HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

I guess your don't understand what you've just read. The "straight and narrow" heteros don't get aids unless one partner cheats or uses drugs. Make sense?

It is a horrible disease, and I don't think anyone deserves to suffer in that way, but people should know the truth.

It apparently irks people when old-fashioned morality is a proven solution to societal woes. Why is that?

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

So true

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

I would agree that we need to teach that in sex ed. But do you think that all the bible thumping conservatives would agree as well?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

This is actually a good point.

A lot of people won't admit to it because it might be offensive some. But when you lay it all on the table without the PC sugar-coating it's really not how our body was designed to work.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

But he's trying to make a point that we should teach that in sex ed when most republicans in office, at the moment, are against teaching sex ed to kids.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I don’t think he is.

He's saying that there's a consensus in society and our schools about how IV drugs are bad. We ALL teach our kids at home and in school that it's wrong to do this because of numerous reasons: There's the addictive aspect accompanied by the risk of death by the drug, and disease from dirty needles.

Except we don't even consider the introduction of a sterile needles below the surface of our skin to be bad. It's done millions of times each day. It's done in thousands of hospitals and homes each day for diabetics, etc.

Yet most don't consider a dick in the *** to be a bad thing whatsoever. It really has nothing to do with the correlation in statistics of those heterosexuals and homosexuals that perform this act. It's the fact that PC Americans have acknowledged **** sex to be an acceptable form of sex when it poses an even worse risk than needles. You see, we can justify the use of sterile needles because they save lives. But yet we condone the use of needles when they're dirty.

On the other hand, we can't feasibly do the same for a dirty ***** unless you can stomach the pain of boiling it in water or coating it with iodine and bleach before insertion.

So let's compare the needle to the *****.

Needle = Isn't something that naturally meshes with the body but can be sterilized and used for positive benefit.

The *****= Isn't something that naturally meshes with the anus and cannot be sterilized.

So why don't we teach about the obvious? Because there's a certain class of individuals that are exclusive to this act that would be offended.

It really has little to do with religion and more to do with feelings

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

I totally agree with the fact that buttsex is un-natural. But (no pun intended) you and hella are both saying that everyone would be against teaching that **** increases the likelyhood of getting HIV. Since it looks like there is reliable research that backs that statement I think it would be a valuable part of sex-ed.

I still don't think we can look down upon, judge, or deny gays marriage because of this but it's a valid point to be educated about.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I didn't say this and neither did Helladumb. We both have different views on that issue so that's an entirely different thread. The only time marriage was mentioned was by SilverScoob regarding his reference to abstinence and the 'real world.'

This is my point and part of what Helladumb is saying:

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

I was going off these statements.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

But adding something to an already existing curriculum has nothing to do with those conservative Republicans being against sex education.

Not sure what Helladumb's stance is regarding that topic. If he agrees with those conservative Republican's you're referring to then he's undoubtedly taken a 'if you can't beat them, join them' attitude in this thread. Assuming he's against sex education, the next best thing would be to include the obvious in the current curriculum instead of being PC and reserved.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

So, So true. And a very large one at that.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

I'm definitely for sex education, but not before junior high school, and I think the parents (like they do now) should always be able to review the curriculum beforehand and decide whether or not their child should participate.

I obviously want abstinance and "no ****" as a major theme, though I'd guarantee you that gay rights activists will scream bloody murder.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Exactly.

There shouldn’t be any reason for them to scream bloody murder given the argument I’ve presented in post 21. But not enough people are willing cross that PC line, so...

So if/when your heterosexual son or daughter gets AIDs because of **** sex you can blame their personal choice 1st, your parenting 2nd and the schools 3rd. Thing is, the 3rd reason doesn't have to be an option in this case. But as long as the schools keep *****-footing sex education it will be.

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Why are you all so blatantly overlooking the fact that condoms are just as effective for **** sex as they are for "natural" sex? It's retarded. Helladumb, I agree with you that IV drug use is a serious problem- even if you're completely abstinent somehow while shooting up, you're still presenting a major risk to yourself and society at large. Point is, there are significant reasons for eradicating drug use aside from STDs. Sex of any kind on the other hand, isn't a bane on society, EXCEPT when it becomes a method of spreading disease. Since you can have your sexual cake and eat it too, it is not something that needs to be ended on some moral crusade to improve the country.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

But sex IS a method of spreading disease.