PDA

View Full Version : Obama's "Safe School Czar"



BrianW
12-08-2009, 03:02 AM
You guys following this? Or am I late introducing this to the Bilge?

Lots of links to follow (http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/07/fistgate-barack-obamas-safe-schools-czars-2000-conference-promoted-fisting-to-14-year-olds/)

coelacanth2
12-08-2009, 07:35 AM
Gee, Brian, what a hater you are. Shocked, I am, just shocked. Somebody polite and "correct" wouldn't stoop to notice and would just KNOW that this nice man has the best interests of our youth at heart. Wonder why my kid goes to a Christian school? Wonder why most of our leader's kids don't do the public schools anywhere near the DC area? This is, unfortunately, just one symptom of the rot. Oh, and for the Obotomized Obots on this forum, just one more sign of how truly clumsy and naive this administration is. Just like the withdrawal thing that even has National People's Radio and the BBC (yes, I listen to both. A lot) showing some consternation.

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 07:59 AM
This is, unfortunately, just one symptom of the rot. Oh, and for the Obotomized Obots on this forum, just one more sign of how truly clumsy and naive this administration is.


The really sad part is that appointing people like this as Czars over our lives isn't naive at all, Obama and the liberals know exactly what they are doing. Appointing degenerates to corrupt our youth and communists to oversee green jobs is all part of the plan to destroy the principles that built America. We are in a war folks, a war for the hearts and minds of mankind, between right and wrong, between good and evil.


Also, thanks for bringing this to light in the Bilge Brian.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Them's all Christian Schools in Sussex County, if'n they ain't they's liable to get a burnt cross making them so.... (j/k don't kill me!!! :D )

But seriously, I have been aware of Mr. Jennings for some time now. Since the black book incident he has been on the radar for some groups I was shocked by his appointment.

Don't bother to mention it here because it's too easy of a jab at the progressives.

capt jake
12-08-2009, 08:06 AM
Obama and the liberals know exactly what they are doing. Appointing degenerates to corrupt our youth and communists to oversee green jobs is all part of the plan to destroy the principles that built America. We are in a war folks, a war for the hearts and minds of mankind, between right and wrong, between good and evil.

Rick, you are one seriously troubled person. Turn off Rush, Beck and take a look at the US with your own eyes for once. Those nutbags are just working up the uneducated into a frenzy based upon lies and all in the name of 'entertainment'.

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 08:37 AM
Obama and the liberals know exactly what they are doing. Appointing degenerates to corrupt our youth and communists to oversee green jobs is all part of the plan to destroy the principles that built America. We are in a war folks, a war for the hearts and minds of mankind, between right and wrong, between good and evil.


Rick, you are one seriously troubled person. Turn off Rush, Beck and take a look at the US with your own eyes for once. Those nutbags are just working up the uneducated into a frenzy based upon lies and all in the name of 'entertainment'.

FYI my source of guidance on this matter is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. However, it certainly doesn't take a prophet to see the extreme contrast between good and evil when it comes to this subject. You call me "seriously troubled" for being appalled that spawn of satan like this has been appointed a "Safe School Czar"? I really feel sorry for you and am reminded of the carnage that occurs in the war over the hearts and minds of mankind.....:(

As for those who have anything to do with corrupting our youth, I would remind them that it is written:


He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble."

Luke 17:1&2

capt jake
12-08-2009, 08:48 AM
Ahh, I guess I missed the bible thumping part of your make-up. It still helps to take a look with thine own eyes.

Phillip Allen
12-08-2009, 09:01 AM
without getting into partisan defense of any part of the current admin...OR of partisan attack...is this tsar advocating the reading of pornography by students? If so, does that equate with promoting sexual activity?

I'm trying to keep things in perspective

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 09:01 AM
Ahh, I guess I missed the bible thumping part of your make-up. It still helps to take a look with thine own eyes.

I pity someone so blind they can't see the contrast between good and evil when it comes to putting a person overseeing our schools who has a proven history of promoting sexual debauchery to children. I sincerely hope before your life's end, the scales are removed from your eyes so that you aren't finalized among the mountains of victims in this war.

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 09:25 AM
This is the guy that Fox News has had to retract their knowingly false accusation that he'd covered up a statutory rape. Fox also had Bill O'Reilly praising a tolerance vid staring Hilary Duff and commissioned by GLSEN.

You can find the truth about this very able educator at numerous sites that are not hysterically homophobic.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 09:34 AM
This is the guy that Fox News has had to retract their knowingly false accusation that he'd covered up a statutory rape. Fox also had Bill O'Reilly praising a tolerance vid staring Hilary Duff and commissioned by GLSEN.

You can find the truth about this very able educator at numerous sites that are not hysterically homophobic.

I believe your home state was where the little black book incident occured, what's your take on that?

Keith Wilson
12-08-2009, 09:51 AM
Appointing degenerates to corrupt our youth and communists to oversee green jobs is all part of the plan to destroy the principles that built America. We are in a war folks, a war for the hearts and minds of mankind, between right and wrong, between good and evil.My goodness! Well, at least you make it clear what you're thinking. It is, IMHO, utter howling-at-the-moon madness, but it's best to get it out in the light of day where everyone can see it.

Some few of the "principles that built America" need to be destroyed. One such is the traditional idea that homosexuals are "degenerates", evil people who deserve to be ostracized and persecuted.

capt jake
12-08-2009, 10:04 AM
I pity someone so blind they can't see the contrast between good and evil when it comes to putting a person overseeing our schools who has a proven history of promoting sexual debauchery to children. I sincerely hope before your life's end, the scales are removed from your eyes so that you aren't finalized among the mountains of victims in this war.

Ya know, I am not anti Christianity or anti-religion; but this is exactly what gripes me about so called Christians.
They are typically the first to point the finger and judge others. They are typically the first to point out how aweful another person is, without making sure their own house is clean. And, I could go on....
If you truly look at the meanings and teachings in the Bible; they teach tolerance, understanding and love. It tells you to treat others as you would treat yourself. It teaches you not to judge others.
I thin you have to look at teh true meaning and the underlying intent of the Bible to be considered a true Christian.
If all religions did that (Muslim too) just think about how similar they all would be. There are many commonalities between the different religions, it is man who takes the teachings out of context for their own benefit.
Yes, I am still recovering from Catholicism and no, I have no plans to go back to church, repent my sins for pointing out my true beliefs here; for fear of being judged by others...

Phillip Allen
12-08-2009, 10:08 AM
I guess no one's gonna answer my question...

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 10:15 AM
The curriculum materials I've seen are really quite wonderful and I regret that they were not available when I was that age. Luckily for me, we lived in a rural situation breeding hounds and horses so the biology was pretty clear, and my parents set a wonderful example of what fully evolving love could mean for people. Many of my friends were not so lucky and were thus victims of their own ignorance. Recall, for example, the ubiquitous "mexican milk fight" so common among first to third grade boys.

Biologically accurate and genuinely informative sex education, whether heterosexual or homosexual or egosexual, offends those who would rather children learned the old fashioned way through smut, teen pregnancy and disease.

Ignorant insensitivity and exploitation in human relations offends me.

TomF
12-08-2009, 10:20 AM
That famously communist and sexually degenerate organization , the National Association of Secondary School Principals, had this to say on the controversy:
School leaders know that no school can be effective unless students feel safe, known, and cared for. Kevin Jennings has dedicated his career to promoting such a school climate and fighting tirelessly against bigotry and hatred in U.S. schools. Kevin's forward-thinking advocacy of antibullying policies has earned him the respect of principals across the nation and, notably, prompted NASSP to award Kevin our Distinguished Service Award in 2007 in recognition of his outstanding contributions to equity in education. While Kevin’s accomplishments have long since extended beyond the walls of his first classroom in 1985, Kevin is, first and foremost, a great educator who cares deeply about every student. His leadership abilities, deep understanding of K-12 education, and his ability to build coalitions and get things done make him superbly qualified to lead the U.S. Department of Education's safe and drug-free schools efforts, and we look forward to working with Kevin in his new capacity.It's worth noting that the reading list at the GLSEN includes a note, in red, indicating that some of the materials for adolescents have "mature themes," and parental guidance in selecting appropriate texts is recommended. Frankly, it reads very like the disclaimers that play on TV stations about films or shows with nudity etc.

While I've not read the stuff on the GSLEN list, there is quite a difference between porn, and materials that describe sexual acts ... whether gay or straight. There's quite a difference between material that may describe sex within the context of self-respect, respect for your partner, and choice ... and raw porn.

You'd prefer kids to learn about their sexuality by googling up videos using a few choice search terms?

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 10:23 AM
Ah Phillip, if you regard biologically correct and informative materials as pornography then these educational materials are porn. If you regard accurate instruction in how to use a condom - like so it actually works - as porn, then yes, Jennings advocates porn in the schools.

Personally I think porn is the stuff that gets the imagination - and so much more - stoked. Sex ed aims to inform, not just arouse.

Phillip Allen
12-08-2009, 10:26 AM
Ah Phillip, if you regard biologically correct and informative materials as pornography then these educational materials are porn. If you regard accurate instruction in how to use a condom - like so it actually works - as porn, then yes, Jennings advocates porn in the schools.

Personally I think porn is the stuff that gets the imagination - and so much more - stoked. Sex ed aims to inform, not just arouse.

I'm just trying to get an idea of what's going on...no judgments...yet

Chris Coose
12-08-2009, 10:28 AM
I pity someone so blind they can't see the contrast between good and evil when it comes to putting a person overseeing our schools who has a proven history of promoting sexual debauchery to children. I sincerely hope before your life's end, the scales are removed from your eyes so that you aren't finalized among the mountains of victims in this war.


Please by any means possible, keep your kids out of public schools, pray for vouchers and continue to lobby God for the demise of public schools in America.

Keith Wilson
12-08-2009, 10:29 AM
While I've not read the stuff on the GSLEN list, there is quite a difference between porn, and materials that describe sexual acts ... whether gay or straight. There's quite a difference between material that may describe sex within the context of self-respect, respect for your partner, and choice ... and raw porn.Exactly. I insisted that my kids take the Unitarian sex-ed course - which is long, surprisingly complete, and contains a lot of stuff that someone might incorrectly describe as "pornography" if taken out of context. It's not - and you won't believe how many times my daughter has corrected seriously mistaken notions about sex among her friends; gross factual errors. Kids should NOT learn about this stuff from gossip among their friends or porn sites - and they will, if adults aren't responsible and forthright.

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 10:30 AM
To put it more simply, take up some of the current sex ed materials the Right so scorns and try spanking your monkey. Guaranteed it's not porn. Though what you learn might enhance your monkey's fun when you do find some porn.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 10:38 AM
Exactly. I insisted that my kids take the Unitarian sex-ed course - which is long, surprisingly complete, and contains a lot of stuff that someone might incorrectly describe as "pornography" if taken out of context. It's not - and you won't believe how many times my daughter has corrected seriously mistaken notions about sex among her friends; gross factual errors. Kids should NOT learn about this stuff from gossip among their friends or porn sites - and they will, if adults aren't responsible and forthright.

Kids should learn about sex from their parents. It's not a perfect world and not everybody ends up with parents who can teach them about sexuality.

What I specifically asked about was the little black book incident that occurred in Mass. Anybody?

perldog007
12-08-2009, 10:42 AM
Has anyone found any of this source material on sites other than right wing, sensationalist, and religiously-oriented sites?

I'd be more than happy to condemn the dissemination of pornographic material to children... if there was some proof that it actually existed, and wasn't merely stuff taken out of context.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't trust the obviously biased sites.... they have a long history of simply LYING.
That's a pretty easy cop out, if you don't agree with their editorial slant they are lying while if you do they are accurate and truthful.

The little black book incident was reported by the right and left. The organization Jennings was affiliated with first said that no books were given out then changed the story to say that ten were left on a table.

No matter how capable an educator is an incident like that raises a red flag and I am a long way from a homophobe, from my being raised in a trunk by liberal actors to working in restaurants and casinos and having gay friends and room mates to having gay clergy.

None of whom by the way agree with handing stuff like the little black book to high school students.

TomF
12-08-2009, 11:05 AM
I agree, Perldog, that ideally parents should teach their kids about sex. I think that ideally, at a certain age parents teach their children to shoot a rifle too.

And I don't hear the NRA arguing against firearms safety programs. Quite the reverse: learning at your Dad's knee is great and all, but whatever your Dad knew, practiced and taught, all gun owners need to know real facts about gun safety. And it doesn't hurt to learn a bit about safe ways of upping the pleasure you get from shooting ... s'part of why you've got the thing, after all.

Hell, in Canada you can't buy a gun without taking such a course. With sex though, weapon acquisition is a bit different ...

Still, the need for factual and safe information is no less important, for similar reasons. After all, with sex as with firearms, we're talking about potentially life-and-death consequences from uninformed or careless choices.

