Should gay marriage be taught in school to children?

[Liberty4eva]

Should gay marriage be taught in school to children?

puI4pfRB0w0

[Vicky.]

I didnt even realise marriage in general was taught at school :S

If this means should children be taught that sometimes 2 men or 2 women get married, then yeah...why not.

[MTVN]

Taught in what sense? If it's just to tell people that it's acceptable then yes

[Ninastar]

I didnt even realise marriage in general was taught at school :S

If this means should children be taught that sometimes 2 men or 2 women get married, then yeah...why not.

this

[Niamh.]

how do you mean taught?

[Liberty4eva]

how do you mean taught?

like in the video.

[Niamh.]

like in the video.

I can't watch the video right now :/

[Black Dagger]

In the sense of saying that Two Men or two Women can love each other and be happy then yes, I say teach them =).

[Jessica.]

:S Don't see any harm in it tbh

[lostalex]

Equality should be taught to children.

We didn't have to "teach children" when we made interracial marriage legal, so why would we have to teach gay marriage? Love comes naturally, no teaching required.

This history of the gay rights movement should be taught though. Just like children are taught about how interracial marriage was illegal, and about the civil rights movement, the same approach should be taken with gay rights.

Teach about the history and the struggle.

It should be taught in history class, not health/sex ed classes.

[Jords]

I think marriage is touched within RE/PSHE, so gay marriage can be mentioned along side.. its not really important espicially to children though.

RE at secondary school covers it, and Sociology even further if you take it.

[joeysteele]

In later years at school the various types of all marriages allowed in the UK should maybe be made known, in the sense that it is legal and is fully accepted, so yes.

[lostalex]

Teaching (as in telling, instructing) students that it is normal and healthy is about as sick as it gets.
I'm not sure if 'sick' is the best word because it would be the desire and inclination to pervert children's minds. a 'Sickness'.
But actually doing it. planning it and carrying it out is really evil.

Of course, children don't need to know these things until they are older. At which time, naturally, they will think same-sex mock-marriages are revolting and actually want to make them physically vomit at even the thought,
but,
as children this is not a concern to them, is more than they need to handle and besides that they need reading, writing and maths.
Not left-wing anti-christian anti-family social perversion hate manipulation experiments.

do you feel the same way about interracial marriages?

Is it sick to inform the white students that they might possibly fall in love with *gasp* a BLACK person? *shock horror*

[arista]

The Yanks can not handle gays
they a Bible Freaks.


Putting Piano music in that Video - so typical
of Bible Freaks


Roll on Nov.


There is No God

[lostalex]

The Yanks can not handle gays
they a Bible Freaks.


Putting Piano music in that Video - so typical
of Bible Freaks


Roll on Nov.


There is No God

You're an idiot. Judging all "yanks" based on this video would be like Americans judging all "limeys" based on a video from the BNP.

[Livia]

We don't teach kids in school about heterosexual marriage so why in the world would we teach them about gay marriage? Gay marriage isn't even legal in the UK. You can have a civil partnership, but that's not the same thing. As far as I can see teachers have a difficult enough job teaching kids to be literate and numerate without wasting half the day talking about marriage, gay or otherwise.

[Liberty4eva]

We don't teach kids in school about heterosexual marriage so why in the world would we teach them about gay marriage? Gay marriage isn't even legal in the UK. You can have a civil partnership, but that's not the same thing. As far as I can see teachers have a difficult enough job teaching kids to be literate and numerate without wasting half the day talking about marriage, gay or otherwise.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif

[lostalex]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif

ummm, creepy.

[Niamh.]

Just watched the video now, It's scary to think that people like them exist, I'm delighted they arrested him

[MTVN]

We don't teach kids in school about heterosexual marriage so why in the world would we teach them about gay marriage? Gay marriage isn't even legal in the UK. You can have a civil partnership, but that's not the same thing. As far as I can see teachers have a difficult enough job teaching kids to be literate and numerate without wasting half the day talking about marriage, gay or otherwise.

Well as Jords mentioned marriage is indeed taught, or at the very least touched upon, at varying stages of the syllabus so it's not that unreasonable to think that this could be extended to include gay marriage. Noone's saying it should replace maths or english lessons, but a little bit of time spent in RE or PSHE would do no harm.

[cub]

We don't teach kids in school about heterosexual marriage so why in the world would we teach them about gay marriage? Gay marriage isn't even legal in the UK. You can have a civil partnership, but that's not the same thing. As far as I can see teachers have a difficult enough job teaching kids to be literate and numerate without wasting half the day talking about marriage, gay or otherwise.

Can you explain how it's different? Taking away the religious aspect, legally it is the same.

I think a union between two people of both genders should be discussed/included in school as part of a sexuality/personal relationships education.

[MTVN]

And I've just watched that video and it's such a shameless piece of propaganda by the Religious Right, it's actually pissed me off. It's so stereotypical Tea Party that it could have been satire, I mean listen to the music they're playing in the background and the way they show the happy heterosexual, religious family bouncing a ball and walking through the woods together, and then comes the crocodile tears from the mother :bored:

[cub]

Teaching (as in telling, instructing) students that it is normal and healthy is about as sick as it gets.
I'm not sure if 'sick' is the best word because it would be the desire and inclination to pervert children's minds. a 'Sickness'.
But actually doing it. planning it and carrying it out is really evil.

Of course, children don't need to know these things until they are older. At which time, naturally, they will think same-sex mock-marriages are revolting and actually want to make them physically vomit at even the thought,
but,
as children this is not a concern to them, is more than they need to handle and besides that they need reading, writing and maths.
Not left-wing anti-christian anti-family social perversion hate manipulation experiments.

I've not read such breathtakingly bigoted and hateful comments like that in a long time. Congratulations.

[arista]

You're an idiot. Judging all "yanks" based on this video would be like Americans judging all "limeys" based on a video from the BNP.


Looked I have Lived/Worked
in America.


I know what I am talking about.



They called me the Working Limey.


Yanks take the Bible is such a way
they are as bad as Bin Laden,


Deal with it.

[cub]

And I've just watched that video and it's such a shameless piece of propaganda by the Religious Right, it's actually pissed me off. It's so stereotypical Tea Party that it could have been satire, I mean listen to the music they're playing in the background and the way they show the happy heterosexual, religious family bouncing a ball and walking through the woods together, and then comes the crocodile tears from the mother :bored:

It could almost be a 'Little Britain USA' sketch.

[Niamh.]

And I've just watched that video and it's such a shameless piece of propaganda by the Religious Right, it's actually pissed me off. It's so stereotypical Tea Party that it could have been satire, I mean listen to the music they're playing in the background and the way they show the happy heterosexual, religious family bouncing a ball and walking through the woods together, and then comes the crocodile tears from the mother :bored:

I'm just reading through the comments on youtube :shocked:

[Niamh.]

I'm just reading through the comments on youtube :shocked:

here's one fine example :joker:

Your right we don't have any right to tell you what to do in your own time and walking down the isle is up to you...however homosexuals do not have the right to teach in schools that homosexaulity it morally ok..because to christians it is a violation of god's law also the word marriage is biblicaland"YOU ave no right to try to say you can use the word MARRIAGE.MARRIAGE is a religious cermony making a covenant to god.You may have the word civil union .stay away from my bible!Youcanthave the bibl

[lostalex]

Looked I have Lived/Worked
in America.


I know what I am talking about.



They called me the Working Limey.


Yanks take the Bible is such a way
they are as bad as Bin Laden,


Deal with it.

sounds like you just couldn't keep up with the banter, I thought you limey's were suppossed to be good about banter and have a sense of humour? obviously not.

and that bolded statement just proves you've got some serious issues dude. get a grip. srsly.

(and he wonders why his co-workers didn't take to him, ffs)

[Vicky.]

I've never heard the word limey before. Taking it its some form of slang for brit or something?

[lostalex]

I've never heard the word limey before. Taking it its some form of slang for brit or something?

yup, just the american slang for brits, like yank is for americans.

[Vicky.]

Ah k :)

[lostalex]

Ah k :)

it goes back to colonial times, in order to avoid getting scurvy, the british sailors would often be seen sucking on limes, to get their vitamin C.

that's prolly where the stereotype about brits dental problems comes from too, obviously limes are very acidic so i'm sure it did a number on their teeth.

[Vicky.]

Well you learn something new everyday :shocked:

[Niall]

Yes it should. It'll help to stop children feeling its not right in future and possibly help to reduce the stigma around it. It'll help to normalise the whole concept of it with future generations so I'm all for it.

[Tom4784]

I'm all for equality being taught in schools, in this day and age it's shocking that a country that was supposedly built on freedom now has a fair proportion of it's citizens trying to demonize and take away the rights of a group of people. Sexual orientation either way isn't a choice, people don't choose to be straight or gay they just are what they are. I don't get why people oppose it, it doesn't affect them obviously so why should they take exception to it? Why try to oppose someone's rights when either way it won't affect you in the least? The only effect it would have is that it'd be beneficial towards the economy. Gay people should have as much of a right as anyone to be in an unhappy marriage :laugh:.

