubescent) human being.

Fair enough.

These threads are always a joy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 10:47:14 AM
These threads are always a joy.

How do you feel about ritual slaughter of animals?

Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
How do you feel about ritual slaughter of animals?

Depends.  Is it for dinner?

If your body is gay you don't have to listen to it.

Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2013, 01:30:14 PM
If your body is gay you don't have to listen to it.

Well, you do if it is banging on lid of your trunk from the inside.

Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2013, 01:48:38 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2013, 01:30:14 PM
If your body is gay you don't have to listen to it.

Well, you do if it is banging on lid of your trunk from the inside.

:x

 :lol:

Peristalsis is pretty gay. :thumbsdown:

Quote from: Brazen on January 03, 2013, 09:51:30 AM
Just throwing this in as a complete aside, national queer treasure Stephen Fry revealed on a recent episode of QI that most people's hair grows in a clockwise whorl from the crown, but there is a strong correlation between homosexuality in men and a counter-clockwise rotation, a potential strong indicator of a genetic element to sexuality.

Check out Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men, by Dr Amar J S Klart.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf)

Own up, who's got two mirrors out right now? :P

*checks* CLOCKWISE BITCHES :cool:

I am unable to determine the whorl rotation on my head.  :(

But I used to be left handed when I was a kid, and still use my left hand e.g. to cut things with scissors.

Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2013, 05:17:53 AM
I am unable to determine the whorl rotation on my head.  :(

I'm not even sure what that means. And surely the direction the hairs lie is a function of how they are combed.  :hmm:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2013, 05:33:14 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2013, 05:17:53 AM
I am unable to determine the whorl rotation on my head.  :(

I'm not even sure what that means. And surely the direction the hairs lie is a function of how they are combed.  :hmm:

You can't cure gay by combing your hair.

That's true, however you can catch it by combing other people's hair for them.

Quote from: Brazen on January 03, 2013, 09:51:30 AM
Just throwing this in as a complete aside, national queer treasure Stephen Fry revealed on a recent episode of QI that most people's hair grows in a clockwise whorl from the crown, but there is a strong correlation between homosexuality in men and a counter-clockwise rotation, a potential strong indicator of a genetic element to sexuality.

Check out Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men, by Dr Amar J S Klart.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf)

Own up, who's got two mirrors out right now? :P

That's interesting. Carter and Jackson have opposite whorls (I don't remember whose goes which way), but since they're mirror-image identical, it makes sense. Neither are, to my knowledge, gay.

Your sons are named Carter and Jackson? Could you have gone with something even more white trash? I don't know, like Hunter.

Leaving Marti's rude behavior aside, I'm not really sure how your sons and your thoughts that neither of them are gay - are relevant. :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2013, 10:09:37 AM
Leaving Marti's rude behavior aside, I'm not really sure how your sons and your thoughts that neither of them are gay - are relevant. :unsure:

Just thought it was interesting. :mellow:

Quote from: merithyn on January 04, 2013, 10:50:46 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2013, 10:09:37 AM
Leaving Marti's rude behavior aside, I'm not really sure how your sons and your thoughts that neither of them are gay - are relevant. :unsure:

Just thought it was interesting. :mellow:

That they weren't gay? That their heads had different swirl? :unsure:

Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2013, 09:52:07 AM
Your sons are named Carter and Jackson? Could you have gone with something even more white trash? I don't know, like Hunter.

Intent on showing your lack of knowledge of modern American culture, aren't you?  :hmm:

Carter - Ranked 41 in the country in 2011 (http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/babyname.cgi)

Jackson - Ranked 23 in the country in 2011 (http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/babyname.cgi)

So, unless you're trying to claim that the majority of the US is "white trash", you're pretty much an idiot. But then, you are when it comes to understanding anything American, including what "white trash" is. Unlike in Poland, it's a subculture, not the main one around here. 

Of course, I could have named one of my sons Marcin, but I saw no reason to make sure they were beaten up on the playground.

Your links don't work. :secret:

Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Your links don't work. :secret:

Sorry. Is it too hard to type six letters in? :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2013, 10:52:26 AM

That they weren't gay? That their heads had different swirl? :unsure:

That they had different sworls because they're mirror-image identical twins. :mellow:

Quote from: merithyn on January 04, 2013, 10:58:24 AM
So, unless you're trying to claim that the majority of the US is "white trash",

:shutup:

Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2013, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 04, 2013, 10:58:24 AM
So, unless you're trying to claim that the majority of the US is "white trash",

:shutup:

:lol:  I was gonna say...

Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2013, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 04, 2013, 10:58:24 AM
So, unless you're trying to claim that the majority of the US is "white trash",

:shutup:

Pfft like Canada is any less trashy.

Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
Pfft like Canada is any less trashy.

It's Maine, but with healthcare.