If a parent can't give good info, that's a real loss to the kid. But as a society, we've got an interest in ensuring they've got accurate, up-to-date info regardless. I'm well aware that if I had a gay son, I'd be at sea to help him with some issues of gay sexuality, and safe gay sexual practices. And I'd try to ensure he got the info he needed, while couching it in the "values" discussion that I think is common to whatever sexual orientation people have.

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 11:16 AM
I answered. Sex education materials in Massachusetts - called by homophobic bigots "little black book" - are excellent, not prurient.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 11:20 AM
I answered. Sex education materials in Massachusetts - called by homophobic bigots "little black book" - are excellent, not prurient.



The little black book is a specific text handed out at a specific event. Since I know some very educated homosexuals who do not think that material was appropriate for the venue you just called my gay priest and her Phd. holding life mate homophobic bigots.

http://www.article8.net/downloads/LittleBlackBook.pdf

The venue was a public school. One of my gay co-workers who was defending Jenning's appointment was incredulous when he saw it. He doesn't believe it was ever brought to a school, every report you show him gets dismissed.

John of Phoenix
12-08-2009, 11:32 AM
From the article:
GLSEN’s stated mission (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/about/history/index.html?state=about&type=about) is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students.
No wonder all those reds are in such an uproar.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 11:36 AM
'Cop out', you say? Have you read the matereials in question? I haven't...so how can I judge?

As for lying, sorry, but the history of rabid right wing sites is long and well known... unless you think that the health care bill actually had 'death panels' in it. That isn't an editorial slant, it's a lie, plain and simple.


Again, no argument from me on that point,where we disagree is your defense of left leaning outlets like MSNBC in the event we previously discussed.

I have read the little black book reportedly handed out in 2006 at Brookline High. Unless that entire story is a fraud nobody connected with that needs to be involved in our children's education.

Check out the link above and tell me what you think. All the gay people I know are against handing out that kind of literature at school, if for no other reason potential backlash.

LeeG
12-08-2009, 11:37 AM
You guys following this? Or am I late introducing this to the Bilge?

Lots of links to follow (http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/07/fistgate-barack-obamas-safe-schools-czars-2000-conference-promoted-fisting-to-14-year-olds/)

nope, not following it. Quite a link title though.

LeeG
12-08-2009, 11:40 AM
The really sad part is that appointing people like this as Czars over our lives isn't naive at all, Obama and the liberals know exactly what they are doing. Appointing degenerates to corrupt our youth and communists to oversee green jobs is all part of the plan to destroy the principles that built America. We are in a war folks, a war for the hearts and minds of mankind, between right and wrong, between good and evil.


Also, thanks for bringing this to light in the Bilge Brian.


Rick-Mi, is there a particular church that provides advocacy for your political views?

LeeG
12-08-2009, 11:41 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Jennings

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 11:42 AM
"Little Black Book" is almost a generic term and title of stuff ranging from Lambda's pamphlet on legal rights things written by as well as for adolescents. Those I've seen distributed were appropriate to the occasions from my point of view though not from the view of a number of local preachers, who also thought the occasions were not appropriate to anything.

I'm more offended by dumbed down curricula - history books that lie about civil rights and science books that can't even get Avogadro's number right - than I could ever be about materials that are clear and accurate about sex.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 11:51 AM
No wonder all those reds are in such an uproar.


If I told you who my paternal ancestor is, you would not believe me. If you did you would understand that I have been on the receiving end of some serious homophobic bullying.

Nobody wants to see schools free from this kind of bias and violence more than me.

I still question the man's judgement. Jennings said he neglected to report a 15 year old involved with an adult. The fact that the "child" came out years later and said he was 16 is irrelevant. Jennings wrote that he was 15 and presumably believed that to be true.

Fox did not lie, they reported what Jennings said. When the "child' came out that was acknowledged even by Hannity.

Much of what is contained in the "little black book" is valuable information. Still, some parts are clearly inappropriate for distribution to children without parental consent. We still hold parents legally responsible for the actions of their children and we need to allow them some discretion.

The lack of respect for the wishes of the parents is the problem I have with this man. Nothing more, nothing less.

Two of my best teachers were known homosexuals, they were respected by all kinds of students.

If a straight teacher has a child approach them about an affair with an adult somebody had better be notified. That's just common sense. Why should a teacher be excused because they are gay and the kid later turns out to be of age even though the teacher did not believe that at the time?

perldog007
12-08-2009, 11:54 AM
"Little Black Book" is almost a generic term and title of stuff ranging from Lambda's pamphlet on legal rights things written by as well as for adolescents. Those I've seen distributed were appropriate to the occasions from my point of view though not from the view of a number of local preachers, who also thought the occasions were not appropriate to anything.

I'm more offended by dumbed down curricula - history books that lie about civil rights and science books that can't even get Avogadro's number right - than I could ever be about materials that are clear and accurate about sex.

Not in this case, again :

http://www.article8.net/downloads/LittleBlackBook.pdf

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 11:59 AM
Good cite and site perldog007. Excellent material to help teens with these questions. While written clearly for young gay people, it would inform, not harm, straight teens as well.

Hal Forsen
12-08-2009, 12:08 PM
Kids should learn about sex from their parents.

US News and World Report
Boys Miss Out on Sex Education Talks With Parents

December 07, 2009 05:03 PM ET |Parents are all too often failing to talk with their teenagers about sex before they become sexually active, according to a new survey. Almost half of teens had intercourse before their parents got around to talking with them about STD's and birth control. And boys are most likely to miss out on the conversation; nearly two thirds of teenage boys surveyed said their parents had not talked to them about using condoms before they became sexually active, while about 25 percent of parents and their daughters said they hadn't talked about how to resist pressure to have sex.
This documentation of our failure to give our children guidance isn't a huge surprise. I can't be the only parent who already cringes at the prospect of having "the talk," even though my daughter is still in grade school. Still, these survey results—from researchers at Rand Corp., Virginia Commonwealth University, and Children's Hospital Boston—clearly show how we parents are letting our own squeamishness win out over taking care of our children................
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-parenting/2009/12/07/boys-miss-out-on-sex-education-talks-with-parents.html

perldog007
12-08-2009, 12:16 PM
Good cite and site perldog007. Excellent material to help teens with these questions. While written clearly for young gay people, it would inform, not harm, straight teens as well.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I would fully support this being given to student's with their parent's permission, or with some material redacted.

I don't believe that children should have affairs with adults and the section advising minors to seek out gay coffee shops where they might find partners with resources to "entertain" is not something I would encourage.

Also, the directory of gay bars seems a bit inappropriate for gay teens.

Other than those two glaring problems, most of it is information that I would want my gay great nephew to have as a teen IF HIS PARENTS ARE COOL WITH IT.

Keith Wilson
12-08-2009, 01:00 PM
Perldog, I think I mostly agree with you. I read it. It has a lot of good information, presented in the bluntest of styles, but some parts (the directory of gay bars for example) don't belong with school sex-ed, and there would be better ways, certainly less inflammatory ways, of presenting the same information. Even as it is, it probably does more good than harm. Not a huge deal, either way, IMHO.

I think the main problem is that some folks on the right are horrified that there's a gay man in the "safe schools" position, and are looking very hard for anything that will confirm thier prejudices. Consider this post by Rick earlier in the thread:
Appointing degenerates to corrupt our youth and communists to oversee green jobs is all part of the plan to destroy the principles that built America. We are in a war folks, a war for the hearts and minds of mankind, between right and wrong, between good and evil.

Phillip Allen
12-08-2009, 01:07 PM
I see some people being blinded by their partasanship...

and Norman...can't you use sometning besides ad-hom argument for a while?

perldog007
12-08-2009, 01:17 PM
Perldog, I think I mostly agree with you. I read it. It has a lot of good information, presented in the bluntest of styles, but some parts (the directory of gay bars for example) don't belong with school sex-ed, and there would be better ways, certainly less inflammatory ways, of presenting the same information. Even as it is, it probably does more good than harm. Not a huge deal, either way, IMHO.

I think the main problem is that some folks on the right are horrified that there's a gay man in the "safe schools" position, and are looking very hard for anything that will confirm thier prejudices. Consider this post by Rick earlier in the thread:

life is hard, being gay can make it even harder. Many of my closest gay friends tell me they wouldn't wish their lifestyle on their worst enemies.

Counseling gay kids and promoting tolerance is one thing. Pushing the lifestyle and encouraging young folks to seek out older partners in bars is another matter altogether. There is a difference.

The presentation would be seen as crude and infantile out in the sticks where I went to school. If that's the standard in Beantown they have deeper problems.

I agree that bigotry against a gay man being involved with education is a problem. It's pretty clear if you follow the thread that bigotry exists on both sides of this issue.

I am not sure that defending the guy just because he is gay or because the "right" brought the issue up is much healthier than being against him for his lifestyle.

BrianW
12-08-2009, 01:38 PM
I don't mind an organization trying to make life easier on gay teens.

However that organization discussing 'fisting' and whether to 'spit or swallow' is way beyond acceptable.

Given the fact it's Jennings organization, he should be fired. Obama picked the wrong guy.

LeeG
12-08-2009, 02:03 PM
. Consider this post by Rick earlier in the thread:

you aren't worried about communism infiltrating our youth, whatsamatta with you?

mmd
12-08-2009, 02:30 PM
While not intending to discuss USA school policies & principles, I'd like to address BrianW's comment above, with a caveat:

Caveat: I agree that, while the school may well be the best source for information on sex and sexuality in some cases, in all cases parental permission for the dissemination of sex ed information must be obtained beforehand.

Re: Discussing "fisting" or "to spit or swallow" is very specifically among the questions that teenagers want to know the answer to, both hetero- and homosexual teens. My wife is a high school teacher and somewhat of the confidante for a goodly number of the kids she teaches, both male and female. The kids say that sex ed is a joke because it doesn't address their real concerns and questions, and that subjects are presented in "weird language". They mostly all know how babies are made and how to use a condom by a surprising early age. It is the answers to specific, often graphic, questions that they don't get in sex ed, and the questions that often make the adults in their lives squirm. How many here would be able to have a reasonable, informative conversation with a fifteen-year-old girl who wants to know if there are any bad health effects of having anal sex with her boyfriend if they use a condom? (Real question, BTW. She was, correctly, assuming that having anal sex would allow them to enjoy sex with each other without any possibility of an accidental pregancy.) Who is going to truthfully answer this young woman? If someone knowlegeable does not answer kids like this, they run the risk of getting bad advice from misinformed peers.

If you think that the "little black book" is shocking, you would just about die if you heard what kids say about sex among their peers. And the language of the booklet linked to in one of the above posts is the language that the kids use when talking amongst themselves about sex, so, shocking as it may be to some adults, it is the proper language to use to get, and hold, their attention when discussing matters of sex.

My advice? Answer any and all questions about sex truthfully and openly, and let the kid decide if it is gross or not. If the kid is old enough to formulate the question - no matter what the subject - the kid is old enough for the answer. Don't hide information,and use their language so that they gain complete understanding of the answer, in their own terms.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 03:03 PM
Weird language like English? Scientific terms like penis and vagina? lingual? We knew what those words meant in the little hicktown high school I attended. There was always a nice bookworm to interpret for the goobers when needed.

If the kids are asking questions that is one thing. If adults are handing them booklets with a listing of gay bars that is another issue entirely.

There is no reasonable defense for handing out literature like that to High and Middle school students. It's wrong. When a kid WHOM YOU BELIEVE TO BE 15 tells you, his teacher, that he is involved in a relationship that may entail statutory rape, you are obligated to report that.

When you rush to the teacher's defense because the kid comes out and says he was 16 and there was no relationship years later and slam those raising the issue as homophobic then you are bigoted against those who question the man's judgement.

I had gay teachers in high school and a gay professor in trade school. They put their profession ahead of their orientation. When Jennings did not report what he thought was a fifteen year old having a relationship with an adult he put gay before job. That ain't cool.

People coming to his defense because the kid says he was a year older, years later is ludicrous. Jennings believed that the child was 15, that's what he wrote.

Children do not need to know where the gay bars are. I have a great nephew that is most likely gay. If anybody hands him a list of gay bars while he is underage hopefully the will have committed their heart and soul to the God(s) they pray to. The rest of them is spoken for......

Should children have access to good information about sex? Yes. Should our schools foster an atmosphere where all students are safe? No question.

Do we need a safe schools czar with this kind of questionable judgement? No.

News Flash, there are plenty of gay folks who don't think directing High School kids to the local gay bars is a good idea. Probably even a few of them in Education.

Now that those children know where the gay bars are, how does that make them or the school safer?

perldog007
12-08-2009, 03:08 PM
you aren't worried about communism infiltrating our youth, whatsamatta with you?


If you are not a socialist by age 20, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by age 30, you have no head. If you remain a socialist by age 40 you have lost both your heart and your head.

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 03:32 PM
This is the guy that Fox News has had to retract their knowingly false accusation that he'd covered up a statutory rape.


Do you support the molestation of 16 year old boys by grown men Ian?