The Tea Party are a missing link that's nothing but an ugly relic these days.

[arista]

I've never heard the word limey before. Taking it its some form of slang for brit or something?


Yes Yanks
shouted at me 'The Limey Worker',
as well.


They love the Word
goes back to ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limey

[Glenn.]

Teaching (as in telling, instructing) students that it is normal and healthy is about as sick as it gets.
I'm not sure if 'sick' is the best word because it would be the desire and inclination to pervert children's minds. a 'Sickness'.
But actually doing it. planning it and carrying it out is really evil.

Of course, children don't need to know these things until they are older. At which time, naturally, they will think same-sex mock-marriages are revolting and actually want to make them physically vomit at even the thought,
but,
as children this is not a concern to them, is more than they need to handle and besides that they need reading, writing and maths.
Not left-wing anti-christian anti-family social perversion hate manipulation experiments.


You are a vile human being. A homophobic, arrogant, pig-ignorant cum squirting penis.

[Niall]

Teaching (as in telling, instructing) students that it is normal and healthy is about as sick as it gets.
I'm not sure if 'sick' is the best word because it would be the desire and inclination to pervert children's minds. a 'Sickness'.
But actually doing it. planning it and carrying it out is really evil.

Of course, children don't need to know these things until they are older. At which time, naturally, they will think same-sex mock-marriages are revolting and actually want to make them physically vomit at even the thought,
but,
as children this is not a concern to them, is more than they need to handle and besides that they need reading, writing and maths.
Not left-wing anti-christian anti-family social perversion hate manipulation experiments.

You disgust me to the core. People like you make me sick. :bored:

[BigBrotherHub]

Ow please why doesn't most of the US just see that this is the 21st century, their are far much bigger "issues" to worry about, this isn't an issue at all and that post and this video did sicken me, being homophobic isn't right, who are they to judge a tax payers rights and feelings? Gawd!

[arista]

and that bolded statement just proves you've got some serious issues dude. get a grip. srsly.





No the Yanks have
with there Bible Freaks.

[Liberty4eva]

No the Yanks have
with there Bible Freaks.

Why do all the perceived social ills of the US go back to the Bible? Most Christians have never even read the Bible, never even read half of it.

[MTVN]

Ow please why doesn't most of the US just see that this is the 21st century, their are far much bigger "issues" to worry about, this isn't an issue at all and that post and this video did sicken me, being homophobic isn't right, who are they to judge a tax payers rights and feelings? Gawd!

Have you not been listening to Tea Partier Michelle Bachmann: "Gay marriage is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.''




:bored:

[Liberty4eva]

Looked I have Lived/Worked
in America.


I know what I am talking about.



They called me the Working Limey.


Yanks take the Bible is such a way
they are as bad as Bin Laden,

Deal with it.

I hope you're drunk cause that takes the prize of most idiotic comment I've read all day. :bored:

[MTVN]

It's not all that idiotic; millions of Americans are Christian fundamentalists, Bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist..

[arista]

I hope you're drunk cause that takes the prize of most idiotic comment I've read all day. :bored:



Not Drunk.

[arista]

It's not all that idiotic; millions of Americans are Christian fundamentalists, Bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist..


Very True

[Liberty4eva]

It's not all that idiotic; millions of Americans are Christian fundamentalists, Bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist..

It's absolutely idiotic. It's idiotic on more than one level.

[MTVN]

It's absolutely idiotic. It's idiotic on more than one level.

Why don't you elaborate? The point is that a fundamentalist interpretation of religion is dangerous whether it's Christianity or Islam. Look at what ultra-Zionism has led to in Israel, and I dread to think what state the world would be in if the militaristic Christian fundamentalists secured power in the US

[Marsh.]

Teaching (as in telling, instructing) students that it is normal and healthy is about as sick as it gets.
I'm not sure if 'sick' is the best word because it would be the desire and inclination to pervert children's minds. a 'Sickness'.
But actually doing it. planning it and carrying it out is really evil.

Of course, children don't need to know these things until they are older. At which time, naturally, they will think same-sex mock-marriages are revolting and actually want to make them physically vomit at even the thought,
but,
as children this is not a concern to them, is more than they need to handle and besides that they need reading, writing and maths.
Not left-wing anti-christian anti-family social perversion hate manipulation experiments.

Not the wisest thing to post on a forum with majority gay members.

[Marsh.]

It's not all that idiotic; millions of Americans are Christian fundamentalists, Bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist..

Except there's one or two VERY BIG differences between the two. 10 points for the person who can spot it.

[Liberty4eva]

Why don't you elaborate? The point is that a fundamentalist interpretation of religion is dangerous whether it's Christianity or Islam. Look at what ultra-Zionism has led to in Israel, and I dread to think what state the world would be in if the militaristic Christian fundamentalists secured power in the US

First of all, you should know by now that I don't buy into this image that bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist. I believe we were lead to believe he was an Islamic fundamentalist for nefarious reasons. But that's another thread and topic unto itself. I'd rather not open a can of worms if I can avoid it.

But if I for one half-second believed that bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist as he is portrayed to be, it's still idiotic to, with one brush, say or suggest that all Americans are as bad as bin Laden.

[Marsh.]

First of all, you should know by now that I don't buy into this image that bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist. I believe we were lead to believe he was an Islamic fundamentalist for nefarious reasons. But that's another thread and topic unto itself. I'd rather not open a can of worms if I can avoid it.

But if I for one half-second believed that bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist as he is portrayed to be, it's still idiotic to, with one brush, say or suggest that all Americans are as bad as bin Laden.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[MTVN]

First of all, you should know by now that I don't buy into this image that bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist. I believe we were lead to believe he was an Islamic fundamentalist for nefarious reasons. But that's another thread and topic unto itself. I'd rather not open a can of worms if I can avoid it.

But if I for one half-second believed that bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist as he is portrayed to be, it's still idiotic to, with one brush, say or suggest that all Americans are as bad as bin Laden.

Well your first paragraph is just a baseless claim unless you do elaborate because I've never really heard that claimed before, unless you're just saying he doesn't represent a true fundamentalist reading of Islam but anyway..

Yes it would be idiotic to say that all Americans are as bad as him, I was just making the point that fundamentalism - which a large number of Americans do subscribe to - is dangerous in all religions

Except there's one or two VERY BIG differences between the two. 10 points for the person who can spot it.

Not the point

[Marsh.]

Not the point

Of the thread?

Well, neither's Bin Laden.

But in response to what you said about them being the same it very much is the point.
People are defined by their actions not what pigeon-holes you put them into.

[MTVN]

Of the thread?

Well, neither's Bin Laden.

But in response to what you said about them being the same it very much is the point.

No to the point of the comparison, firstly because Islamic fundamentalism isn't the only religous interpretation that has blood on it's hands, fundamentalism in Christianity and ultra-Zionism in Israel has also led to plenty of deaths and I've no doubt it would again if a member of the Tea Party ever came to power in the US. Plus Bush was a Christian, received support from the Religious Right and is responsible for far more deaths than Bin Laden. But secondly it's because I wasn't saying they were comparable in terms of death tolls anyway, I was pointing out that you can put Bin Laden and his interpretation of the Qu'ran on a similar level to the interpretation of the Bible by millions of Americans in the sense that both are fundamentalist readings.

[Marsh.]

I wasn't saying they were comparable in terms of death tolls anyway,

I didn't think that.

I was pointing out that you can put Bin Laden and his interpretation of the Qu'ran on a similar level to the interpretation of the Bible by millions of Americans in the sense that both are fundamentalist readings.

I don't quite agree but fair enough. I understand your original opinion now.

[Vicky.]

Can we get this back on topic please :p

[Marsh.]

Can we get this back on topic please :p

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/photos/11-13-08/20080617%20Gay%20Marriage.jpg

[Vicky.]

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/photos/11-13-08/20080617%20Gay%20Marriage.jpg

:laugh2:

[Liberty4eva]

Well your first paragraph is just a baseless claim unless you do elaborate because I've never really heard that claimed before, unless you're just saying he doesn't represent a true fundamentalist reading of Islam but anyway..


I'm not going to spend a lot of time retyping out old points I've made on other threads. If you really care to learn something beyond what you saw and heard on the teli, do a search for former FBI translator Sibel Edmunds and invest a little time. It's kind of hard to be an Islamic fundamentalist when you're on the great satan's payroll up to and perhaps beyond 9/11.


Yes it would be idiotic to say that all Americans are as bad as him, I was just making the point that fundamentalism - which a large number of Americans do subscribe to - is dangerous in all religions

Christian Fundamentalists can be dangerous but I think it needs to be put into perspective. They can be dangerous but then again so can communists, socialists, eugenisists, people who think the world is over populated. Any group of people that have a belief that is dogmatically held can potentially be dangerous.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: Prince Philip has stated in the past on more than one occation that if reincarnation is real, he hopes to come back as a deadly virus to help solve the problem of overpopulation. I once posted a thread that mentions those quotes and, to my absolute and utter astonishment, people on here who responded to my thread thought his quotes were funny. I couldn't believe those responses and I still don't believe them. IMHO, anyone who fancies coming back as a germ so they can murder innocent people is likely to be far, far, far more dangerous than at least 99.99% of all the Christian fundamentalists in America.

