She went on to say: "... like underpaid teachers who are not motivated enough to teach our children or all the outdated schoolbooks as well as a ridiculous curriculum. I have to school my children at home because about the only thing they seem to learn in school is not to judge a person by their looks..."

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Love that redneck lady at the end:
"I don't really think there's any big deal about it. I think there's much worse things going on in the schools today..."
And what are those? Sex education? Evolution being taught? STFU before you make yourself sound even dumber, if that's possible.

Love that redneck lady at the end:

"I don't really think there's any big deal about it. I think there's much worse things going on in the schools today..."

And what are those? Sex education? Evolution being taught? STFU before you make yourself sound even dumber, if that's possible.

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

Again, you reveal substantial ignorance of gay activism and advocacy. Most gay advocacy is directed toward fighting societal attitudes that harm LBGT folk. We don't want people to yell "faggot" or "dyke" at us, seek to have us fired from our workplaces for our orientation or sexual identity, or beat or even kill us for being open about who we are. We don't like being treated like dirt, so we try to change people's minds.

I don't see what's so radical about this.

However, the primary means for achieving these ends are education and persuasion. I'm unaware of any significant group that seeks to achieve that sort of change through the force of law; the notion is reprehensible, and the results would in fact be counter-productive.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

First, I'd like to see an example of all-male schools being forced to accept girls. If it is happening, it must be a state or local issue; single-sex educational institutions, both public and private, are perfectly allowable under Federal law.

Second, I don't see how worries that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages are at all well-founded. Churches cannot be forced to accept female or black pastors, and cannot be forced to perform interracial marriages. Yet legal protections for the equality of women and racial minorities are far stronger and more firmly entrenched in the American legal system than protections for LGBT people.

There are simply no plausible legal avenues by which churches might be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Some of the things this homophobic homosexual has voted against:

SB 777 Normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality in public and private schools. Bans all teaching and activities that "promote a discriminatory bias against" these sexual orientations.

AB 1185 Would have codified existing legal protections for transgender people born in California which allows them to obtain a court order reflecting their correct gender and any accompanying name change.

SB 44 Affirms that same-sex couples married before Prop 8 are entitled to full recognition as married spouses in California, regardless of where they were married and that couples married outside of California after Prop 8 must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of spouses under California law.

AB 43 Replaces state language on marriage of a "man and woman" to marriage of "two persons". Legalizes homosexual marriage.

AB 102 Changes the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, allowing one or both parties to indicate changes in their last names. Grants marriage license to domestic partners, including homosexuals.

AB 394 Requires the State Dept of Education to "monitor adherence" to AB 537, passed in 2000 which prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in public schools.

AB 629 Revamps state sexual education requirements, making it illegal to "reflect or promote bias" against homosexuality, bisexuality or transexuality in sex education. Prohibits teaching "religious doctrine" in sex education.

AB 2654 Adds to the special protections against "anti-homosexual discrimination" found in AB 14.

the list goes on and on and on

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
I'm open to contradiction here but I thought ant was being sarcastic...>> ^enoch:
i didnt downvote anything.
and i think you misunderstand my point.
i was defending ANT's right to choose.you gave him this credit also but then chastised him for making the very choice you gave him credit for.
i still believe you meant that tongue in cheek but it disregards ANT's faith and his belief in his god.
ANT is a devout christian.now there are many facets of christianity but ANT keeps his faith personal and to himself.
he does not push his religion on anybody,not that i have seen anyway,and to conflate Bristol Palin's indiscretion with ANT's choice is disingenuous.
she made a statement that in retrospect is laughable and reveals her lack of discipline in regards to her faith but that has NOTHING to do with my point.
ANT,for all intents and purposes,just admitted he is a virgin and is waiting till he gets married.
he takes this seriously due to his faith.that choice should be honored not ridiculed.
does this mean that i disagree with your points on the beauty or loveliness of a union between a man and women?of course not.
but that was NOT my point.
am i ignoring the abject failure of "abstinence only sex education"?
of course not but it has nothing to do with my point.
my POINT is that ANT has chosen a path based on his faith and we should honor that choice.
WE may have made different choices and for good or ill they are OUR choices to live with.
would you walk up to a catholic nun and espouse the myriad wonders of sexual endevours?
how she is missing out on so much FUN!
would you ridicule and chastize her?
no?
then do not judge the choices ANT has made,regardless if you agree or disagree,they are HIS choices.
because in the end your opinion of his choices are irrelevant.


no.
ant is devout christian.

I'm open to contradiction here but I thought ant was being sarcastic...>> ^enoch:
i didnt downvote anything.
and i think you misunderstand my point.
i was defending ANT's right to choose.you gave him this credit also but then chastised him for making the very choice you gave him credit for.
i still believe you meant that tongue in cheek but it disregards ANT's faith and his belief in his god.
ANT is a devout christian.now there are many facets of christianity but ANT keeps his faith personal and to himself.
he does not push his religion on anybody,not that i have seen anyway,and to conflate Bristol Palin's indiscretion with ANT's choice is disingenuous.
she made a statement that in retrospect is laughable and reveals her lack of discipline in regards to her faith but that has NOTHING to do with my point.
ANT,for all intents and purposes,just admitted he is a virgin and is waiting till he gets married.
he takes this seriously due to his faith.that choice should be honored not ridiculed.
does this mean that i disagree with your points on the beauty or loveliness of a union between a man and women?of course not.
but that was NOT my point.
am i ignoring the abject failure of "abstinence only sex education"?
of course not but it has nothing to do with my point.
my POINT is that ANT has chosen a path based on his faith and we should honor that choice.
WE may have made different choices and for good or ill they are OUR choices to live with.
would you walk up to a catholic nun and espouse the myriad wonders of sexual endevours?
how she is missing out on so much FUN!
would you ridicule and chastize her?
no?
then do not judge the choices ANT has made,regardless if you agree or disagree,they are HIS choices.
because in the end your opinion of his choices are irrelevant.

i didnt downvote anything.
and i think you misunderstand my point.
i was defending ANT's right to choose.you gave him this credit also but then chastised him for making the very choice you gave him credit for.
i still believe you meant that tongue in cheek but it disregards ANT's faith and his belief in his god.
ANT is a devout christian.now there are many facets of christianity but ANT keeps his faith personal and to himself.
he does not push his religion on anybody,not that i have seen anyway,and to conflate Bristol Palin's indiscretion with ANT's choice is disingenuous.
she made a statement that in retrospect is laughable and reveals her lack of discipline in regards to her faith but that has NOTHING to do with my point.