Keith Wilson
12-08-2009, 03:35 PM
Do you support the homosexual molestation . . . Gee, might the answer be contained in the choice of words? Do you support sin, sodomy, perversion, and degeneracy?

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 03:38 PM
The more we learn about the youth who a woman teacher referred to Jennings, the more Jennings comes off with great credit.

Jennings wrote rather eloquently about the incident that Fox news knowingly falsified and has since retracted. I was relatively new to Massachusetts when it took place but as I recall it was before the current mandated reporting laws and at a time when teachers were indeed untrained in any of this. It's clear that Jennings did good things in his interaction with the youth and clear that Jennings has used his positions since then to help equip teachers better for this sort of thing than he was. The teacher who brought the boy to Jennings is also to be commended.

Quite the opposite of Fox's frothy fulminations, this incident and how Jennings handled it at the time and since reflects credit and shows the depth of his ability for this job.

LeeG
12-08-2009, 03:40 PM
If you are not a socialist by age 20, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by age 30, you have no head. If you remain a socialist by age 40 you have lost both your heart and your head.

I was apolitical until I became a dad. After that the politics of Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich and other keepers of family values got me off my ass.

LeeG
12-08-2009, 03:42 PM
Do you support the molestation of 16 year old boys by grown men Ian?

oh please, ask me, ask me!

seanz
12-08-2009, 03:52 PM
You guys following this? Or am I late introducing this to the Bilge?

Lots of links to follow (http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/07/fistgate-barack-obamas-safe-schools-czars-2000-conference-promoted-fisting-to-14-year-olds/)

Howdoyoudoit?!?!?!

We troll at the same time and I get almost no bites at all......maybe I should switch to jailbait?
;):D

LeeG
12-08-2009, 03:54 PM
sex

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 03:57 PM
I think everyone understands that Rick-Mi's question [Post 50] is designed to keep the discussion of sex education from any progress. That he or she can even ask it establishes that Rick-Mi will not grow to understand the issues.

It was a good thing that Jennings, even in the absence of specific training, had the instincts to meet the young man's crisis in such a positive manner.

Phillip Allen
12-08-2009, 04:00 PM
I'm for apples and American pie!

Keith Wilson
12-08-2009, 04:09 PM
Drove my Chevy to the levee . . . :D

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 04:29 PM
My goodness! Well, at least you make it clear what you're thinking. It is, IMHO, utter howling-at-the-moon madness, but it's best to get it out in the light of day where everyone can see it.

Amen brother, that is exactly the idea except it's not howling at the moon, it's shouting from the roof tops letting fellow concerned citizens know what is really going on with the liberal agenda. Let's shine the light of truth right on Obama who is morally bankrupt enough to appoint someone like Kevin Jennings as an education "Czar" who has a long history of promoting debauchery to children and let public decide right from wrong. It appears we are in complete agreement in this department!

BTW, just so you know Keith, it was Keven Jennings who proclaimed his crusade to promote homosexuality a war long before I alluded to the unmistakable raging battlefield.

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 04:38 PM
Gee, might the answer be contained in the choice of words? Do you support sin, sodomy, perversion, and degeneracy?


I'm simply going by Ian's own words and was looking for a little clarification to what he seemed to be supporting when he said:


Ian McColgin View Post
This is the guy that Fox News has had to retract their knowingly false accusation that he'd covered up a statutory rape.

I'll admit when it comes to people supporting those like Kevin Jennings as education "Czar" ignorance appears to rule the day. Perhaps Ian doesn't realize the homosexual man/boy controversy is not whether it happened or not, but instead was the victim 15 or 16 years old at the time of molestaton. :mad:

Keith Wilson
12-08-2009, 04:44 PM
who has a long history of promoting debauchery to children You tell 'em, brother. Debauchery, perversion, molestation, and by God we'd better shove those damned sodomites back in the closet where they belong! Praise the Lord!

I agree with Ian.

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Perhaps Rick-Mi has not figured out that the youth, in a bit of a crisis at the time with which the teacher in whom he initially confided could not help, was counseled, not buggered, by Jennings.

Successfully as it happens. I'm sure every one is glad this kid grew up to what appears to be a good citizen.

In the time since, Jennings has used what he learned for the benefit of teacher and students, in no small part in his dealings as an educational leader with the enhanced mandatory reporting laws that have evolved since this experience in the early eighties.

Nothing in the incident can be legitimately used to accuse anyone of supporting or tolerating homosexual or heterosexual rape.

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 04:54 PM
Rick-Mi, is there a particular church that provides advocacy for your political views?

Church? :confused:

political?:confused:

Unless a person is morally bankrupt with seared conscience, why would anyone need a church to tell them know corrupting children is just plain wrong?

Politics is no exception. When it comes down to it this subject has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, but instead right vs wrong and good vs evil.

It's plain for anyone with eyes to see that it is reprehensible to promote deviant sex, dangerous sex, whether to swallow or spit, fisting, suggest a list of sodomite establishments, along with a host of other to debauchery in the name of education to children :rolleyes:

salty87
12-08-2009, 04:54 PM
hey up yers :)

(fisting kit) lol
http://biggovernment.com/files/2009/12/fistgate.jpg


i'm not a parent but if i were i wouldn't want the govt trying to bring this sort of thing up in school. aren't there laws about contributing to delinquency or being totally inappropriate with children? why not show them how to huff paint too?

capt jake
12-08-2009, 04:57 PM
why not show them how to huff paint too?

Obviously Rick already has......

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 04:57 PM
Keith, did you conveniently ignore the fact that Kevin Jennings described his campaign to school children a "war" long before Ricky brought it to your attention?

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 04:59 PM
hey up yers :)

(fisting kit) lol
http://biggovernment.com/files/2009/12/fistgate.jpg


i'm not a parent but if i were i wouldn't want the govt trying to bring this sort of thing up in school. aren't there laws about contributing to delinquency or being totally inappropriate with children? why not show them how to huff paint too?


Welcome to another voice of reason in the wilderness :)

LeeG
12-08-2009, 05:00 PM
Really, what's the entire sentence?

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:05 PM
It's abundantly clear where you are coming from Capt Jake.



Yes, I am still recovering from Catholicism and no, I have no plans to go back to church, repent my sins for pointing out my true beliefs here; for fear of being judged by others...


I'm sorry whatever happened which scarred you in the past. In spite of that, why would you support the promotion of inappropriate and dangerous activities to children? Do you think we should teach them how to play Russian Roulette with revolvers too?

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:06 PM
Thew mere fact that you could actually think that someone could 'promote' homosexuality demonstrates your profund ignorance.



Obviously you are very uninformed about the dark side of Kevin Jennings too.....

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Rick-Mi View Post
Do you support the molestation of 16 year old boys by grown men Ian?



oh please, ask me, ask me!


Don't want to do that because I'm afraid of an honest answer......

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:12 PM
You are the ignorant one about Kevin Jennings Norman. But, what's new?


And you better believe homosexuality can be promoted!!! Many confused teens have been recruited into the lifestyle.

Kaa
12-08-2009, 05:13 PM
In spite of that, why would you support the promotion of inappropriate and dangerous activities to children? Do you think we should teach them how to play Russian Roulette with revolvers too?

So, how about some constructive criticism? :D

What do you think should the schools teach children about sex? Nothing at all? Something? Should there be a list of "approved" and "non-approved" sexual practices?

Kaa

LeeG
12-08-2009, 05:19 PM
You are the ignorant one about Kevin Jennings Norman. But, what's new?


And you better believe homosexuality can be promoted!!! Many confused teens have been recruited into the lifestyle.

Rick, does your church promote such ignorant beliefs?

capt jake
12-08-2009, 05:20 PM
Rick, does your church promote such ignorant beliefs?
..and judging others?

LeeG
12-08-2009, 05:31 PM
FYI my source of guidance on this matter is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.

As for those who have anything to do with corrupting our youth, I would remind them that it is written:


He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble."

Luke 17:1&2

buy low, sell high

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:35 PM
Rick-Mi
In spite of that, why would you support the promotion of inappropriate and dangerous activities to children? Do you think we should teach them how to play Russian Roulette with revolvers too?




What do you think should the schools teach children about sex? Nothing at all? Something? Should there be a list of "approved" and "non-approved" sexual practices?



I think there should be appropriate avenues to teach sex and reproduction education in school. The kind I experienced was perfectly adequate even in the 70's and didn't need to provide graphic illustrations of fisting, urinating in your partners mouth or a list of whore houses open for business.

Of course a lot of men died a cruel and miserable death the next decade so it is important to warn young adults about how deadly STD's are contracted. A simple explanation is enough, no need for graphic illustrations on techniques in methods of performing anal sex. This should be abundantly clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Finally, all sex education should be approved in writing by parents or guardian. I was pleasantly surprised that this is exactly how the public school that my children attended handled the situation. We were invited in for a review of the material prior to covering it in class. I thought it was very well done and signed off with enthusiastic approval.

On the opposite side of the coin, I doubt "Queer in the 21st Century" would get much of an endorsement from parents if it were presented in advance and required authorization. :rolleyes:

Does that answer your questions?

Kaa
12-08-2009, 05:40 PM
I think there should be appropriate avenues to teach sex and reproduction education in school.

Well, the question is precisely what do you consider "appropriate avenues". Could you go into a bit more detail about what you'd consider appropriate (besides the transmission mechanisms for STDs)?


Finally, all sex education should be approved in writing by parents or guardian.

Um, why? Why not, say, history, too?

Kaa

LeeG
12-08-2009, 05:41 PM
Rick, is it safe to assume none of your children are gay?

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:44 PM
That's funny Norman, I'm wondering how any educated person with a computer can be as ignorant as you when it comes to Kevin Jennings. :D

Good thing there is a more obscure topic you can muddy the water and hide behind with when it comes to the debatable issue of recruitment.

Glen Longino
12-08-2009, 05:50 PM
Could you possibly be any dumber than THAT?

I'm betting he Could.
Give him time!:rolleyes:

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:50 PM
Rick-Mi View Post
..or a list of whore houses open for business.



Oh, really? That was in some of the materials?

Or is that just a bit of paranoid fantasy?


Please tell me this is a case of willful ignorance regarding Queer in the 21st Century?

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:54 PM
Kaa why shouldn't parents be informed of what is taught regarding sex education in schools? Do you think techniques of fisting should be taught to children without the knowledge of their parents?

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 05:58 PM
He (Jesus) said to His disciples,

"It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble."

Luke 17:1&2



buy low, sell high


Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.......

Kaa
12-08-2009, 05:58 PM
Kaa why shouldn't parents be informed of what is taught regarding sex education in schools? Do you think techniques of fisting should be taught to children without the knowledge of their parents?

Why shouldn't parents be informed of what is taught regarding history in schools?

In any case, curriculums of public schools are open and accessible. Anyone who wants to know what's being taught can go and look. But getting a written permission seems a bit over the edge -- what's the reason for that?

I am also still interested in your "appropriate avenues". In particular, whether you think children should be taught that some forms of sex are preferable to other ones. In general, do you think schools should teach sexual morality? If so, which one?

Kaa

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 06:12 PM
Kaa everything you need to go on is contained in post #83. If you can't figure out the difference between parental involvement in what is taught during sex education in school vs some generic subject, further discussion is fruitless.

Kaa
12-08-2009, 06:21 PM
Kaa everything you need to go on is contained in post #83.

Well, I've read and it's clearly not everything I need to go on :D

Let me ask you again:

"I am also still interested in your "appropriate avenues". In particular, whether you think children should be taught that some forms of sex are preferable to other ones. In general, do you think schools should teach sexual morality? If so, which one?"

Kaa

Glen Longino
12-08-2009, 06:23 PM
Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.......

Priceless!
Only Rick and God Almighty know what they do!
Such woeful arrogance!:rolleyes::(

LeeG
12-08-2009, 06:28 PM
Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.......

without your direction how will he know who to forgive?

capt jake
12-08-2009, 06:30 PM
without your direction how will he know who to forgive?

rotflmao! :d:d

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 06:31 PM
Hmmm... I couldn't figure out where you were coming from... I had read the document in question already, and hadn't seen any list of whorehouses. I just re-read it again, and still don't see a list....

...oh, wait... you mean the list of gay bars? Is THAT what you mean?

*lol*

Please tell me a man of such self proclaimed brilliance isn't this outright stupid?

Of course It was a reference to gay bars! After all, Queers in the 21st Century was specifically mentioned in the very post you quoted and contained a list of recommended sodomite establishments promoted to children. After all, you did say you read the publication. Do I need to break post #83 down in a manner which you are able to comprehend?

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 06:36 PM
Well, I've read and it's clearly not everything I need to go on



You're just going to have to reach a little deeper or simply speculate. :D

Kaa
12-08-2009, 06:39 PM
You're just going to have to reach a little deeper... :D

:eek: :eek: :D :D

Kaa

LeeG
12-08-2009, 06:40 PM
Unless a person is morally bankrupt with seared conscience, why would anyone need a church to tell them know corrupting children is just plain wrong?