[Vicky.]

Taking it my posts are invisible to some...

[InOne]

No. Gays are all going to burn in hell anyway.

/westborobaptistchurch

[ElProximo]

It's absolutely laughable that nobody's posts accusing Christians of being 'murderers' are deleted,
yet,
a VERY COMMON UK OPINION about homosexuality being illegitimate and perverted will be deleted.

I suggest the person abusing their buttons needs to realize one of the very reasons they have social phobia, panic attacks and depression IS because they are doing shameful, sick, hurtful evil little things which (in their heart) they know contradict their moral compass.

Read that again.
Read it a third time. Think about that. Thank me later.

............
easily one of most pathetic things in religious discourse is this idea that there is a religion called 'religion' and you get to hold Christian fundamentalists as some parallels to Muslim fundamentalists.
Putting aside the retarded way uneducated (about religious movements) the definition of 'fundamentalism'.
Put that aside.
There is no parallel. Not even close. It is actually ridiculous and laughable and just sad anyone tries to make some 'grouping'.

Atheist fundamentalists have horrifically mass-murdered hundreds of people (often children) and done so for exactly that reason - terrifying ugly deaths to innocent people.

Muslim 'fundamentalists' have horrifically mass-murdered and tortured and terrorized thousands of people this year.
For the very reason, intent, purpose of doing just that - actually murdering innocent people. To cause horrible pain and suffering to innocent people.

Christian 'fundamentalists'... 1 of them shot an abortion doctor a few years ago because he (the 'fundamentalist') believed he was going to save the lives of innocent babies.
For the purpose of letting babies live.


Otherwise, Christian fundamentalists spend a helluva lot of time doing 'soup kitchens' and opening drug rehab missions.

Secular non-religious UK 20somethings posting in forums murder and torture more.

[Niamh.]

Yeah, your extremely homophobic comments were never deleted El Proximo.

[Grimnir]

i give my thoughts

i do not believe in god and have no religion

we should all **** each other like bunny rabbits on acid as much as possible and have as many orgasms as possible before we die, then when we die we should have a threesome with god and satan

religious people do not share this belief, they have their personal views on sex and we have to respect them because those are the rules, respect others beliefs even if you find them nonsense

all gay people are different just as all heterosexuals are different

some gays are almost as dirty as me, and some are even more conservative than a religious couple

now i get to my point

i don't believe that any form of sex outside biological reproduction basic sex should be taught to children, likewise i don't believe religion should be taught in schools

education should be kept to academic subjects like science, maths, history etc

sociological and psychological subjects like sex and religion should be taught at home and then at college if the student chooses it for their course and are interested in it

sexuality is so much more complex than simply putting people in pigeon holes like gay or straight as if there are only 2 types of people in the world

there is a whole world of sexual perversion out there, some like to have gang bangs, some like to be whipped and punished, some like she males, some like dwarfs, some like orgies, some like swinging parties, some like nudism, some like trannies, some like inanimate objects, some like watersports, the list goes on and on and on

NONE of this should be taught to children, only reproduction in biology class thats all, once they an adult they can learn what they like

[swinearefine]

I think if straight marriage is taught or discussed, gay marriage should as well. I remember a few years ago here in America there was a big scandal about teachers in Massachusetts (I think the first US state to legalize gay marriage) reading gay fairytales to little kids and like my whole family and half the country wanted to burn those teachers on the stake :P I totally disagree with the posters claiming that yanks are right wing bible freaks - that is largely true about the older generations, but at least two-thirds of kids my age are extremely liberal atheists where I live. Gay marriage was juat legalized in New York and is now legal in 35% of the country :)

[iRyan]

I suggest the person abusing their buttons needs to realize one of the very reasons they have social phobia, panic attacks and depression IS because they are doing shameful, sick, hurtful evil little things which (in their heart) they know contradict their moral compass.

You are so ignorant it's sad. How in any way is loving another person hurtful and evil? I can't even take anything you say seriously. You're nothing but a pathetic, simple minded boy.

[ElProximo]

You are so ignorant it's sad. How in any way is loving another person hurtful and evil? I can't even take anything you say seriously. You're nothing but a pathetic, simple minded boy.

Hurtful and evil is censoring opinions you don't like in hopes of pushing your own particular 'righteous mandate'.
Its cowardly, small and censorship truly is 'pathetic and simple-minded'.

As for your comments?
The debate IS about what is loving or not. Nobody on any side has ever been against anyone loving anyone.
Many great men loved other men. Many fathers love their sons. Many brothers love their sisters.
Many young men have a great loving admiration of their mentors, professors.
NONE OF THIS involving any homosexual sex.

But the actual debate is about 'what is loving'.
Are you 'loving' someone by entertaining their weakness and encouraging it?
If they have damaged and confused sexuality you encourage it?

I suggest YOU ARE UNLOVING and you HURT these people every single time you try and tell them its 'normal' and encourage them to continue.
In the same way it would be most UNLOVING for me to tell the paranoid schizophrenic they should make tinfoil hats and should keep reading conspiracy websites and they ought to be proud they write 200 letters a year to the Queen.
In that way you are HURTING people in homosexuality. Do you agree?

Niamh. Yeah, your extremely homophobic comments were never deleted El Proximo.

NOTHING in my comments gave you ANY reason to believe I have any kind of irrational fear of homosexuals.
however,
If I did, it would be on you to be consistent and accept me as a Homophobe.
After all, who are you to attack homophobes just because they are different?
Or are you a hypocrite?

[Niamh.]

Hurtful and evil is censoring opinions you don't like in hopes of pushing your own particular 'righteous mandate'.
Its cowardly, small and censorship truly is 'pathetic and simple-minded'.

As for your comments?
The debate IS about what is loving or not. Nobody on any side has ever been against anyone loving anyone.
Many great men loved other men. Many fathers love their sons. Many brothers love their sisters.
Many young men have a great loving admiration of their mentors, professors.
NONE OF THIS involving any homosexual sex.

But the actual debate is about 'what is loving'.
Are you 'loving' someone by entertaining their weakness and encouraging it?
If they have damaged and confused sexuality you encourage it?

I suggest YOU ARE UNLOVING and you HURT these people every single time you try and tell them its 'normal' and encourage them to continue.
In the same way it would be most UNLOVING for me to tell the paranoid schizophrenic they should make tinfoil hats and should keep reading conspiracy websites and they ought to be proud they write 200 letters a year to the Queen.
In that way you are HURTING people in homosexuality. Do you agree?



NOTHING in my comments gave you ANY reason to believe I have any kind of irrational fear of homosexuals.
however,
If I did, it would be on you to be consistent and accept me as a Homophobe.
After all, who are you to attack homophobes just because they are different?
Or are you a hypocrite?

You do seem to have an irrational hatred for homosexuals though. I don't believe I've "attacked" you btw, would you like to show me where in this thread I've done that? But now that you bring it up, hating someone for who they choose to have a relationship with, imo, is a bit bizarre.

[ElProximo]

You do seem to have an irrational hatred for homosexuals though.

No. i don't seem to have that.


hating someone for who they choose to have a relationship with, imo, is a bit bizarre.

It sure is. So is hating someone who believes homosexuality is a perversion. Not 'bizarre' since we see that quite a bit but unhealthy for sure.

[MTVN]

You basically fit the definition for homophobe to a tee, don't see how you can deny that one. And I don't know why you're going on about having your opinion censored seeing as it hasn't been

[Niamh.]

No. i don't seem to have that.

a hatred for gays? or the fact that it's an irrational hatred?


It sure is. So is hating someone who believes homosexuality is a perversion. Not 'bizarre' since we see that quite a bit but unhealthy for sure.

I don't hate you El Proximo (if that's what you're implying) But I do find it strange that other peoples sex lives offend you so much.

[letmein]

It could almost be a 'Little Britain USA' sketch.

You mean, not funny?

[letmein]

It's not all that idiotic; millions of Americans are Christian fundamentalists, Bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist..

It's beyond idiotic, and artista should be reprimanded for making such a disgusting comment!

[letmein]

i don't believe that any form of sex outside biological reproduction basic sex should be taught to children, likewise i don't believe religion should be taught in schools


That makes absolutely no sense. Sex is not simply for reproduction. Are you saying that we should teach about condoms since they restrict reproduction?

You know, I swear, I don't think people think before they post.

[Shaun]

I suggest the person abusing their buttons needs to realize one of the very reasons they have social phobia, panic attacks and depression IS because they are doing shameful, sick, hurtful evil little things which (in their heart) they know contradict their moral compass.

how you can say this isn't homophobia is utterly laughable. You're utterly ridiculous, and the only one displaying any signs of a (mental) 'sickness' in this thread.