ANT,for all intents and purposes,just admitted he is a virgin and is waiting till he gets married.
he takes this seriously due to his faith.that choice should be honored not ridiculed.
does this mean that i disagree with your points on the beauty or loveliness of a union between a man and women?of course not.
but that was NOT my point.
am i ignoring the abject failure of "abstinence only sex education"?
of course not but it has nothing to do with my point.
my POINT is that ANT has chosen a path based on his faith and we should honor that choice.
WE may have made different choices and for good or ill they are OUR choices to live with.
would you walk up to a catholic nun and espouse the myriad wonders of sexual endevours?
how she is missing out on so much FUN!
would you ridicule and chastize her?
no?
then do not judge the choices ANT has made,regardless if you agree or disagree,they are HIS choices.
because in the end your opinion of his choices are irrelevant.

>> ^Lodurr:
Part of loving someone is playing a role sometimes, and changing between roles, and objectifying yourself for your loved one. I don't know if it's a cultural problem as much as a personal maturity problem that some people don't understand that.


Does your "cultural problem" category include lack of or deliberately misleading sex education?

My mom taught high school health and english. She was very strictly limited on what she could say for the human reproduction portion of the health classes. She told me how students where surprised to learn that they could get sexually-transmitted diseases by oral sex. The sheer lack of knowledge is astounding.

But of course despite my mother's career obligations, I wasn't taught about sex from my parents. The solitary lesson from them taught to me was when I was getting some vick's vapor rub (I had a cold) to put on my chest out of the medicine drawer. There is vaseline right next to it and my mom told me to make sure I don't use that with condoms because it is petroleum-based and will eat away the condom. That was the only sentence uttered. When I reached college, I took a psychology class that was essentially a human sex education class. The teacher was brutally blunt and exactly what that class needed. Looking back on it now, I think something like that should be mandatory for all children before someone gets pregnant or an std.

This is the future of sex education.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'handjob, sex, education, silicon, toys' to 'handjob, sex, education, silicone, toys' - edited by lucky760

I must say, I tend to think that someone that just tells it like it is, ala Mr. Savage here, is fantastically better at providing sex education than any of the sources I had in my youth, which I would list as:

My family Church's sex education course. United Methodist, which I would say is somewhat more liberal than your average protestant denomination, although that is like saying a dolphin spends somewhat less time in the water than a fish because it jumps out of the water once in a while. Still, at least for this one they talked about protected sex and being cautious and sure you're ready, which I would consider sound advice.

My public school's offerings. This mainly consisted of all the boys being hauled into the auditorium and shown slides of cocks infected with various STDs. The ol' wait until later (ie, after you're no longer our problem) or your dick will fall off approach.

And my parents. They gave me the most honest approach, but I think that under the best of circumstances it is difficult to expect parents and their children to be able to talk openly and honestly about sex.

Dan Savage is a sex educator, writer and advice columnist. He is a vocal gay rights and adoption advocate.

His column is called "savage love" and he writes for the Stranger, a gay magazine out of Seattle

Yawn. Was this supposed to be funny? Am i suppose to giggle just becuase it suggests sex themes?

This is how this joke's supposed to be done:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-and-the-Meaning-of-life-sex-education

"However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself"

I have been going to church for 37 years and I can tell you religion is harmful. It is an oversimplification of decision making and morality. This is right and that is wrong and we have God to back up what we say. This leads to intolerance and an unwillingness to explore different views. Churches and theologians do not rely on scientific advances that help us understand why people do what they do. They know their rights and wrongs. They don't care about hormones, pheromones, cognitive developement, cognitive biases... They already have the answers from God.

A religious upbringing and a religious wife have made my life and sex life more difficult and less happy than it should be. It amazes me that Christians think they get their sexual morality from the Bible. The hypocracy found in the Bible and with Christians is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

Science, logic, reason and respect for others will produce a far better society than religion.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Something is wrong with both their religious and sex educations if they think that anal sex is preserving their virginity. It's an oversimplification to say that religion and abstinence-only sex education are to blame. The type of religious parents that shove dos and don'ts down their children's throats, shouting "LOVE JESUS" without bothering to check whether their children have real values, faith, and integrity, are the type of people that are harming their children. The kids aren't truly converted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they obviously don't understand them. Perhaps they're addicted to the high that they get when they hear a live band in church. If they're having anal sex, they have a very misguided concept of virginity brought on by parents and church leaders that sensationalize religion to the point that children are confused beyond belief. If this is all that you know of religion, I can understand why you despise it. However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people.

Let's not forget that other types of sex education fail, too. However, abstinence-only sex education is bogus. The way I see it, if abstinence isn't being taught in the home, the school will probably be ineffectual, anyway. They might as well do some damage control and educate kids about safe sex and birth control. If parents are teaching abstinence, why should they worry that schools are encouraging teenagers to have sex? Stop expecting the government to fix your problems!

Sex education: bad. Torture: good.