:rolleyes:

that isn't what I asked. You introduced some religious quotations.

mmd
12-08-2009, 06:43 PM
Darned right he should not promote gay bars to gay schoolkids! The age of consent is lower than the legal drinking age in most places, so he's encouraging underage drinking...

Gay coffeehouses, on the other hand...

<wink, wink, nudge>

perldog007
12-08-2009, 06:55 PM
Perhaps Rick-Mi has not figured out that the youth, in a bit of a crisis at the time with which the teacher in whom he initially confided could not help, was counseled, not buggered, by Jennings.

Successfully as it happens. I'm sure every one is glad this kid grew up to what appears to be a good citizen.

In the time since, Jennings has used what he learned for the benefit of teacher and students, in no small part in his dealings as an educational leader with the enhanced mandatory reporting laws that have evolved since this experience in the early eighties.

Nothing in the incident can be legitimately used to accuse anyone of supporting or tolerating homosexual or heterosexual rape.



If he thought the kid was 15 then he thought statutory rape was occurring. I am taking the man at his word that he believed the child to be 15.

When I was in school in the mid '70s it would have been a violation of civil and criminal codes for a teacher to not report a situation involving an adult in a sexual relationship with a child not of the age of consent.

There is a difference between promoting tolerance ( which is good ) and handing out a list of gay bars to teens. The man has shown poor judgement in some areas that matter to many parents and guardians.

perldog007
12-08-2009, 07:00 PM
Darned right he should not promote gay bars to gay schoolkids! The age of consent is lower than the legal drinking age in most places, so he's encouraging underage drinking...

Gay coffeehouses, on the other hand...

<wink, wink, nudge>


well with the coffeehouses it is mentioned that the kids may find guys who can 'entertain' . Does anybody think that means other teens? I don't agree with promoting sexual relationships between teens and adults homo/hetero/or those who have yet to make up their minds.

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 07:01 PM
Unless a person is morally bankrupt with seared conscience, why would anyone need a church to tell them know corrupting children is just plain wrong?



that isn't what I asked. You introduced some religious quotations.

This is what you asked:


is there a particular church that provides advocacy for your political views?

I then proceeded to tell you very clearly that neither a particular church, or politics has anything to do with the morality of corrupting children (which should be inherent in any decent human being). I then proceeded to quote the bible as a stern warning from which I draw my particular guidance on the matter. Church or politics has nothing to do with it.

To clarify the point further since you seem to be hung up on something, it is entirely possible and advisable to obtain moral compass headings directly from the bible without need for a third party to tell you what to think. Thanks to hero's of the faith like William Tyndale, it has been quite a few centuries since believers have had to rely on any church or politician to convey what God says.

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 07:06 PM
If he thought the kid was 15 then he thought statutory rape was occurring. I am taking the man at his word that he believed the child to be 15.

That's true, but as I understand it the argument was only one year between age 15 and 16.


When I was in school in the mid '70s it would have been a violation of civil and criminal codes for a teacher to not report a situation involving an adult in a sexual relationship with a child not of the age of consent.

There is a difference between promoting tolerance ( which is good ) and handing out a list of gay bars to teens. The man has shown poor judgement in some areas that matter to many parents and guardians.

I would say so......

Rick-Mi
12-08-2009, 07:10 PM
well with the coffeehouses it is mentioned that the kids may find guys who can 'entertain' . Does anybody think that means other teens? I don't agree with promoting sexual relationships between teens and adults homo/hetero/or those who have yet to make up their minds.

You better believe it!!!

Ian McColgin
12-08-2009, 07:49 PM
I found a site that recounts the language from Jenning's book - http://mediamatters.org/research/200910010014

The salient points are:

The book does not specify the boy's age at the time of the incident but given his age at a later meeting with Jennings, it was either 16 or 17. There was no statutory rape and Jennings had no reason to think there was.

At the time of the incident, it was clear that there was not a basis for reporting nor was a perpetrator identified. It's not clear to me whether the boy even knew the man's name.

The laws about reporting were much clarified about a decade after the incident but at the time is was clear that there was nothing for Jennings to report and no requirement. Even in today's world it's not 100%, depending on total fact situation, that a report would always happen. Were I in the situation and were I concerned about how a report would affect the boy, I'd run it over with a qualified attorney if no qualified person were on the school staff.

The right wing press has retreated considerably from their initial deliberate distortions. For example, FOX knew before publication from the young man himself that the young man was over 16 at the time and knew that reporting requirements were much amended in '98 and after. The network has covered their coy admission of error with more innuendos, leaving their believers continuing to embrace propositions that are not truthful.

On the issue of discussing and listing bars and coffee houses: The descriptions are clear and factual and will no doubt help younger gay people both over and under 21 make decisions suitable to their lives.

The issues of more experienced people exploiting or seducing the less are perennial in straight and gay circumstances, even now with better training and awareness. Witness our recent problem with a 24 year old male teacher with a 15 year old from his girl's soccer team. I believe that effective sex ed early on is the best way for young people to reach whatever is right for them.

McMike
12-08-2009, 08:09 PM
To all the Christians in this primarily Christian country where 70% of the people in it are Christian. It stands to reason the other 30% did not alone create and do not alone profit from the culture and climate that requires our educators to head off the VAST amounts of misinformation aimed at or children about sex through popular culture.

So, now that we’re clear about where the blame really is in regard to the misinformation our children receive. It won’t go away simply because you pray over it. Kids need truth (relative to their age), they can smell manipulation and hypocrisy a mile away and most will rebel against it. As I understand it, 30% of children in the 8th grade have experienced oral sex, giving and receiving. We’re talking 12 and 13 year olds. That means the other 70% have, at the very least, heard the term and understand its function. Would you rather your child consider participating in these acts based on what their friends tell them? I guarantee that no matter how conservatively you bring your child up, they will get that education whether you want them to or not.

McMike
12-08-2009, 08:11 PM
You better believe it!!!


That goes without saying.

LeeG
12-08-2009, 08:12 PM
I guarantee that no matter how conservatively you bring your child up, they will get that education whether you want them to or not.


especially communist recruitment.

capt jake
12-08-2009, 08:34 PM
...Christian country where 70% of the people in it are Christian...

Where do those numbers come from? Personally, I don't think it is that high any longer. Oops, I am not allowed to think without 'his' permission...

McMike
12-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Where do those numbers come from? Personally, I don't think it is that high any longer. Oops, I am not allowed to think without 'his' permission...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Religions_of_the_United_States.png/250px-Religions_of_the_United_States.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religions_of_the_United_States.png)



According to a 2007 Pew Research Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center) survey,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Pew-8) the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:

Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity): (78.5%)

Protestantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism) (51.3%)
Roman Catholicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism) (23.9%)
Mormonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism) (1.7%)
Jehovah's Witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses) (0.7%)
Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church) (0.6%)
other Christian (0.3%)

Unaffiliated, including atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist) or agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic) (16.1%)
Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) (1.7%)
Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist) (0.7%)
Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) (0.6%)
Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) (0.4%)
other (1.2%)
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Gonzalo
12-08-2009, 10:52 PM
The numbers from Pew are similar to the American Religious Identification Survey, which has been done three times since 1990, the first surveying over 100,000 people, and the second two iterations around 50,000 each. The survey asks, essentially, "To what religion do you consider that you belong?" and takes people at their word.

The latest survey in 2008, added some basic questions about belief, but the earlier ones focused only on what religion tradition to which a person identified themselves as belonging.

Extrapolated to the whole population, the percentage of people identifying themselves as Christians was 86.2% in 1990, 76.7% in 2001, and 76.0% in 2008.

People identifying with other religions than Christianity grew from 3.2% to 3.9% over the same period.

People not identifying with any religious tradition grew from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.2% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008. Note that this is not the same as non-believing.

http://livinginliminality.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/aris_report_2008.pdf is the link to the whole survey report.

Glen Longino
12-08-2009, 10:57 PM
So, odds are pretty good that if you get robbed, raped, pillaged, or plundered in America it will be at the hands of a Christian?
Aw hell!!!!

capt jake
12-08-2009, 11:00 PM
So, odds are pretty good that if you get robbed, raped, pillaged, or plundered in America it will be at the hands of a Christian?
Aw hell!!!!
:) :)

Glen Longino
12-08-2009, 11:08 PM
:) :)

I see you're as shocked by this piece of news as I am.
What must Sam think?
Probably devastated? No? I figgered!;)

Upnorth1
12-08-2009, 11:36 PM
So, odds are pretty good that if you get robbed, raped, pillaged, or plundered in America it will be at the hands of a Christian?
Aw hell!!!!

So nothings changed then :D

McMike
12-09-2009, 08:20 AM
I was wondering what Sam thought about that. It’s frightening that the Christian’s think it’s everyone else’s fault when they are the huge majority. It stands to reason it’s the Christians fault that Obama is president too!!!

"And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?"
"It came with out ribbons! It came without tags!"
"It came without packages, boxes or bags!"
And he puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn’t come from a store."
"Maybe Christmas…perhaps…means a little bit more!"
And what happened then? Well…in Whoville they say,
That the Grinch’s small heart Grew three sizes that day!"

Could it be that the majority of Christians are in fact not ultra right wing nut jobs? Could it be that the majority of Christians are real people who deal in, dare I say, reality? Will the real Christianity please stand up?

Kinda makes you go hmmmm . . .

capt jake
12-09-2009, 08:27 AM
...makes you wonder how many people 'say' they are Christian, just because it is the right thing to say?? Just going with the flow, so to speak.

McMike
12-09-2009, 08:37 AM
...makes you wonder how many people 'say' they are Christian, just because it is the right thing to say?? Just going with the flow, so to speak.

Aww, I don’t care about that more than to say, if 78% of the 78% of Christians actually followed the words of Christ, the world and this country would be a better place:rolleyes:. I’m not a believer in the "Jesus is god and savior" sense, but I still try to follow the example of the more choice teachings of Jesus.

That said I don’t think the Christians can blame our countries woes on anyone else but themselves because clearly they have the majority.:D

capt jake
12-09-2009, 08:51 AM
the world and this country would be a better place:rolleyes:. I’m not a believer in the "Jesus is god and savior" sense, but I still try to follow the example of the more choice teachings of Jesus.

I agree with this.

perldog007
12-09-2009, 09:17 AM
I found a site that recounts the language from Jenning's book - http://mediamatters.org/research/200910010014

The salient points are:

The book does not specify the boy's age at the time of the incident but given his age at a later meeting with Jennings, it was either 16 or 17. There was no statutory rape and Jennings had no reason to think there was.

At the time of the incident, it was clear that there was not a basis for reporting nor was a perpetrator identified. It's not clear to me whether the boy even knew the man's name.

The laws about reporting were much clarified about a decade after the incident but at the time is was clear that there was nothing for Jennings to report and no requirement. Even in today's world it's not 100%, depending on total fact situation, that a report would always happen. Were I in the situation and were I concerned about how a report would affect the boy, I'd run it over with a qualified attorney if no qualified person were on the school staff.

The right wing press has retreated considerably from their initial deliberate distortions. For example, FOX knew before publication from the young man himself that the young man was over 16 at the time and knew that reporting requirements were much amended in '98 and after. The network has covered their coy admission of error with more innuendos, leaving their believers continuing to embrace propositions that are not truthful.

On the issue of discussing and listing bars and coffee houses: The descriptions are clear and factual and will no doubt help younger gay people both over and under 21 make decisions suitable to their lives.

The issues of more experienced people exploiting or seducing the less are perennial in straight and gay circumstances, even now with better training and awareness. Witness our recent problem with a 24 year old male teacher with a 15 year old from his girl's soccer team. I believe that effective sex ed early on is the best way for young people to reach whatever is right for them.

There is nothing in that passage to indicate that Jennings knew the child was 16. The only hint of age suggests that the counseling occurred in the spring of the student's sophomore year. The student could well have been 15 and there is no indication in the passage cited that Jennings knew the student's age or undertook to pin it down.

We read that Brewster is 22 five years later, we aren't told in these passages when Brewster's age is revealed. Since Mediamatters is essentially an ANTI-FOX website I would expect any further information to damage FOX such as Jennings disclosing the age of the child at the time of counseling would have been included in that post.

A clear pattern of condoning teens in relationships with adults appears to be emerging from the listing of meeting places, some clearly inappropriate for the teens to whom the literature was distributed to.

The pattern is re-enforced in the incident recounted in the book where no apparent effort is made to determine the age of the student and whether or not the student was of age when the relationship began.

All my gay male friends would have warned the kid about "chickenhawks" at a minimum.

The salient point is that some who blindly support our current president, right or wrong, will go through extreme mental gymnastics to defend on all points, even to the extreme the Mr. Wilson indulged in of accusing the many of the right of having a problem with a gay man in education.