[letmein]

After all, who are you to attack homophobes just because they are different?
Or are you a hypocrite?

This sums up the person many of you are debating. :xyxwave:

[Grimnir]

That makes absolutely no sense. Sex is not simply for reproduction. Are you saying that we should teach about condoms since they restrict reproduction?

You know, I swear, I don't think people think before they post.

what is wrong with you?

you quoted this one line of my post

i don't believe that any form of sex outside biological reproduction basic sex should be taught to children, likewise i don't believe religion should be taught in schools

then you said

That makes absolutely no sense. Sex is not simply for reproduction.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then you say

Are you saying that we should teach about condoms since they restrict reproduction?

WTF?!??! you put words in my mouth and they don't even make sense

[Niamh.]

what is wrong with you?

you quoted this one line of my post

i don't believe that any form of sex outside biological reproduction basic sex should be taught to children, likewise i don't believe religion should be taught in schools

then you said

That makes absolutely no sense. Sex is not simply for reproduction.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then you say

Are you saying that we should teach about condoms since they restrict reproduction?

WTF?!??! you put words in my mouth and they don't even make sense

I think everybody else understood what you meant!

[letmein]

what is wrong with you?

you quoted this one line of my post

i don't believe that any form of sex outside biological reproduction basic sex should be taught to children, likewise i don't believe religion should be taught in schools

then you said

That makes absolutely no sense. Sex is not simply for reproduction.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then you say

Are you saying that we should teach about condoms since they restrict reproduction?

WTF?!??! you put words in my mouth and they don't even make sense

Then you said... then you said... blah, blah, blah.

The fact is, there's more to sex than reproduction. You're saying if it doesn't include reproduction, not teach it. Uh, sex is not only about reproduction, thus, there's more that has to be taught. You have to teach about safe sex. This includes gay sex. Gay sex doesn't involve reproduction. By deduction, you're saying that we shouldn't discuss that, thus, making more information involving homosexuality off limits. Give me a break.

Next!

[cub]

Some questions ...

Should childless couples within a marriage that can't conceive also not have sex for love and for pleasure?

Should couples not use sensible birth control to prevent them from having more children than they can afford or manage or want?

Should a person that is attracted to the same sex stay celebate or take some kind of aversion therapy? Live alone and never enjoy a personal sexual relationship with the person of his or her choice?

[Grimnir]

Then you said... then you said... blah, blah, blah.

The fact is, there's more to sex than reproduction. You're saying if it doesn't include reproduction, not teach it. Uh, sex is not only about reproduction, thus, there's more that has to be taught. You have to teach about safe sex. This includes gay sex. Gay sex doesn't involve reproduction. By deduction, you're saying that we shouldn't discuss that, thus, making more information involving homosexuality off limits. Give me a break.

Next!

no

it's your opinion sex should be taught to children

my opinion is sex should not be taught to children

my opinion is teach reproduction in science but not sex

sex education should be left to each family to discuss whenever they deem it appropriate, same as religion

its differing opinions

there is no HAVE to or HAS to anything

[Grimnir]

Some questions ...

Should childless couples within a marriage that can't conceive also not have sex for love and for pleasure?

they should **** each other even more

Should couples not use sensible birth control to prevent them from having more children than they can afford or manage or want?

people can have as many kids as they like

Should a person that is attracted to the same sex stay celebate or take some kind of aversion therapy? Live alone and never enjoy a personal sexual relationship with the person of his or her choice?

if you wanna **** someone and they wanna **** you too, then **** like bunnies


:hugesmile:

[Marsh.]

How is homosexuality hurtful or evil?

Don't tell me ElProximo is one of those very arrogant people who believes any gay he comes into contact with is going to come onto him.
Gay men don't fancy every man they see. Just as straight men don't fancy every woman they see. You need to get over the phobia.

[Grimnir]

you can't force people to be homo friendly

people have a right to disapprove of sexual lifestyles

if some girl likes to **** around and be a slut, people are entitled to disapprove but have no right to start being violent or a bully against them

if some guy likes to **** trannies, people are entitled to disappove but have no right to start being violent or a bully against them

if some guy likes to suck another guy's cock, people are entitled to disapprove but have no right to start being violent or a bully against them

if i would like to **** them all together wearing underpants on my head, people are entitled to disapprove but have no right to start being violent or a bully against me (not that i would care as it would turn it up a notch)

do you see?

[ElProximo]

how you can say this isn't homophobia is utterly laughable. You're utterly ridiculous, and the only one displaying any signs of a (mental) 'sickness' in this thread.

Nothing about that tells you I have some irrational fear of homosexuals.

Don't tell me ElProximo is one of those very arrogant people who believes any gay he comes into contact with is going to come onto him.

If I was still 15 years old I would right suppose nearly every homosexual would come onto me.
But I'm older now and yes I am well aware that while homosexuals, in general, have an extremely high rate of 'multiple partners' - I know it depends on what fetish they are into.
'Daddies' or 'Twinks' or whatever specific role-playing fetish they are perved into.

[Benjamin]

Nothing about that tells you I have some irrational fear of homosexuals.



If I was still 15 years old I would right suppose nearly every homosexual would come onto me.
But I'm older now and yes I am well aware that while homosexuals, in general, have an extremely high rate of 'multiple partners' - I know it depends on what fetish they are into.
'Daddies' or 'Twinks' or whatever specific role-playing fetish they are perved into.

Oh listen to yourself will you? How dare you stereotype every homosexual man into the same category? Yes in the past I have had many sexual partners but it's called being young and what a lot of heterosexual men also do. As for the perversions, not all of us are into 'sick and twisted' things as you seem to think. You also forget that heterosexual people are just as prone to different and unusual fetishes.

I wish you would give the absolute repulsion towards homosexuality a rest. Fair enough you do not like it, but do you have to be so goddamn offensive about it?

[Smithy]

Nothing about that tells you I have some irrational fear of homosexuals.



If I was still 15 years old I would right suppose nearly every homosexual would come onto me.
But I'm older now and yes I am well aware that while homosexuals, in general, have an extremely high rate of 'multiple partners' - I know it depends on what fetish they are into.
'Daddies' or 'Twinks' or whatever specific role-playing fetish they are perved into.

:joker::joker::joker::joker:

[cub]

'Daddies' or 'Twinks'? My, my those a very gay words for a heterosexual ... Hmmm.

And, by the way, homophobia isn't just a fear of homosexuals but the hated of them.

[Smithy]

I've actually just read through the whole thread, why isn't El Proximo permabanned yet :conf2:

[ElProximo]

Oh listen to yourself will you? How dare you stereotype every homosexual man into the same category?

You know (and not only because I wrote the word) but you know we were discussing homosexuals in general.

Follow me and we will see you do that same thing...

Yes in the past I have had many sexual partners but it's called being young and what a lot of heterosexual men also do.

Right but we were having a discussion about the overall general rules. I'm sure some women have had 7 different men in the last 6 months however that is an exception.
It would be a 'rule' if you were getting an average on homosexuals.

One recent study is mind boggling in that the subjects are defined as YOUNG gays:
A 1997 study of young gay and bisexual men found that 91 percent reported an average of 43 male sexual partners in their lifetime

That is a mind-boggling statistic and it might suggest that 'people who happen to love each other' is unlikely (or love at first sight happens a lot with gays?)

As for the perversions, not all of us are into 'sick and twisted' things as you seem to think.

Sure but here again if a general observation is made you think its easily 'canceled out' by simply pointing at the exceptions.

In this case I agree with a poster that not all gay men are attracted to any other man.
But there is not a 'parallel' to regular couples either. Generally, there is just attractiveness with them. 'Fitness'.
However,
The homosexual people seem to have some very distinct categories based on 'role-playing' presentations and maybe a lot less on attractive features or even fitness.
A 'Daddy' type would NOT be attracted to me because his sexual infatuation will be with finding 'Twinks' or vice-versa etc.

but having said that - a caretaker at a certain public park once suggested there is very very little discrimination among gays and yes actually they will have sex with nearly any other man.
He based this on the dynamic activity taking place in his public toilets at night and includes a hole crudely chiseled into the wood dividers, the used condoms, blood, feces and needles he gets to clean up on monday morning.


You also forget that heterosexual people are just as prone to different and unusual fetishes.

This wouldn't 'cancel out' what you seem to be admitting here.

I wish you would give the absolute repulsion towards homosexuality a rest. Fair enough you do not like it, but do you have to be so goddamn offensive about it?

It doesn't repulse me. I think my description (and a homosexual could easily write the same things) but i think my description repulsed you based on something inherent to you.
After all, if this is completely normal, moral and loving then you shouldn't be so afraid of this?