A few things, that suggestion is bigotry itself. Not all conservatives are anti-gay. Not everybody who has issues with Mr. Jennings is "right wing". Quite a few gay people are not at ease with the man's record of promoting homosexuality and children having relationships with adults. Doug Coulter, an openly gay Episcopalian Priest is among them.


No administration is perfect. Jenning's appointment looks like a bid to cement gay support. That's how politics works. I don't want my great nephews to get literature like the cited "little black book" while they are underage.

Anybody involved with a hint of a suggestion that it's okay for teens to have sexual relationships with adults needs some "special attention" before being involved in education. There is no excuse for having this man in his position.

Certainly he has done some good, but his loyalty to the agenda of pushing homosexuality on children as young as preK and apparent promotion of teen/adult relationships makes him inappropriate for any involvement in K/12.

Perhaps he would be more effective if he were focused on College and beyond.

Ian McColgin
12-09-2009, 10:09 AM
Once again, Jenning's does not push any sexuality on anyone. His agenda is to provide information and the supportive environment where children can grow safely into what ever they are. This is so much saner than pushing ignorance and repression.

McMike
12-09-2009, 10:09 AM
My only reason for questioning the opposition of his appointment is that if I were the Obama Administration, I would be much smarter in not giving the "other side" any further ammunition. With that, I’m skeptical about the accusation that Jennings was promoting pedophilia, however if it’s true to the degree it has been advertised I agree that this appointment was a huge mistake.

I would have to wonder how many in congress and other high profile positions have pursued questionable relationships with minors whether it was in their distant or more recent past. I’ve known more than a few situations where someone in their early 20s is "involved" with someone who is16-17 years old.

I feel that there should be a zero tolerance policy when it comes to our educators, meaning if there is any doubt about their propriety then they should be removed from their contact with youth. The problem with this is the potential to ruin lives over simple misinterpretation.

This issue with Jennings seems a bit more complex than what’s being described as condoning statutory rape. I have seen many times, parents who allow their daughter of 16 date an 18 - 20 year old. It stands to reason this kind of dynamic happens all the time between males and females. It’s a very gray area as to the health of such a relationship and should be approached with trepidation by responsible adults. Why is it that gay relationships that fall into this category are any more disturbing to our society?

My question is at what point did Jennings have the knowledge or the grounds to go after the older person? It doesn’t seem clear based on what I’ve seen, therefor I will withhold judgment.

Keith Wilson
12-09-2009, 11:00 AM
but his loyalty to the agenda of pushing homosexuality on children as young as preK Oh, please. "Pushing homosexuality on children?" Who has homosexuality "pushed" on them? As Ian said, the agenda is to provide information and the supportive environment where children can grow safely into whatever they are.

The problem is that some people, mostly associated with he religious right, think that homosexuality is wrong and intrinsically disordered, even evil, and that being gay in itself is a disqualification, so they go looking for things which support their prejudices, often with quite an elastic concept of the truth. One only needs to look at the language used in this thread - "degenerate", "perversion", "debauched" and, God help us, "sodomites"!

Kaa
12-09-2009, 11:36 AM
...and, God help us, "sodomites"!

LOL. We must tell people sailing away from Provincetown to warn their wives never to turn back and look :D

By the way, seeing all this anger and indignation aimed at male homosexuals, I'm beginning to get curious -- are fundamentalist Christians OK with lesbians? Looking at what they say and do, they certainly seem to be much more accepting of them... :D

Kaa

TomF
12-09-2009, 11:54 AM
Kaa,

It's my impression that the loudest noises are always made by men; heterosexual men. And while many heterosexual men feel decidedly squeamish about male/male acts, they support one helluva big niche in the porn market viewing female/female. I suppose on the fantasy that there's always hope.

Kaa
12-09-2009, 11:57 AM
Kaa,

It's my impression that the loudest noises are always made by men; heterosexual men. And while many heterosexual men feel decidedly squeamish about male/male acts, they support one helluva big niche in the porn market viewing female/female. I suppose on the fantasy that there's always hope.

Oh, I understand why this is so :-)

But I am curious whether any of our staunchly Christian posters is willing to offer a denial or a justification... :D

Kaa

perldog007
12-09-2009, 12:07 PM
Oh, please. "Pushing homosexuality on children?" Who has homosexuality "pushed" on them? As Ian said, the agenda is to provide information and the supportive environment where children can grow safely into whatever they are.

The problem is that some people, mostly associated with he religious right, think that homosexuality is wrong and intrinsically disordered, even evil, and that being gay in itself is a disqualification, so they go looking for things which support their prejudices, often with quite an elastic concept of the truth. One only needs to look at the language used in this thread - "degenerate", "perversion", "debauched" and, God help us, "sodomites"!

Tolerance, it's a good thing. To me that means emphasizing civic values,civil rights, and equality not focusing on specific lifestyles.

Read the forward to the book "The Queering of Elementary Education" and you tell me who is having what pushed on them and by whom. Mr. Jennings wrote that forward.

I would have the same objections to a high level administrator pushing a heterosexual centric agenda and you can believe that if somebody was handing out pamplets telling straight teens where they could hook up with adults at bars I would have a problem with that too.

IMO, the difficulty with you and Ian is that you see this as a right versus left issue. It's not.

While the "religious right" may well think that homosexuality is evil, most Christians I know are believers in "hate the sin, love the sinner" and the religious zealots I roll with accept gay clergy.

We have mostly liberal leaning folk in our congregation and none who think the man has acted appropriately in the instances under discussion.

I would argue that you think there is something wrong with being a Christian, or holding conservative views, and are looking for a target to heap your prejudices on. Just because it comes from a right leaning news source doesn't make it automatic crap anymore than MSNBC has a monopoly on truth.

Admitting your bias is the first step to reason. When you look at this issue your first impulse is to label those raising the question as some sort of bigots. EVEN IF THEY ARE BIGOTS ENCOURAGING TEEN ADULT SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS IS WRONG.

Try admitting your bias first, then considering the facts.

I tend to be pro civil rights, and that makes me leery of indicting the man because he is gay. I also tend to be in opposition to the more progressive policies of the Obama Administration ( Am I the only Democrat in America that read the '08 platform?) .

I have to consider my bias when looking at this and realize that my analysis of the issue is strongly shaped by my bias against progressives and that I don't buy the criticism based on homosexuality being intrinsically evil.

At the end of the day, I still say Jennings the Younger was obligated to report the student/adult affair to a superior because based on what is known, he did not have certain knowledge that the student was of age during the entire affair.

I still say that booklet was inappropriate and indicates more devotion to a pro-gay agenda than a pro-child agenda. I am happy to have gay people in education as long as student welfare comes before any pro-gay agendas.

Perhaps because of the juxtaposition of a masculine looking father figure with effete mannerisms, my gay teachers are among the ones I remember the most. They were good men and they put our welfare ( and their jobs) well ahead of any gay agenda. They promoted tolerance by example, something I missed in Jenning's introduction to the book cited above.

Now if one of the gay teachers I had were in an appointed position and under attack for their orientation, I would be defending them. But they would have told somebody if a sophomore came to them about a relationship with an adult and they would not have allowed the "little black book" to be handed out on school grounds.

perldog007
12-09-2009, 12:15 PM
Kaa,

It's my impression that the loudest noises are always made by men; heterosexual men. And while many heterosexual men feel decidedly squeamish about male/male acts, they support one helluva big niche in the porn market viewing female/female. I suppose on the fantasy that there's always hope.

Why are some progressives so quick to resort to bigotry while acting like such is the refuge of their ideological opponents?

I admit to being married to a woman, the rest of your post is rubbish pertaining to me.

Keith Wilson
12-09-2009, 12:24 PM
. . . more devotion to a pro-gay agenda than a pro-child agenda.What is a "pro-gay agenda"? What does this mean? Why is it a problem? AFAIK, people who are are attracted to the same sex just are that way, pretty much at random and due to some innate factor nobody understands. For straight men like myself, sex with another guy is just not something that will appeal to them no matter what anybody says.

So what is the intent? You can't convince someone to be gay. My take is that the point is to normalize homosexuality, to convince people that it's just another way some people are, like being left-handed or tone-deaf, or really good at playing the trumpet or having red hair - not "normal", in the sense that the characteristic is fairly rare, but no better or worse, merely different - and also to counteract a tremendous amount of cultural baggage portraying gays as sick, perverted and evil. That's OK with me. It is apparently not OK for those who talk about "sodomites" and "perversion"

TomF
12-09-2009, 02:12 PM
Why are some progressives so quick to resort to bigotry while acting like such is the refuge of their ideological opponents?

I admit to being married to a woman, the rest of your post is rubbish pertaining to me.Rubbish pertaining to you? Great. Because my post wasn't directed towards you, Perldog. I was simply responding to Kaa, and didn't have you even in the back of my mind.

FWIW, like you, I'm also a rather fiesty liberal Christian; like you, I have zip difficulty with gay clergy etc. I don't particularly "hate the sin - love the sinner" though; while I'm not personally drawn to it, I don't think homosexuality is a sin. On the contrary, IMO it's as amenable to what I'd consider a responsible, celebratory expression of God's gift as heterosexuality - as you've described with your clergy. Frequently, sexuality isn't handled terribly responsibly by folks of whatever persuasion.

I've not read the "black book" stuff, so I haven't commented on it. In principle, I've no troubles with quite blunt materials being made available to adolescents about sex, including blunt descriptions of how to reduce one's risks for the kids who do get sexually active. I would certainly have troubles with materials that crossed a line from describing, to advocating activity. I've made sure my older 2 kids each know how a condom goes on ... and also know how I view sexual activity outside of committed relationships between adults.

I think that a responsible approach to sex ed of gay people has to directly address elements of the "gay lifestyle" that differ sharply from straights. Social pressures to go to gay clubs (coffee houses, bars, whatever), which have tended to be significant elements of gay identity. Social pressures at least in some parts of the gay world to be very promiscuous, as proof of accepting one's orientation. Not addressing that up front is frankly, a dis-service; as much a dis-service as if in addressing it, one verged into advocacy in favour of it.

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 02:17 PM
A clear pattern of condoning teens in relationships with adults appears to be emerging from the listing of meeting places, some clearly inappropriate for the teens to whom the literature was distributed to.

The pattern is re-enforced in the incident recounted in the book where no apparent effort is made to determine the age of the student and whether or not the student was of age when the relationship began.

That's the plan.....


No administration is perfect. Jenning's appointment looks like a bid to cement gay support. That's how politics works. I don't want my great nephews to get literature like the cited "little black book" while they are underage.

No decent parent or relative would.....


Anybody involved with a hint of a suggestion that it's okay for teens to have sexual relationships with adults needs some "special attention" before being involved in education. There is no excuse for having this man in his position.

No doubt about it!

TomF
12-09-2009, 02:22 PM
... You can't convince someone to be gay. ...My only quibble, Keith, is that while you can't convince someone to be gay, you can induce a bisexual person to renounce one side or other of their orientation.

I've a dear bisexual friend, who having been raped twice as a teen, neglected by her father (who turned a blind eye to a work colleague's advances towards her as a 14 year old), came to the conclusion that while men were "hot," they weren't worth the trouble. She'd not risk making herself vulnerable when she'd recurrent evidence that many men were self-serving bastards.

So while she's still bisexual, her only romantic relationships in over 30 years have been with women.

Kaa
12-09-2009, 02:25 PM
My only quibble, Keith, is that while you can't convince someone to be gay, you can induce a bisexual person to renounce one side or other of their orientation.

You can also try very hard to convince someone to NOT be gay -- a rather frequent occurrence with few happy outcomes.

Kaa

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 02:32 PM
The problem with humanists, materialists and other assorted amoral left wingers is that their lack of guiding principles are quite literally a danger to children. It's one thing for adult sodomites to endanger each others lives by consent. It's another thing entirely when they promote this self destructive lifestyle on impressionable youth.

Rarely is there a more perfect example of salvos in an activist war than "Queer in the 21st Century" handed out to school children. It's amazing that some people can be so lacking in discernment of right and wrong that they actually promote teaching dangerous sex acts to children and think it is good. I'm reminded of the stern warning:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness


Sick and twisted as some people in this world are, should it come as a surprise this same crowd views themselves as animals?

TomF
12-09-2009, 02:35 PM
Rick,

I have serious troubles with the amoral, whether of the left or the right. It's hubris to think that either end of the spectrum (or the middle, for that matter) is either the source of, or absent of amorality.

Kaa
12-09-2009, 02:37 PM
The problem with humanists, materialists and other assorted amoral left wingers is that their lack of guiding principles are quite literally a danger to children.

Whaddaya think, Rick, should we just lock such people up? I mean, they are a danger to children (won't somebody please think of the children!) and clearly we should do something about them.

Oh, I know! Just include them all in the sexual offenders registry with all the consequences! Are you a humanist? No living near a school for you and don't even dream of working with kids!

Kaa

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 02:49 PM
Rick,

I have serious troubles with the amoral, whether of the left or the right. It's hubris to think that either end of the spectrum (or the middle, for that matter) is either the source of, or absent of amorality.


Moral relativity is assigned by their own description Tom. Humanists, naturalists, materialists, etc. decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Rarely do we see the morality bar set so low as to witness support for the teachings of Kevin Jennings and Queer in the 21st Century to be promoted to our youth in school. But, amorality certainly does offer an explanation.....

McMike
12-09-2009, 02:50 PM
No decent parent or relative would.....


Your perspective of what a decent parent does or doesn’t do is very fortunately not the gold standard.

perldog007
12-09-2009, 02:51 PM
What is a "pro-gay agenda"? What does this mean? Why is it a problem? AFAIK, people who are are attracted to the same sex just are that way, pretty much at random and due to some innate factor nobody understands. For straight men like myself, sex with another guy is just not something that will appeal to them no matter what anybody says.

So what is the intent? You can't convince someone to be gay. My take is that the point is to normalize homosexuality, to convince people that it's just another way some people are, like being left-handed or tone-deaf, or really good at playing the trumpet or having red hair - not "normal", in the sense that the characteristic is fairly rare, but no better or worse, merely different - and also to counteract a tremendous amount of cultural baggage portraying gays as sick, perverted and evil. That's OK with me. It is apparently not OK for those who talk about "sodomites" and "perversion"

A pro-gay agenda is promotion of the lifestyle as opposed to promoting tolerance and civil rights.

When you cross the line of common sense and protecting children to promote a homosexual world view that's a pro-gay agenda.

Read "Becoming Visible" and the forward that Jennings wrote for "The Queering of Elementary Education". One is a lucid commentary on the need to teach acceptance, the other is a promotion of homosexuality.

Look up Jenning's speech "Winning the Culture War" that he gave in 1995.

Homosexuality is natural, it's not normal. The homosexual pairing is the exception in humans and other species where it occurs. I would argue that homosexuals should enjoy the same civil rights the rest of us do.

To my mind, adults having relations with teens is perverted in that it appears to have a tendency to be predatory in nature and could be damaging to the teen. I have a problem with promoting these relationships.

I am not of the puritanical view, but defend those folks to have that view. To be sure those with latent tendencies are prime candidates for fear that promoting gay sex will turn folks "queer". I don't believe that's possible either.

I think we can teach tolerance without crude and graphic descriptions of sexual practices and lists of gay bars and I think we can select educators and administrators with better common sense. Straight or gay.

Ian McColgin
12-09-2009, 03:00 PM
It's clear and simple that people like Rick-Mi have values that will not agree with sex education in general much less any sex education that helps gay youth. That's a perspective that can be respected, not agreed with but at least respected, in people who express it clearly and do not misrepresent those of us who hold a more tolerant perspective.

As it happens, the forces of intolerance, despite the Islamic and Christian and Jewish fundamentalists who both openly and covertly seek to impose their religious laws on the rest of us always in the long run loose. People are braver and more creative than that.

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 03:02 PM
Whaddaya think, Rick, should we just lock such people up?

Child molesters absolutely should be locked up, permanently.


I mean, they are a danger to children (won't somebody please think of the children!) and clearly we should do something about them.

Of course, people of such demonstrable questionable character as Kevin Jennings should be kept away from children, not put in charge of their "safety". Anyone with an ounce of common sense shouldn't have to be reminded of why.

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Your perspective of what a decent parent does or doesn’t do is very fortunately not the gold standard.


People who recommend subjecting their children to the teachings of Queer in the 21st Century are talking to me about the gold standard of parenthood?

Kaa
12-09-2009, 03:18 PM
Child molesters absolutely should be locked up, permanently.

Which child molesters? We're talking about humanists and materialists, remember?


The problem with humanists, materialists and other assorted amoral left wingers is that their lack of guiding principles are quite literally a danger to children.

Unless, of course, you want to asset that being a humanist automatically makes one a child molester...


Of course, people of such demonstrable questionable character as Kevin Jennings should be kept away from children, not put in charge of their "safety".

So who exactly should be in charge of keeping people of "questionable character" away from the children? And by what criteria are you going to determine the whether the character is questionable?

Lessee -- take atheists. Should they be kept away from the children?

Kaa

McMike
12-09-2009, 03:21 PM
A pro-gay agenda is promotion of the lifestyle as opposed to promoting tolerance and civil rights.

When you cross the line of common sense and protecting children to promote a homosexual world view that's a pro-gay agenda.

Read "Becoming Visible" and the forward that Jennings wrote for "The Queering of Elementary Education". One is a lucid commentary on the need to teach acceptance, the other is a promotion of homosexuality.

Look up Jenning's speech "Winning the Culture War" that he gave in 1995.

Homosexuality is natural, it's not normal. The homosexual pairing is the exception in humans and other species where it occurs. I would argue that homosexuals should enjoy the same civil rights the rest of us do.

To my mind, adults having relations with teens is perverted in that it appears to have a tendency to be predatory in nature and could be damaging to the teen. I have a problem with promoting these relationships.

I am not of the puritanical view, but defend those folks to have that view. To be sure those with latent tendencies are prime candidates for fear that promoting gay sex will turn folks "queer". I don't believe that's possible either.

I think we can teach tolerance without crude and graphic descriptions of sexual practices and lists of gay bars and I think we can select educators and administrators with better common sense. Straight or gay.

I agree with your statement more or less. I feel if lists of bars were handed out then that’s contributing to the delinquency of a minor and punishable in most states if not all. Please link to this information, I’m having trouble finding it. I need to have a more definitive source so I know whether to agree or disagree with Obama’s appointment of Jennings.

I do think ,contrary to you, that a graphic conversation about sex from an adult’s perspective, if presented in a purely informational way would benefit many children who would otherwise fumble through their sexual awakening at their own peril. If the facts and only the facts are given then I fail to see the problem. I wish I could find the statistics that stated how promiscuous middle school students are, they get the information from the internet and from friends. They will get the information contained within this "Black Book" anyway, except without any good guidance on whether or not to perform such acts. The way I see it is the only thing conservative parents have to lose is their illusion that their children are all pure little heterosexual angels.

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 03:47 PM
Which child molesters? We're talking about humanists and materialists, remember?

When asked the typical foolish question "should we just lock such people up?" and understanding your propensity for weak and loaded questions I assigned exactly who should be locked up in this equation. Hope that isn't to confusing. :rolleyes:



Unless, of course, you want to asset that being a humanist automatically makes one a child molester...

Typical absurd Kaa leap.



Lessee -- take atheists. Should they be kept away from the children?

Even more absurdity. If we are going to converse on subjects like you are going to have to step it up and get in the game.

Keith Wilson
12-09-2009, 03:48 PM
A pro-gay agenda is promotion of the lifestyle as opposed to promoting tolerance and civil rights. . . .
One is a lucid commentary on the need to teach acceptance, the other is a promotion of homosexuality. What is a "gay lifestyle"? Precisely what behaviors does "promoting a gay lifestyle" try to change? I really would like to understand this business about "promoting homosexuality"; I don't really see how it can be promoted. AFAIK, most people are either gay or they aren't, (for men, anyway; with women it often seems a bit more ambiguous) and all the "promotion" in the world isn't going to change that. You can talk to me about the "gay lifestyle" until you turn blue, and the idea of sex with a man will still seem disgusting.
Humanists, naturalists, materialists, etc. decide for themselves what is right and wrong.Rick, all of us, every single human being, decide for ourselves what's right and wrong. You have decided to accept an idea of right and wrong taught by a particular variety of Christianity. I have decided to derive my ideas of right and wrong from other sources - although we'd probably agree much of the time on the right course of action. You could have chosen to do something else. Someday you may - or maybe not. But the one thing none of us can avoid, no matter how hard we try, is the necessity of that moral choice. It comes with being human.

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 03:51 PM
A pro-gay agenda is promotion of the lifestyle as opposed to promoting tolerance and civil rights.

When you cross the line of common sense and protecting children to promote a homosexual world view that's a pro-gay agenda.

Read "Becoming Visible" and the forward that Jennings wrote for "The Queering of Elementary Education". One is a lucid commentary on the need to teach acceptance, the other is a promotion of homosexuality.

Look up Jenning's speech "Winning the Culture War" that he gave in 1995.

Pretty eye opening information about someone appointed "Safe School Czar"It would be hilariously funny it the subject wasn't so serious and the target wasn't children.



To my mind, adults having relations with teens is perverted in that it appears to have a tendency to be predatory in nature and could be damaging to the teen. I have a problem with promoting these relationships.

I think we can teach tolerance without crude and graphic descriptions of sexual practices and lists of gay bars and I think we can select educators and administrators with better common sense. Straight or gay.


Well said 007!!!

Kaa
12-09-2009, 03:58 PM
When asked the typical foolish question

...

Typical absurd Kaa leap.

...

Even more absurdity.

:D

Well, let's return to the questions, then.

To remind you, you said: "The problem with humanists, materialists and other assorted amoral left wingers is that their lack of guiding principles are quite literally a danger to children."

So my question is, do you feel something should be done about these people who are, literally, a danger to children?

You also said: "Of course, people of such demonstrable questionable character as Kevin Jennings should be kept away from children.."

My question is, who should be in charge of keeping people of "questionable character" away from the children, how will it be determined that the character is "questionable", and on which basis?

Kaa

Keith Wilson
12-09-2009, 04:04 PM
An obvious question: What in the world is wrong with "promoting homosexuality"? Do people not have a right to decide who they go to bed with? If someone isn't gay, will "promoting homosexuality" have any effect on them? And if it does - so what??? Why should I care?? If children grow up believing that homosexuality is different but perfectly OK, like being left-handed - will the world not be a better place? I certainly think it would.

The central issue here is not a quibble about adult-teen sexual relationships, gay or straight, which can be predatory in some circumstances, although it depends on the case. It is that some people believe that homosexuality is a sin, is morally wrong, and for them, it is intolerable to have a gay government official who says out loud that their belief is BS.

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 05:34 PM
:D

Well, let's return to the questions, then.

To remind you, you said: "The problem with humanists, materialists and other assorted amoral left wingers is that their lack of guiding principles are quite literally a danger to children."

So my question is, do you feel something should be done about these people who are, literally, a danger to children?

Yes, people like Kevin Jennings should not hold positions of authority or be placed in a position to harm school children. His appointment as safe school czar should be immediately terminated.


You also said: "Of course, people of such demonstrable questionable character as Kevin Jennings should be kept away from children.."

My question is, who should be in charge of keeping people of "questionable character" away from the children, how will it be determined that the character is "questionable", and on which basis?

What do you think school boards, administrators and Parent/Teacher associations are for?

Keith Wilson
12-09-2009, 05:56 PM
I bet Rick won't deal with the questions in my post #153.

Does anyone have a link to a complete transcript of Mr. Jennings' speech "Winning the Culture War"? All I have been able to find so far are selected quotes on fairly apoplectic right-wing sites; it would be nice to read the whole thing without someone else's vitriolic commentary.

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 06:08 PM
An obvious question: What in the world is wrong with "promoting homosexuality"?

Simple, on a collective basis that is clearly not the function of public schools. How about concentrating on the 3Rs instead of social engineering so we don't fall further behind our global competitors?

As a personal opinion why would anyone want to promote homosexuality to children?


Do people not have a right to decide who they go to bed with?

Yes, adults only. Leave the kids out of it.....


If someone isn't gay, will "promoting homosexuality" have any effect on them?

It most certainly might. There is no scientific proof homosexuality is genetic and influences on young, impressionable minds is very powerful. Don't you believe Kevin Jennings doesn't know that and why he supports things like queering elementary education and providing lists of gay establishments as a suggestion.


If children grow up believing that homosexuality is different but perfectly OK, like being left-handed - will the world not be a better place? I certainly think it would.

Many people like myself do not think homosexuality is perfectly OK any more than adultery or any other sin (that we all share). But, I also believe that is a personal choice than any adult can make on their own without interference. Instead of teaching children fisting in order to increase tolerance, I believe in conveying the principle "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and not segregating everyone into conflicting groups. Just let the kids be kids without making any issue of race or gender while strictly enforcing codes of conduct is the way to go.

We have all seen kids unmercifully teased or bullied because they are "different" or seem "gay" and I find such completely intolerable! Those horrifying situations are occurring every day and we can't get administrators to do anything firm about it yet people worry about getting Heather Has Two Mommies in the library or passing out rubber gloves. Talk about a case of misplaced priorities!!!

Rick-Mi
12-09-2009, 06:10 PM
I bet Rick won't deal with the questions in my post #153.


Wrong ;)

perldog007
12-09-2009, 06:59 PM
Sorry folks, but promoting relationships between adults and teens is sick. Imagine finding out the your 16 year old daughter was given a list of night clubs where she could find sexually active men who can 'entertain' ( that means have a place to get naked' )

Convince me that would be okay, I want to hear from dads with daughters who would be okay with finding out that a teacher had encouraged them in a relationship with an adult.