Truth is - I don't really care that much about homosexuals themselves. They are a very small portion of the population,
but,
yes I do get very easily annoyed with 'bull****' and ignorance and people playing censor society games and especially demanding others play along.
Look:
Its not a mystery. For thousands of years around the planet homosexuality is considered a bizarre sex perversion,
or,
at best often something very strange and unpleasant.
Ok.
Now in this one aberrant time of wealth and freedom its being slightly tolerate by a minority of people.
OKay.
Fair enough.
But KNOCK IT OFF trying to pretend like we are all so stupid we put a tongue in the cheek and a 'who me?' smirk and demand to pretend its so obviously no different or remarkable,
or,
pretend that its not still true that a HUGE portion of our society doesn't still think its a grotesque sex perversion or at least strange and uncomfortable.

Its the 'playing games' crap that really annoys me. In a real sense the actual homosexual issue is neither here nor there.
I'd be annoyed if we were pretending everyone knows bestiality is 'perfectly accepted' or drinking turpentine or wearing melons as hats.

[lostalex]

It's not all that idiotic; millions of Americans are Christian fundamentalists, Bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist..

millions out of 300+ million ain't very much. Infact it's a very small minority. that's why i compared it to the EDL and the BNP.

[lostalex]

Some questions ...

Should childless couples within a marriage that can't conceive also not have sex for love and for pleasure?

Should couples not use sensible birth control to prevent them from having more children than they can afford or manage or want?

Should a person that is attracted to the same sex stay celebate or take some kind of aversion therapy? Live alone and never enjoy a personal sexual relationship with the person of his or her choice?


very relevant socratic questions. well done.

[Niall]

I know this'll end up with me receiving an infraction, but how ElProximo is allowed to parade around the forum and spout **** like that without getting banned is beyond me. :bored:

[lostalex]

I know this'll end up with me receiving an infraction, but how ElProximo is allowed to parade around the forum and spout **** like that without getting banned is beyond me. :bored:

if you get an infraction for that, then at least 5 or 6 of us should also be getting infractions. elproximo is clearly a bigot, but i don't think it's against the rules to say so. It's just the truth. I doubt the mods will want to defend someone like him/her.

[ElProximo]

if you get an infraction for that, then at least 5 or 6 of us should also be getting infractions. elproximo is clearly a bigot, but i don't think it's against the rules to say so. It's just the truth. I doubt the mods will want to defend someone like him/her.

^

and it amazes me someone actually asks that. What i'd suggest is you find a way to discuss thing,
or,
do something called 'not read' a post.

[InOne]

Would you ever consider joining Westboro Baptist Church ElProximo? Or do you see yourself as a David Koresh type?

[ElProximo]

Would you ever consider joining Westboro Baptist Church ElProximo? Or do you see yourself as a David Koresh type?

Good question. I was wondering if you are considering joining the Nazi Party or are you more the lone serial killer type?

[InOne]

Good question. I was wondering if you are considering joining the Nazi Party or are you more the lone serial killer type?

Lone serial killer type :)

You?

[GypsyGoth]

...
I'm disappointed in you ElProximo, I'm not sure weather you're winding people up on purpose.

You seem to be intelligent, but the words you choose are very hurtful. I think a HUGE portion of our society would find a lot of your comments grotesque.

Also homosexuality is part of normal life. There is nothing wrong or immoral about it.

Live and let live.

[joeysteele]

I'm disappointed in you ElProximo, I'm not sure weather you're winding people up on purpose.

You seem to be intelligent, but the words you choose are very hurtful. I think a HUGE portion of our society would find a lot of your comments grotesque.

Also homosexuality is part of normal life. There is nothing wrong or immoral about it.

Live and let live.

A totally appropriate post GypsyGoth,very reasoned, as you say live and let live.

[ElProximo]

You seem to be intelligent, but the words you choose are very hurtful. I think a HUGE portion of our society would find a lot of your comments grotesque.

Right and a lot of people find your opinion (seen below) disgusting and offensive to their senses.
They find your kind of opinion 'hurtful' to society.

But that is something of my point here and notice how I am aware a % of people do actually hold your opinion?
You don't see me responding completely BAFFLED and saying "HUH WHAT?? HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN AND OBVIOUSLY THAT IS CORRECT ONLY SO YOU ARE DISMISSED!


Also homosexuality is part of normal life.

No of course not. Almost nobody will ever indulge in homosexual sex. Maybe 3% of the population might make that a 'normal' part of their life.
Most will never have sex of any kind with anyone of their same gender.

There is nothing wrong or immoral about it.


Says who? You?
By what standard?

Live and let live.



Okay then you should not have hurt my feelings and disagreed with me. You see.. if you would just let us alone?
Yet you are the one attacking me and my people and making insults and why not just let us live?

[Benjamin]

Right and a lot of people find your opinion (seen below) disgusting and offensive to their senses.
They find your kind of opinion 'hurtful' to society.

But that is something of my point here and notice how I am aware a % of people do actually hold your opinion?
You don't see me responding completely BAFFLED and saying "HUH WHAT?? HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN AND OBVIOUSLY THAT IS CORRECT ONLY SO YOU ARE DISMISSED!



No of course not. Almost nobody will ever indulge in homosexual sex. Maybe 3% of the population might make that a 'normal' part of their life.
Most will never have sex of any kind with anyone of their same gender.



Says who? You?
By what standard?


Okay then you should not have hurt my feelings and disagreed with me. You see.. if you would just let us alone?
Yet you are the one attacking me and my people and making insults and why not just let us live?


Because we don't go out of our way to show our hate, whereas you do.

[lostalex]

No of course not. Almost nobody will ever indulge in homosexual sex. Maybe 3% of the population might make that a 'normal' part of their life. Most will never have sex of any kind with anyone of their same gender.





LOL. You are so naive. you need to get out more.

[Niall]

if you get an infraction for that, then at least 5 or 6 of us should also be getting infractions. elproximo is clearly a bigot, but i don't think it's against the rules to say so. It's just the truth. I doubt the mods will want to defend someone like him/her.

The rules clearly state homophobia is not tolerated, yet he gets away with making really homophobic posts, like the ones in this thread, half the time? Its ridiculous. :bored:

[ElProximo]

LOL. You are so naive. you need to get out more.

I get out plenty. For a few years I lived in a part of a city especially known for its high concentration of homosexual men. Not only this. I might be one of the few straight dudes who has been welcomed into their 'inner circles' now and then.
In fact, it was once my job to find out just how many homosexuals there were in town. So my boss could market to them. (or try and find out how).
At that time we were (quite serious now) actually inventing ways to identify just how many homosexuals there were.
At that time there had not yet been any good studies and surveys.
We came up with a few simple ideas (and also some complicated ones) but it actually came to:
- subscription rates for homosexual magazines.
- number of homosexual nightclubs.
- stores selling gay gear, costumes, porn etc.
- police stats on things like prostitution, sex in public charges etc.
Keep in mind, we were aware of reasons why some of these stats these might not tell us everything.
for example - number of homosexual profiles on a dating site could be higher for the very reason there are less of them and therefore needing to use and post more adverts seeking each other.
or,
we might be looking at the same '10 gay escorts' racking up repeat offenses but less so repeating names in the 'heterosexual escort' stats.

Anyways,
We were not exactly social scientists but simply trying to find out some close guesstimate so the boss could aim sales. Really just find out if it was even worth it.
We guesstimated around 1% of the population could be identified as actively 'openly' lifestyle gay.
We guesstimated it might be double that number of what we described as the so-called in-the-closet private affair types.

We didn't count people who may had some 'experiment back in Uni' they long since dismissed or people who touched wieners with a kid back in adventure camp weekend.
OK.
One of the best and most thorough scientific studies on the subject did come out just after we spend 100 hours heh.
And guess what it estimated?
1 to 3 percent.
In fact, we were pretty much bang-on even in the rough categories we imagined.
The studies put it somewhere at around 1% openly, actively dedicated ongoing homosexuals.
The other 2%?
This included that 'closeted' kind of group who you can say are continuous to some degree even if secretly to anyone who considered (by their own standard) a 'homosexual experience' even if this was simply 'seeing a homosexual movie' or 'touched penis' with a kid in school etc.

So if you want me to educate you on the subject or tell you more about various social and cultural difference around the world,
or,
share a lot of information i have directly from active 'out' homosexuals?
Feel free to ask.
I will be happy to help you learn more about it.

[joeysteele]

I respect you are entitled to your views ElProximo,I don't agree with much you say on this subject but you do seem to be obsessed with pointing out only the negatives of homosexuality, there are likely as many negatives to heterosexuality too.

I have gay and straight friends, both at Uni and personally in my home area too, male and female. I see and hear nothing of the way you paint them to be as a generalisation at all.

[lostalex]

I have no respect at all for elproximo's views, in fact I find them offensive and ignorant and bigoted.

I find him to be a hateful little man that has no respect for human beings, and has no understanding of love as a universal concept.

I find him to be repugnant and vile and whatever it is that snails leave behind them,, that slime they ooze, I'm sure he's made of something similar to that.

All of the hate he spews I hope translates into misery in his own life. I wish nothing but the worst for him.


That's my opinion.

what is the "great white north"? Canada?