I believe in equal rights. i would be sorely tempted to hit a guy so hard his neighbors dog would bleed through the nose if he handed my high school or middle school attending daughter a list of clubs where she could 'hook up'. Should we go any lighter on the offender if they are gay and the child is male?

That would be discrimination.

Ian McColgin
12-09-2009, 07:05 PM
The booklet was written for a very broad range of younger men who are just coming to terms with their sexuality. That's perhaps why it makes clear that bars have age limits.

In my youth in New York, with the 18 year old drinking age, it was easier to fake an ID. The climate today is much stricter, IDs harder to fake, police stings ubiquitous, and the ability of a young man under 21 to get into a bar is really much smaller.

The booklet in plain language is providing objective information that will help young adults make informed decisions. Ignorance only leaves them more exposed to greater exploitation. The people who want to keep youths ignorant are the people really promoting exploitation under the guise of protecting against "perverts".

perldog007
12-09-2009, 07:09 PM
The booklet was handed out to High School students who are mostly minors without parental knowledge or consent.

perldog007
12-09-2009, 07:38 PM
Allright Donn, that's it for you - back to the palin threads. I can't believe you sprang the fistgate trap before there was a fat one all up in there.

They don't hunt much in Great South Bay do they? :D

perldog007
12-09-2009, 07:46 PM
I was waiting for a really indignant outburst from an "at all costs" apologist to link in the audio from fistgate. Oh well, there's always next year....

Ian McColgin
12-09-2009, 08:07 PM
What I have read in the materials is only responsible descriptions of "fisting" - vaginal and anal by the way - with information about dangers and problems included. Had such education been available, some of the terrible physical and psychological damage I encountered in my brief counseling career for high school and college kids would have been avoided.

I'm at the end of debate. Some, often from a misunderstanding of spiituality, imagine that there's safety in not knowing. I find enforced ignorance a dangerous obscenity.

perldog007
12-09-2009, 08:16 PM
What I have read in the materials is only responsible descriptions of "fisting" - vaginal and anal by the way - with information about dangers and problems included. Had such education been available, some of the terrible physical and psychological damage I encountered in my brief counseling career for high school and college kids would have been avoided.

I'm at the end of debate. Some, often from a misunderstanding of spiituality, imagine that there's safety in not knowing. I find enforced ignorance a dangerous obscenity.

you have been so adamantly partisan in your defense of this man it might not make any difference, but fistgate does not refer to the "little black book" there is an audio tape of a workshop with children in attendance as young as 14.

I am not sure that letting kids know that something is dangerous will keep them from doing it. Not on this planet anyway. We will have to agree to disagree on this man.

Ian McColgin
12-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Having dealt with bleeding ninth graders in the '70's - when there was not even the controversy much less anything like competant sex ed - I'm fully aware that ignorance is less of a protection against dangerous practices. So, I am sure "that letting kids know that something is dangerous will keep them from doing it." Not all of them, but more than if they are kept ignorant.

Keith Wilson
12-09-2009, 08:38 PM
As usual, Keith resorts to extremist hyperbole to support his argument.I love you too, Donn. :D Note that a couple of posts later, Rick-Mi effectively endorses what you say is "extremist hyperbole". Obviously some people think that way. You may not.
Promoting homosexuality is akin to trying to convince people it is normal . . . OK. What's wrong with that?

Promoting ignorance is almost never desirable.

perldog007
12-09-2009, 09:16 PM
I was a ninth grader in the '70s. In a school in rural Virginia. We knew that sticking your fist in somebody's vagina or rectum was a bad idea. If a student had a question about that sort of thing they could have gone to our counselors, the biology teacher, gym coaches who taught health classes, there were resources.

We had gay teachers, nobody made a big deal out of it. What we didn't have were folks handing out questionable materials and promoting sex between teens and adults.

We didn't turn out so bad. Hell, one of us is in the White House now.

SMARTINSEN
12-09-2009, 09:48 PM
Ya, Keith, cool it on the partisan invective, will ya.

perldog007
12-10-2009, 09:15 AM
I love you too, Donn. :D Note that a couple of posts later, Rick-Mi effectively endorses what you say is "extremist hyperbole". Obviously some people think that way. You may not.OK. What's wrong with that?

Promoting ignorance is almost never desirable.

These taps are going to subject you to some partisan invective, fair warning, they are narrated by a conservative activist.

Be brave, listen to them. They highlight how GLSEN is promototing homosexuality. Jennings has strong ties to GLSEN. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on this.

Please defend this, this is the agenda of Jennings.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/tape01.html

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/tape02.html

Rick-Mi
12-10-2009, 10:09 AM
Keith Wilson
I love you too, Donn. Note that a couple of posts later, Rick-Mi effectively endorses what you say is "extremist hyperbole". Obviously some people think that way. You may not.OK. What's wrong with that?



First...Rick-MI does not speak for me, and never has. Is Rick-MI the new voice of Conservatism on the forum? If so, I'm not in his club.

I don't, and never have "promoted ignorance." Feel free to post examples of said behavior.

You continue to exhibit the same hyperbole you use in most of your arguments. You salt it with thinly veiled insult, which seems to indicate you have no substance, beyond partisan invective, with which to support your positions.

Give me some non-partisan facts to deal with. I'm tired of your hyperbole presented as fact.


Donn, don't let Keith or any other supporter of Kevin Jennings and Queer in the 21st Century in schools drive a wedge between those of us on the prudent side of looking out for the best interest of children. You speak for yourself and so do I along with every other conservative. It's the materialists with the problem of attempting to defend the indefensible, not us.

Furthermore Donn, don't be looking for any facts from the side endorsing fisting to 14 year olds as a form of sex education and to enhance "tolerance". Hyperbole along with bait and switch tactics revolving around "tolerance" is all they've got. Can you imagine being on the side of supporting Kevin Jennings and the baggage he brings such as Queering Elementary Education, fisting and urinating on your partner, Queer in the 21st Century and providing lists of homosexual establishments under the guise of sex education and "tolerance"?

Like a non house broken dog amoral humanists don't mind crapping in the room when it comes to being on the dark side of right and wrong, they just don't like to have their nose rubbed in it. Donn, we all have our own style in how to approach volatile subjects like this. When it comes to school children and scum bags like Kevin Jennings placed in a position of authority over education, I insist on calling a spade a spade. Even more so in person! It's impossible to convey my true feelings of contempt and righteous indignation over a keyboard.

If some people don't like it, too bad.....

Rick-Mi
12-10-2009, 10:17 AM
Be brave, listen to them. They highlight how GLSEN is promototing homosexuality. Jennings has strong ties to GLSEN. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on this.

Please defend this, this is the agenda of Jennings.




007 you've been a real voice of reason on this subject and I tip my hat to the calm approach you have maintained throughout. I can't force myself to be that restrained, but I wanted to say you've done a great job explaining why people like Kevin Jennings or anyone like him shouldn't be our national "Safe School Czar".

Shame on Obama :mad:

Kaa
12-10-2009, 10:26 AM
Like a non house broken dog amoral humanists don't mind crapping in the room when it comes to being on the dark side of right and wrong...

LOL. You must keep a roll of paper towels by your computer.

Such amounts of foam, spittle, and drool... :D

Kaa

TomF
12-10-2009, 10:31 AM
These taps are going to subject you to some partisan invective, fair warning, they are narrated by a conservative activist.

Be brave, listen to them. They highlight how GLSEN is promoting homosexuality. Jennings has strong ties to GLSEN. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on this.

Please defend this, this is the agenda of Jennings.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/tape01.html

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/tape02.html Without audo enabled on my computer, I didn't listen, I read the transcript of the 1st tape - a transcript that interspersed excerpts with commentary (presumably by the website owner). What struck me is how the commentary about the excerpt was at odds with what the excerpt actually said.

For instance, there's a long excerpt where someone's describing how in some meetings of Gay Straight Alliance groups, they have students brainstorm responses to questions like "If I was to come to terms with my sexuality..." As examples, some students then might say they'd have more sex. Some say they'd have gay sex, or not gay sex, to "prove" their orientation. The person in the taped excerpt says that this is to put the students into "exploratory mode," so they can react in situations where these students will be doing "outreach."

The commentary claims
They assist exploring teens to get together and to have sex to find out whether or not they are homosexual. Again, the people who come into your children's school to discuss homosexuality intend to put children into an exploratory mode to obtain "a don't knock it until you try it attitude" about homosexual sex. Now, my daughter attended GSA meetings at her high school, with a gay friend. Because they're clearly not anti-gay, kids in the GSA often end up being formal or informal peer counselors with other kids who are trying to sort out their own sexuality. In my daughter's experience, these brainstorming sessions were to very practically help GSA members get a sense of the kind of questions and attitudes they'd encounter as peer counselors, and think through how to respond.

That is, it was NOT about promoting a "don't knock it 'till you've tried it" ethos - nor was it about promoting gay sex. It was about preparing people who'd end up being peer counselors for situations they'd likely experience in that role.

Let's explore an item later in the tape, which the commentary says is clear advocacy for teen sex, rather than discouragement of it.
Man: What's another date possibility? I know you guys have been on dates.
Student: … sexual intercourse …
Man: There might be! That's right. [laughter] It's a possibility. [unclear chatter] A number of different sexual encounters. There could be you know … [unclear]
Student: … kissing … hand holding ...
Man: There could be full-blown out-on-the-couch in-the-car sex too. I mean we're not ruling that out either. I don't know current stats, but in 2004 the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_024.pdf) reported that about 30% of kids aged 15-19, both males and females, had had intercourse at least once. That was down a bit from 15 years earlier.

So, when the guy in the tape asks "What's another date possibility? I know you guys have been on dates ..." and a kid responds with "sexual intercourse," is this advocacy? Or is it a recognition of what is in fact true. Is the sex ed worker supposed to deny that teens might have sex on a date?

What's not happening, is condemnatory judgment. It is true that worker does not respond "true - intercourse could be something that occurs on a date ... but I'm here to say that you must NEVER EVER do it!" But neither does he say "true, intercourse could be something that occurs on a date ... and I'm here to say go for it! The world's your oyster!" In fact, the worker's absolutely silent on pro/con ... simply eliciting from the kids what they think.

The rest of this transcript is very similar. In these excerpts the sex ed workers provide opportunities for the kids to describe activity, and occasionally correct facts. They're not promoting abstinence, but nor are they promoting sexual activity - they're being entirely agnostic about it, simply accepting the kids' responses that arise.

IMO, that's appropriate. That's their role - to elicit questions and provide information, without judgment. Without endorsement either of abstinence only, or libertinism.

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 10:38 AM
It's the materialists with the problem of attempting to defend the indefensibleExcuse me? While you may think I'm defending the indefensible, I'm not a "materialist". And "amoral" is just a baseless smear; I may not agree with you about some aspects of right and wrong, but amoral I am not.

Does anyone have a link to the unedited text of Jennings' speech "Winning the culture war"? All I've been able to find is carefully-selected bits interspersed with some quite - um - vehement commentary.

GLSEN is first trying to stop harassment in schools, which I think everybody here would agree is a desirable goal, Secondarily, they're trying to normalize homosexuality. I'm fine with that. I think if today's kids grow up believing that homosexuality is no more a moral issue than being left-handed, it would be a very good thing. And y'know, an awful lot of them think that, and the number is increasing all the time. It's far less of an issue than it was with my generation, much less my parents'.

As I said a long way back, I don't think Queer in the 21st Century is appropriate material for a high school sex-ed course. It has some good information, but as people have correctly pointed out, it has some significant problems.

And again, IMHO, I think the central problem is that Jennings is unapologetically gay, and he makes it very very clear that he thinks that a deeply held belief of many - that homosexuality is morally wrong - is dangerous nonsense. My opinion, though.

Ian McColgin
12-10-2009, 10:38 AM
Good heavens TomF, facts displacing prejudices? How Canadian.

mmd
12-10-2009, 10:47 AM
Scandalous, ain't it, eh?

TomF
12-10-2009, 10:52 AM
Good heavens TomF, facts displacing prejudices? How Canadian.

More proof that try as we might, none of us can escape our upbringing.

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 10:54 AM
Perhaps I should give some money to GLSEN. This thread's quite an inspiration.

If anyone would like to know what they say about themselves, rather than what various right-wing commentators say about them, their website is here. (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/what/index.html)

perldog007
12-10-2009, 11:28 AM
Well, I did listen to the tapes.

I don't know how you can come away convinced that the workshop leaders are not promoting sexual activity.

Regardless of whatever your daughter experienced, on the second tape a teacher clearly tells a class of children under the age of consent, "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it".

The adults are promoting homosexuality and specific sex acts. They are being judgemental, they are saying it's fine and dandy.

Read the transcript without the commentary then:


Male Teacher: ... Spit versus swallowing - I don't know about the calorie count of cum. All right. Is it rude? Let's ask this question: Is it rude not to swallow?

Students: No! Oh, no! [Many "no's" from the children.]

Male Teacher: No. So it's in good bedroom etiquette … [unclear] to spit out?