[Shaun]

It's just frightening that someone can build a group out of one particular personality trait and assign them this huge array of statistics and generalisations that are supposedly dangerous. "Oh they get around a lot", so what? At least someone is. "Oh it's not natural, they're a minority" - you're talking to people hundreds of miles away, don't harp on about what's 'natural' thanks.

It's just absurd. Not a single thing about gay marriage has an impact on you. Not one thing affects your life. Why try to sabotage their happiness?

[lostalex]

It's just frightening that someone can build a group out of one particular personality trait and assign them this huge array of statistics and generalisations that are supposedly dangerous. "Oh they get around a lot", so what? At least someone is. "Oh it's not natural, they're a minority" - you're talking to people hundreds of miles away, don't harp on about what's 'natural' thanks.

It's just absurd. Not a single thing about gay marriage has an impact on you. Not one thing affects your life. Why try to sabotage their happiness?

str8 white christian men are beginning to realize that they are a small minority, and they are scared.


The era of str8 white men Apartheid is comming to an end, and they don't like it.


Str8 white men are a minority, and it's about time they started being treated like a minority.

[joeysteele]

I didn't actually say I respected ElProximo's views on this,I said I respected he was entitled to his own views,even though they are wrong.

[Marc]

This thread is getting a little out of hand

[lostalex]

This thread is getting a little out of hand
i concur, you should close it.

[cub]

Can I just add what I've said before about statistics. Usually statistics are very useful, even accurate. However in the case of sexuality they might be misleading (for obvious reasons). So I don't buy this 2/3% thing.

[cub]

By the way, before this thread is locked, thank you lostalex for the nice reply - even if I did have to look up "socratic".

[lostalex]

By the way, before this thread is locked, thank you lostalex for the nice reply - even if I did have to look up "socratic".

no worries. <3

(Socratic Method: a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas.)

[bananarama]

General relationship studies should cover all aspects of human choices with no enphases on either one type of relationship or another......

It would be far better if children were to taught that only dumb assess take drugs. Taught not to walk like Charly Chaplin with feet sprawled apart and taught not to slouch like little old men and women and dress in trousers of which the seat of their pants reaches their ankles as if they had just messed themselves......

They should be taught not to swear like troopers and think they can do as adults do like drinking and indulging in sexual activities

Time children were taught some style and make themselves a little more employable when they leave education.

All of the above would reduce the likelyhood of youngsters being part of the long term unemployed due to slovenly appearances and bad attitudes

[letmein]

ElProximo continues to break the rules. Time to get banned.

[Redway]

Of course not. Maybe further down the line, but not as young children.

[letmein]

Of course not. Maybe further down the line, but not as young children.

Does that go for heterosexuality as well?

[Redway]

Why should marriage in general be taught in schools? You catch on. Children don't need to be filled with that - they can take parenting seminars when they're 30 (I've twelve years to wait, lol).

[Redway]

Does that go for heterosexuality as well?

Yeah.

[MusicMan]

I don't think gay marriage should be specifically highlighted in schools, because then it becomes an issue. If gay marriage is legal in whatever country/state, then when the topic of marriage comes up in class etc, of course gay marriage should be considered alongside straight marriage. It won't make children suddenly go "ah, I think I'm gonna be gay now!", they don't even have sexual feelings by that age. It just makes it less of an alien topic and so it's not so much of a shock when they get older. No need to rub it in their faces or anything but just introducing the fact that couples don't necessarily have to be between a man and a woman certainly can't hurt in my opinion, so long as both heterosexual and homosexual marriages are taught as on par with each other.

[Sam:)]

I dont think marriage should be taught at school,the majority of children know marriage exists.I dont think gay marriage should be taught in school in c.s.p.e. we learn about the gay community.Oh and btw ElProximo as a straight,white,christian man im utterly disgusted at your comments,people like you deserve to be shot.Personally I think your trying to hide the fact that your gay by slating them,YOU ARE A REPULSING HUMAN BEING!

[Redway]

Nothing about that tells you I have some irrational fear of homosexuals.



If I was still 15 years old I would right suppose nearly every homosexual would come onto me.
But I'm older now and yes I am well aware that while homosexuals, in general, have an extremely high rate of 'multiple partners' - I know it depends on what fetish they are into.
'Daddies' or 'Twinks' or whatever specific role-playing fetish they are perved into.

Oi. Pack it in. How dare you stereotype every bloody homosexual in the world. Just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are the only people in the world who have multiple partners? Or have heterosexual couples not had multiple partners? I'm not gay, but I cannot believe the stupidity of some on here. Are you telling me that straight couples don't cheat on their spouse? :rolleyes: That's where the major stories about spouses cheating on each other come from.

Here are a few statistics, just for you:

http://www.catalogs.com/info/relationships/percentage-of-married-couples-who-cheat-on-each-ot.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity#Problems_with_infidelity_research

and a dozen other asking why people cheat on each other.

Don't say, "I never said they cheat - I said they cheat more." More than half of married couples cheat on each other. The reason why the mark is only at 55% is because most people don't like to admit their infidelity (we're talking straight couples, here).

That is approximately the percentage of men who cheat on women, vice versa. Sounds like you're just trolling now.

It's very clear you're one of those perverted homophobes. Game's over, soz. :/

[Zippy]

Children don't need to learn about marriage, period.

It's something you think about as an adult when you're capable of making such a huge commitment to another person.

*haven't read the thread*

[Redway]

Oh listen to yourself will you? How dare you stereotype every homosexual man into the same category? Yes in the past I have had many sexual partners but it's called being young and what a lot of heterosexual men also do. As for the perversions, not all of us are into 'sick and twisted' things as you seem to think. You also forget that heterosexual people are just as prone to different and unusual fetishes.

I wish you would give the absolute repulsion towards homosexuality a rest. Fair enough you do not like it, but do you have to be so goddamn offensive about it?

And many people continue to cheat on each other when they're not young.

[Pyramid*]

I don't think gay marriage should be specifically highlighted in schools, because then it becomes an issue. If gay marriage is legal in whatever country/state, then when the topic of marriage comes up in class etc, of course gay marriage should be considered alongside straight marriage. It won't make children suddenly go "ah, I think I'm gonna be gay now!", they don't even have sexual feelings by that age. It just makes it less of an alien topic and so it's not so much of a shock when they get older. No need to rub it in their faces or anything but just introducing the fact that couples don't necessarily have to be between a man and a woman certainly can't hurt in my opinion, so long as both heterosexual and homosexual marriages are taught as on par with each other.

sounds a pretty balanced view on the subject.

[Niamh.]

And many people continue to cheat on each other when they're not young.

You're right, I was watching a programme last night and statistically people of the age group 44-56 are more likely to cheat on their partners than 16-24. I was quite surprised by that!

[Ammi]

You're right, I was watching a programme last night and statistically people of the age group 44-56 are more likely to cheat on their partners than 16-24. I was quite surprised by that!

I'm not surprised as I know so many people in that age group whose kids have left home and they suddenly have no focus in they're lives and realise they have grown apart and have nothing much in common - then when someone else comes along and shows an interest and they feel 'wanted' again...................It is so important to place just as much importance on your relationship as being a parent, so you can enjoy your time without your children, rather than just grow apart

[ElProximo]

Just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are the only people in the world who have multiple partners? Or have heterosexual couples not had multiple partners?

No. You said that. You made this 'get it straight' sounding post like you were tired of fooling around. You came on with this 'get to reality check' tone.
But what did you do?
You then pretended I had made a post somehow saying that only homosexuals had multiple-partners.
I said NOTHING like that.

So why are you using a 'drop the BS' tone and then go for that kind of sneaky manipulation, false attribute, subject-changing gaming?

What I did was tell you there are serious studies showing an astonishing promiscuity among homosexuals.
This is not my 'opinion'. this is studies like this:

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s.

Interestingly:
an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners

Did you notice neither of these studies were trying to tell you 'Heterosexuals NEVER have ANY promiscuity'?
Did you notice that there is no logical implication of this?
Since you are making 'Drop the Nonsense' posts I want you to see this clearly.

Now this does militate against the idea that gays are simply a 'parallel' to heterosexuals (in the sense of long-term relationships such as marriage).

Again, since you are interested in 'get off the BS' straight-talking facts here is an interesting study:
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year


· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships

So these are studies that would suggest 'gay marriage' is not some kind of 'parallel' (in meaning, in monogamy, in numbers of 'affairs, in lenght of terms etc).
So what?
Why do you say this is an 'irrational fear' of homosexuals to report these studies?
Since you need to make 'clear the air' and 'get to the reality' point I would like you to lay down step-by-step hard logic showing how this is 'homophobic' (whatever that means)?

Feel free to lay down the harsh reality anytime. Try to do this while addressing the actual topic and not 'what other people do'.

[Niamh.]

I'm not surprised as I know so many people in that age group whose kids have left home and they suddenly have no focus in they're lives and realise they have grown apart and have nothing much in common - then when someone else comes along and shows an interest and they feel 'wanted' again...................It is so important to place just as much importance on your relationship as being a parent, so you can enjoy your time without your children, rather than just grow apart

Yeah, when I actually thought about it, it made sense. I know alot of people in that age group who've separated in recent years (including my parents) and alot had to do with affairs. I agree with what you're saying about marriage too, I'm very aware of that fact and hope I stay that way :hugesmile:

[CharlieO]

They should learn about equally and how being gay isn't wrong and nor is being straight wrong. But there is no need to teach about marriage full stop.

[Niamh.]

They should learn about equally and how being gay isn't wrong and nor is being straight wrong. But there is no need to teach about marriage full stop.

actually, I think being taught about marriage might not be a bad thing. What with divorce rates being so high and all

[ElProximo]

actually, I think being taught about marriage might not be a bad thing. What with divorce rates being so high and all

What are divorce rates in the UK?

In Canada they have gone down over the last few decades.
'The crude divorce rate in Canada has decreased (per 100,000 population) from a high of 362.3 in 1987 to 220.7 in 2005.'

Or to put it this way:
The divorce rate for first marriages is likely lower; “first marriages have a 67% chance of lasting a lifetime.”

I might try and google UK rates..
'The rate of divorce in the United Kingdom has been dropping in recent years. In 2007 the divorce rate in England and Wales was recorded at 11.9 people per every 1000 (1.2%) of the married population. This is the lowest divorce rate recorded since 1981.[31] It fell again in 2008 to 11.5 per thousand,[32] the lowest rate since 1979.'

Not sure what the explanation is but i always wonder if 'aging population' might factor in that?

As for 'cheating' during marriage there is one statistic that went around a few years ago:
'-22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.
-14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives.'

Now here is the interesting thing to notice... 14% of women.
You see the question arises?
because 22% of men are having affairs with SOMEONE??

One suggestion was that 'cheating wives' were more likely to cheat with several different married men.

But the lowering divorce rates thing is probably a good sign no matter what.
Most people will never get divorced and most will never have infidelity (affairs) outside the marriage.
That we can say 'most' is a good thing i suppose.

[Niamh.]

I'm not sure what the actual figures are El Proximo, I do know alot of people, especially alot of friends parents and my own parents who have recently been divorced. I'm glad to hear that the divorce rate is dropping though. I wonder is it more likely that marriages will last because people are allowed have sex before marriage now and don't need to get married to be able to do this like they did in the past? Or maybe people won't stick at marriage and will give up easier because it's more acceptable to do that now?

[Redway]

No. You said that. You made this 'get it straight' sounding post like you were tired of fooling around. You came on with this 'get to reality check' tone.
But what did you do?
You then pretended I had made a post somehow saying that only homosexuals had multiple-partners.
I said NOTHING like that.

So why are you using a 'drop the BS' tone and then go for that kind of sneaky manipulation, false attribute, subject-changing gaming?

What I did was tell you there are serious studies showing an astonishing promiscuity among homosexuals.
This is not my 'opinion'. this is studies like this:



Interestingly:


Did you notice neither of these studies were trying to tell you 'Heterosexuals NEVER have ANY promiscuity'?
Did you notice that there is no logical implication of this?
Since you are making 'Drop the Nonsense' posts I want you to see this clearly.

Now this does militate against the idea that gays are simply a 'parallel' to heterosexuals (in the sense of long-term relationships such as marriage).

Again, since you are interested in 'get off the BS' straight-talking facts here is an interesting study:







So these are studies that would suggest 'gay marriage' is not some kind of 'parallel' (in meaning, in monogamy, in numbers of 'affairs, in lenght of terms etc).
So what?
Why do you say this is an 'irrational fear' of homosexuals to report these studies?
Since you need to make 'clear the air' and 'get to the reality' point I would like you to lay down step-by-step hard logic showing how this is 'homophobic' (whatever that means)?

Feel free to lay down the harsh reality anytime. Try to do this while addressing the actual topic and not 'what other people do'.

Why are you picking out homosexual partners, though? I gave you a list of statistics about straight couples.

[ElProximo]

Why are you picking out homosexual partners, though?

Topic: Should gay marriage be taught in school to children?


I gave you a list of statistics about straight couples.


Yes, this was discussed at length. Both were relevant to topic and discussion and comparison may illuminate both.

[Ammi]

Judging by these statistics it would seem the meaning of all marriages should be taught in school
11561676573&kw

[Ammi]

bollocks
11561676573&kw=gay

[Ammi]

Damn I can't copy it, but if you can be bothered to Youtube '10 years of gay marriages in Netherlands' the statistics lend for a good argument that marriage in general should be taught in school

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think they should be taught that there are very few gay people in the world and that if you watch a lot of tv you get the impression there are lots.

[abbey97]

I have already been taught about gay marriage at school

[Crimson Dynamo]

Look at the people who get divorced and its all about the people themselves and not the institution.

Children should be taught how to get on with people full stop, how to communicate, listen continue to learn when school stops.

[Zippy]

I think they should be taught that there are very few gay people in the world and that if you watch a lot of tv you get the impression there are lots.

I physically cringe reading pointless nonsense like this.

[joeysteele]

I physically cringe reading pointless nonsense like this.

I 100% agree with you on that Zippy.

[Ammi]

I 100% agree with you on that Zippy.

Joey, if you have time Youtube '10 years of gay marriages in Netherlands'. I think you'll be surprised how much it backs up LT's views. I've always thought of the Netherlands having a a very high gay population, but in actual fact the percentage is quite tiny, surprisingly. The statistics (if correct) show there is a need for the meaning of marriage (any marriage) to be taught in school. There is no need to get married these days, whether gay or straight, it is perfectly acceptable not to. If anyone feels they want to make that commitment, it should be a life and family unit commitment, not one that can be gotten out of a few years down the line if it doesn't work out as planned. Take a look Joey, I think you'll find it interesting

[joeysteele]

Joey, if you have time Youtube '10 years of gay marriages in Netherlands'. I think you'll be surprised how much it backs up LT's views. I've always thought of the Netherlands having a a very high gay population, but in actual fact the percentage is quite tiny, surprisingly. The statistics (if correct) show there is a need for the meaning of marriage (any marriage) to be taught in school. There is no need to get married these days, whether gay or straight, it is perfectly acceptable not to. If anyone feels they want to make that commitment, it should be a life and family unit commitment, not one that can be gotten out of a few years down the line if it doesn't work out as planned. Take a look Joey, I think you'll find it interesting

I took your recommendation rhino, I agree the figures there are a great deal smaller than I would have expected.
It was clearly a video in favour of protecting marriage in the so called 'normal' meaning of it but I also agree that if you have the ideal parenthood state then there is a lot of love and peace likely in that family unit. Most of the video made sense to me definately.

I am not against gay marriage,I have gay friends (men and women),who I would battle for the rights of and protect all I could.
I have said to them at times though, I am sort of puzzled as to why it is felt that same sex marriages need to be called that, for decades gay men and women have fought the establishment of marriage that often has led to great persecution of them for being gay anyway, why they would want to then be part of that 'establishment' by being called married themselves has puzzled me a bit.That's another issue I guess.

It was an informative video and it opens up new thought on the matter,Thanks for that rhino, I love to learn on all subjects and appreciate you directing me to it.

[ElProximo]

I think they should be taught that there are very few gay people in the world and that if you watch a lot of tv you get the impression there are lots.

It might be something like 1% (and some say 0.5%) who could be called actively and confirmed gays.
this is a very very small % of the population who is (as we see here) attracts a massive amount of attention, government time and efforts, studies and cause contribution.

And yes if you watch TV you would believe gays are absolutely everywhere and a significant portion of the population.

[cub]

Gay people, no matter what the percentage, are and always will be a significant portion of the population. And therefore should have the same rights and freedoms as straight people.

They are significant. They matter.

It really doesn't matter about the % (which we can't agree on anyway).

[Crimson Dynamo]

Gay people, no matter what the percentage, are and always will be a significant portion of the population. And therefore should have the same rights and freedoms as straight people.

They are significant. They matter.

It really doesn't matter about the % (which we can't agree on anyway).

They are a tiny minority of the population and most people never meet anyone who is gay.

[arista]

They are a tiny minority of the population and most people never meet anyone who is gay.


You
mean those people that live in remote places.

[Crimson Dynamo]

You
mean those people that live in remote places.

no, i have lived in London and in Sydney and they are in the minority, around 5%.

[arista]

no, i have lived in London and in Sydney and they are in the minority, around 5%.


Yes Sydney I could understand
as gays are not welcome, in general.

[Shaun]

I still don't understand where "oh there's only about 600,000+ of them" (which I highly disagree with, because these statistics are never open or universal - I've never been contacted or required to divulge my sexuality personally - and doesn't take into account closeted people or people who don't wish to say) comes into account when discussing whether or not we should be allowed to marry.

[arista]

I still don't understand where "oh there's only about 600,000+ of them" (which I highly disagree with, because these statistics are never open or universal - I've never been contacted or required to divulge my sexuality personally - and doesn't take into account closeted people or people who don't wish to say) comes into account when discussing whether or not we should be allowed to marry.



Of course as those will never let on.

[joeysteele]

They are a tiny minority of the population and most people never meet anyone who is gay.

How on earth would people know in the main as to whether they have met or know anyone who is gay, it's certainly not a question I ask of anybody I know or meet.

I would say the opposite to you on that one, I would guess the vast majority of people have definately met or know people who are gay.
Most extended families have someone in them with gay tendencies and if you bring in not just the 'gay' tag but also add the bi-sexual one too then its far more likely that people have certainly met or know at least one person who is either.

Are you saying you ask and then know everyone that you have ever met or already know is definately not gay,I would say that is almost impossible unless someone never goes out and never meets or talks to anyone at all.

[Ammi]

Judging by the massive rise in divorce rates, marriage in general, including same sex marriage should be taught in school. It isn't necessary to single out gay marriage as the only kind to be taught.
Its not necessary these days for any civil partnership to lead to marriage, people should be very clear why they want to get married

[joeysteele]

Judging by the massive rise in divorce rates, marriage in general, including same sex marriage should be taught in school. It isn't necessary to single out gay marriage as the only kind to be taught.
Its not necessary these days for any civil partnership to lead to marriage, people should be very clear why they want to get married

I agree with you on all that though.

[Crimson Dynamo]

How on earth would people know in the main as to whether they have met or know anyone who is gay, it's certainly not a question I ask of anybody I know or meet.

I would say the opposite to you on that one, I would guess the vast majority of people have definately met or know people who are gay.
Most extended families have someone in them with gay tendencies and if you bring in not just the 'gay' tag but also add the bi-sexual one too then its far more likely that people have certainly met or know at least one person who is either.

Are you saying you ask and then know everyone that you have ever met or already know is definately not gay,I would say that is almost impossible unless someone never goes out and never meets or talks to anyone at all.


Studies, the ones that have been done, and done in huge numbers in the UK and USA do not agree.

5 % is probably generous

[joeysteele]

Studies, the ones that have been done, and done in huge numbers in the UK and USA do not agree.

5 % is probably generous

Well I and I would dare bet the vast majority of other people must be well away from your statistics then because to my knowledge I already know at least 30+ gay people as family, friends and just people I generally come across day to day and 'that's' the ones I do know only because they have said they are and not from me asking them.It's none of my business if someone is gay or not.

Likely I have met and spoken to many others who work in local shops and stores,travelling, on holiday, obviously at Uni and even school when I was there,nurses and even Doctors too.
I ask again,how on earth can you possibly know or claim that most(meaning the majority) people have 'never' in your quoted words,met anyone gay at all in their lives.

I am sorry but in my opinion,wherever your statistics come from as to that part of your statement then I think those statistics must come from the biggest ever fiction research into a subject ever done.
Or maybe the study you base your so called facts on involved mostly people who for some reason didn't want to admit they knew or had met anyone gay at all in their lives.

[billy123]

Just back to the original OP no gay marriage shouldnt be taught in schools nor should straight marriage be separately taught as distinguishing between the two is just divisive and backwards thinking. just teach about marriage why does gender need to be mentioned in that subject????

The subject of gay relationships is already dealt with within sex education in schools i believe (or at least it is in the schools local to me that my girlfriends daughter attends)
and while there are some old fashioned bigoted people around now that will die away fairly quickly as the old bigoted buggers die and our better educated children grow up.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well I and I would dare bet the vast majority of other people must be well away from your statistics then because to my knowledge I already know at least 30+ gay people as family, friends and just people I generally come across day to day and 'that's' the ones I do know only because they have said they are and not from me asking them.It's none of my business if someone is gay or not.

Likely I have met and spoken to many others who work in local shops and stores,travelling, on holiday, obviously at Uni and even school when I was there,nurses and even Doctors too.
I ask again,how on earth can you possibly know or claim that most(meaning the majority) people have 'never' in your quoted words,met anyone gay at all in their lives.

I am sorry but in my opinion,wherever your statistics come from as to that part of your statement then I think those statistics must come from the biggest ever fiction research into a subject ever done.
Or maybe the study you base your so called facts on involved mostly people who for some reason didn't want to admit they knew or had met anyone gay at all in their lives.

sample size one, ie you, is no sample

luckily that is why we have surveys, to avoid subjective twaddle

[joeysteele]

sample size one, ie you, is no sample

luckily that is why we have surveys, to avoid subjective twaddle

Well,I don't see anyone else at present coming on here saying that they don't know or have never ever met a gay person in their life, I also said I was sure that I and likely the vast majority of other people will have met and likely know people who are gay,whether they approve of people being gay or not.That is all I said.

I will add that I think and I don't usually post as strong as this, but I will add that the survey you are throwing at us as actual fact in life, is in fact a load of rubbish in my view and I doubt many,even if any would agree with it that most people,therefore the majority as you quote, have never ever met or ever known anyone who is gay in their whole lives.
In my view, the survey you are quoting was either done in a very prejudiced way or is as you describe the 'real' subjective twaddle here.

Saints preseve us,I never said I was a survey, I was speaking for me, you are expecting people to believe that most people have never met,or know anyone who is gay.
I really can't understand why you appear so down on gay people anyway but one thing is sure I know a lot of people, I have in the last few years or so likely met over 1000+ Students past and present, spoken to many lecturers and I have in my extended family something like 70+ members of my family plus also my friends and I can be 100% sure that 'all' of them have met or know not just one person but many people who are gay.

Anyway, the thread is should gay marriage be taught in schools,I will end by saying I think all relationships should be up for discussion not just one form.
No discrimination whatsoever.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well,I don't see anyone else at present coming on here saying that they don't know or have never ever met a gay person in their life, I also said I was sure that I and likely the vast majority of other people will have met and likely know people who are gay,whether they approve of people being gay or not.That is all I said.

I will add that I think and I don't usually post as strong as this, but I will add that the survey you are throwing at us as actual fact in life, is in fact a load of rubbish in my view and I doubt many,even if any would agree with it that most people,therefore the majority as you quote, have never ever met or ever known anyone who is gay in their whole lives.
In my view, the survey you are quoting was either done in a very prejudiced way or is as you describe the 'real' subjective twaddle here.

Saints preseve us,I never said I was a survey, I was speaking for me, you are expecting people to believe that most people have never met,or know anyone who is gay.
I really can't understand why you appear so down on gay people anyway but one thing is sure I know a lot of people, I have in the last few years or so likely met over 1000+ Students past and present, spoken to many lecturers and I have in my extended family something like 70+ members of my family plus also my friends and I can be 100% sure that 'all' of them have met or know not just one person but many people who are gay.

Anyway, the thread is should gay marriage be taught in schools,I will end by saying I think all relationships should be up for discussion not just one form.
No discrimination whatsoever.


i rest my case....

[cub]

They are a tiny minority of the population and most people never meet anyone who is gay.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that's true. Let's go further and suggest the figure is 00.1%. That tiny percentage should still have ALL the opportunities, freedoms and rights of heterosexuals.

You may as well say people with disabilities are a tiny percent of the population, so their rights should not be equal as the more able bodied.

I am talking about % and rights here, btw. Not comparing gay people with disabilities.

[Livia]

For argument's sake, let's pretend that's true. Let's go further and suggest the figure is 00.1%. That tiny percentage should still have ALL the opportunities, freedoms and rights of heterosexuals.

You may as well say people with disabilities are a tiny percent of the population, so their rights should not be equal as the more able bodied.

I am talking about % and rights here, btw. Not comparing gay people with disabilities.


It's not even a few decades ago that you could go to prison for being gay. With every generation people are more accepting. Most people aren't remotely interested in people's sexuality and wouldn't dream of making an issue out of it. I don't understand why you would say that gay people should have all the opportunities, freedoms and rights that straight people do, because as far as I am aware, they do. And as years go on, acceptance will become more universal as old prejudices die out completely.

[Crimson Dynamo]

For argument's sake, let's pretend that's true. Let's go further and suggest the figure is 00.1%. That tiny percentage should still have ALL the opportunities, freedoms and rights of heterosexuals.

You may as well say people with disabilities are a tiny percent of the population, so their rights should not be equal as the more able bodied.

I am talking about % and rights here, btw. Not comparing gay people with disabilities.

very good but as no one has said they should not i cant see where you are going here?

Schools have to choose what to teach in a busy schedule and they tend to focus on majority issues and not niche ones for obvious reasons.

[Chuck]

well, if getting banned once didnt satisfy you enough, hopefully getting banned twice will :')

[Niall]

Some of the people in this thread just make me sick. I still don't get why its not been closed. :bored:

[MTVN]

I don't get why ElProximo isn't permabanned, surely repeated extreme racism and homophobia is a good enough reason?

[Niamh.]

Thread Closed - causing arguments, encouraging insults.