Woman: Question is: What's fisting?

Man: A little known fact is that you don't make a fist like this. When they do it, it's like this. This is a lot easier than this. [laughter]

Woman: You work your way up to it… [unclear] one finger, two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can't take a hand.


Man: One of you is a young lesbian who - a young lesbian who is really attracted to this woman. It's getting down to the wire where you are thinking about having sex [unclear] .... never had sex before. And this is your really hip GSA lesbian advisor who you feel you can talk to.


Woman: We always feel like we're fighting against people who say publicly, say privately that being queer is not at all about sex, and we believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every one of us, and that it's really hard and that -- but particularly for queer people -- sex takes on a really different meaning. And I think queer people - because I think it's different for people that define as bisexual, lesbian, so on and so forth.

So we think it's really important to say as sexuality educators to say specifically that the issue is around sex, and sexuality, and sexual identity, and sexual expression for gay kids, and that saying things like "Being gay is not at all about sex" is really a political statement and it really isn't based in reality.




Man: And what we do is have students go up to the board and brainstorm different responses such as um "If I was to come to terms with my sexual identity … I might be willing to have um sex more often if I found someone who was actually gay, lesbian or bisexual because I [unclear] think that they'd be the only one." Sometimes students say, um you know, "I would want to have sex to just to prove if I were gay or not because I'd figure if I had sex then I would know." And then they'd say, "I'd have sex with -- not gay sex, because I'd want to prove I'm heterosexual and not gay. I want to see, and I want to sample." I mean, there are a number of different responses.

The impetus in doing this is once again to put them in an exploratory mode, not only for themselves but also for the possible motivation and situations that other students could be in, that they're gonna be doing outreach too through the various events and through the one-on-one outreach [in Boston?].







Man: What's another date possibility? I know you guys have been on dates.

Student: … sexual intercourse …

Man: There might be! That's right. [laughter] It's a possibility. [unclear chatter] A number of different sexual encounters. There could be you know … [unclear]

Student: … kissing … hand holding ...

Man: There could be full-blown out-on-the-couch in-the-car sex too. I mean we're not ruling that out either.


Woman: What was it like the first time you were having sex? How did you know what to do?

Male: Well, it was like with gay sex there's no - well, with straight sex it's kind of assumed that vaginal intercourse is when you lose your virginity, but there is really no boundary like that with gay sex…. [unclear] So if you don't wanna lose your virginity, like you kind of have to feel for like what that is.

Male teacher: And what you're comfortable doing.

Male: Right.

Female: ... It probably means something different like... [unclear].

Male: Yes … [unclear. Lots of chatter]

Male teacher: … My friend Nancy doesn't consider blow jobs sex. She says that doesn't count as sex. And I'm like, "If that doesn't count as sex, then the number of times I've had sex has dramatically decreased, like - … from a mountain to a valley, baby!" [Lots of laughter, chatter.] Um -- but that's a reality. You're right. That's a real reality. What constitutes sex, and what people think the definitions are of sex. It's difficult. But what do you guys consider sex? What's sex? Entering any orifice? Finger in nose? [laughter] Does everyone agree with that? It's like any orifice filled with any part is sex? No? [Lots of chatter.]

All right. Well there you go. We can live with it. But what orifices are we talking about? Don't be shy, honey! You can do it!

Girl: Your mouth?

Male teacher: OK.

Girl: Like your -- your ass?

Male teacher: There you go!

Girl: Your pussy.



Female: I don't even know what I'm supposed to do. What is sex for lesbians?

Male teacher: Right.

Female: Is it …[unclear] Is it only oral sex? What is it?

Male teacher: Does the dildo have to be long?

Female: Yeah, I mean yeah. [unclear] … dildo? [unclear] … dildo? How do I know that?

Male teacher: If I'm a guy and I'm not fucking, is that real sex?

Female: And sometimes it's part of the [unclear] to find out.




Woman: Do lesbians rub their clits together? [unclear] ... answer. [laughter, chatter]

Man: Are we talking globally? [unclear] …

Woman: ... Is it possible? Yes, it's possible... [unclear] more information …

Man: How does it work?

Woman: ... How does it work? You want to do a little like hand diagram for us?

Man: Like scissors? Is it like scissors?" [Laughter]

Man: … rubbing together; rubbing together…

Woman: So -- I'm married. I don't know. Is it like on top of each other?

Man: Is this to the side, your legs have to be spread? Like what's the story? Does anyone know the answer to this [key?] question?



Woman: So then how does it work? So you could be laying on top of each other?

Woman: I've never done it.

Woman: O.K.

Woman: Has anybody ever done it? [lots of chatter, laughter]

Woman: It is absolutely possible that two women could lay on top of each other and I'm playing teacher- - heads bobbing -- and you can rub your clits [unclear] together [laughter] … [unclear] You can do that …

Woman: You can do whatever basically works. [chatter]


Woman: And there's absolutely a word for this. It's not just rubbing clitorises together. [Sound of writing on chalkboard.] "TRIBADISM". Bring that back to Bedford! I have a vocab word for everyone! [chatter]

Woman 2: And um you can do it with your clothes on, with your clothes off, it can actually be a sexual experience, you can orgasm with it, you can get stimulated with it. I mean it is a sexual experience.



Woman: O.K. First question is: What's fisting? Anyone want to [unclear] …

Male teacher: Get your whole hand to enter here or there. There's fingering and then there's fisting. A little known fact is that you don't make a fist like this when you do it -- it's like this. THIS is a lot easier, than THIS. [Laughter]



Woman teacher: Fisting is not forcing your hand into somebody's orifice or opening or hole or whatever you want to say if they don't want it there. So the first thing is usually relax [unclear] … It's not like you're doing any forced sex on anybody. It's usually [unclear, and chatter] … two consenting adults … it's two consenting adults, and you work your way up to it.… [unclear] you can put one finger … two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can't take a hand.

Some people don't want to go that far … It's all a very intense and [unclear] experience and not an abusive or rough [unclear] kind of experience… Some people do want pain and I'm not cutting that down, but that's typically not why people do that.

[unclear chatter]

[Question: unclear]

Woman teacher: … It can be for some people. It is an experience of really letting someone into your body who you want to be that close and intimate with.

Fisting is "an experience of letting someone into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with."



Woman: My ex said she enjoyed pain. What the hell is that about? [Laughter, chatter] … Go on, take that on.



Male teacher: I have a subject. How do you - - how do you draw that line? Like let's say your ex, your partner you're with says, "I enjoy pain." How do you deal with it? How do you know what the boundaries are? What do you -- [Some responses from audience; unclear.] OK.

They're going to take a variety of forms. What are some of them?" [Audience responds with answers. Teacher repeats responses:] Spanking. Bondage. Hot wax… [unclear; laughter] But - there's something that needs to be explored.

Woman: I just want to also share with you some of the -- what the federal government has said on how this money can be spent. It can only be spent on programs that teach "that a mutually safe collaborative relationship in the context of marriage is an expected standard of human sexuality and that any sexuality outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." So -- [More comments here from presenter - unclear]

Other woman: Think about other people you know that are sexually active …[unclear] that's not married … Think of all that harmful psychological and physical effects [unclear]…



These are things that parents should have some say in. It's plain wrong to require folks to put their kids in school and then shove this stuff down the kid's collective gullet without parental advice and consent.

LeeG
12-10-2009, 12:09 PM
These are things that parents should have some say in. It's plain wrong to require folks to put their kids in school and then shove this stuff down the kid's collective gullet without parental advice and consent.


I don't get the impression that kids are being forced into these counseling programs. They are having sex and these are the kinds of real dialogs that come out of talking about sex.

Why do you say they are being forced?

TomF
12-10-2009, 12:14 PM
The excerpts are very blunt, no doubt. Blunt to the point of crudeness. But they are simply descriptive. Describing the acts is not advocacy for the acts. I can describe capitol punishment in exquisite detail, while opposing it.

I'd like to hear what occurred in the room just prior to the bits excerpted. E.g., did the worker just out of the blue say "OK, first question is: What's fisting? ..." as a way to introduce novel techniques? Or was she reading from a bunch of questions that the kids had offered in a brainstorming session, which were captured on a flipchart? It's very different if "First question: what's fisting?" was the first question on the worker's previously prepared to-do list, or the first which happened to be brought up by the kids. I've done enough facilitation and community workshop leading to expect the latter's true ... though the editing of the transcript implies the former.

I remember leading a bible study group examining Christology. That is, theological discussions on the nature and importance of Jesus. And as part of it, we brainstormed the issues the group wanted to address. They included questions and comments like:

There's no difference between Jesus and God; they're the same
How do we know if Jesus even lived?
I think he was just a good teacher, like other good teachers.
If someone taped our session, they'd have heard me say "OK First issue: there's no difference between Jesus and God; they're the same. Sound right to you?" Then later, they'd have heard "Third point: I think he was just a good teacher, like other good teachers." It would be simple to destroy my credibility with certain other Christians by playing only those segments of the tape, and claim that I was teaching people to deny fundamental points of the Creeds. Because I'd said it, eh? And it sure sounded like those were my agenda points.

I strongly suspect that the tapes were edited this way, edited in a manner to suggest quite a different context than was actual. My suspicion's based on the commentary's misinterpretation of what actually was excerpted, as I'd described earlier.

As to parental consent ... how does it work in your school system? My kids brought a form home that described the curriculum and how it's taught. By ticking a box on the form itself, parents could ensure that their kids didn't attend. That is, nothing was "stuffed down the kids' collective gullet without parental advice and consent."

The US is famously more divided on social issues than Canada, and famously more individualistic. I'd be terribly surprised if we gave more options for individual parents to say "yes" or "no" than a US school.

mmd
12-10-2009, 12:16 PM
perl, you seem to have a different level of reading comprehension than I do. Lots of direct, graphic discussion of different sex acts in that transcript, but I didn't find any phrases or sentences that encouraged the participants to actually try the sext acts described. It seemed to me to be an open discussion of hypothetical sexual situations.

Obviously, you disagree.

But I do agree that this type of open discussion of sex with teens should be done only with parental consent. Unfortunately, this also sets up an intractable situation - if a teen who wants to participate in the discussion is forbidden by a parent whom is closed to such dialogues, it is quite likely that the teen will disobey, and then whose fault is it that the teen is involved?

perldog007
12-10-2009, 02:18 PM
perl, you seem to have a different level of reading comprehension than I do. Lots of direct, graphic discussion of different sex acts in that transcript, but I didn't find any phrases or sentences that encouraged the participants to actually try the sext acts described. It seemed to me to be an open discussion of hypothetical sexual situations.

Obviously, you disagree.

But I do agree that this type of open discussion of sex with teens should be done only with parental consent. Unfortunately, this also sets up an intractable situation - if a teen who wants to participate in the discussion is forbidden by a parent whom is closed to such dialogues, it is quite likely that the teen will disobey, and then whose fault is it that the teen is involved?

Actually, my understanding comes from listening to both tapes and other research on GLSEN. I't not only what is said but how it's said as we all know.

In any case, tax dollars being used for that sort of thing and having those discussions with children against their parents wishes is wrong. Plain and simple.

People are compelled to put their children in school. In Florida a teacher can now be held in contempt of court for allowing a student to pray, but discussions of fisting with fourteen year olds are okay?

Isn't it funny how we are only tolerant to one side of the spectrum?

All of this parsing has nothing to do with the point of this thread, which is why we should have a "safe schools czar" who promotes teen/adult sexual relationships, and does not seem to understand what is and what is not age appropriate material.

Seriously, 12 year olds being told "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it" by their teacher? How do you defend that? Or the man who chairs the organization that pushes that view.

Then we have his admiration for Harry Hay of NAMBLA fame, whatever good the man did he was a pedophile. Kevin Jennings may be a fine human being but he does not need to be involved with children.

If he were a right winger who advocated teenage girls having sex with older men his defenders here would be calling for blood.

TomF
12-10-2009, 02:51 PM
Here's (http://americansfortruth.com/news/kevin-jennings-1997-transcript-promoting-homosexuality-in-schools-glsen-good-for-kids.html) what Jennings' critics are quoting about his support for Harry Hay:
... One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society [the first American homosexual “rights” group]. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before. Is Jennings saying he's inspired by Hay's alleged pedophilia ... which is itself an issue of no small controversy? Or for Hay's success building the gay rights movement from nothing to over 1M marchers?

Of course, if it doesn't matter - if Jennings can't admire one facet of a man without admiring the whole, consider what Churchill once wrote to The Times (http://richardlangworth.com/2009/06/did-churchill-praise-hitler/):
I have always said that I hoped if Great Britain were beaten in a war we should find a Hitler who would lead us back to our rightful place among nations. BTW, I would be "out for blood" if an education official, at any level, were out there wholeheartedly advocating sex between 16 year olds and grown men. If it can be shown that Jennings believes such, I'd happily throw him under the bus.

Till then, the internet goop on this issue looks very like a smear.

mmd
12-10-2009, 03:02 PM
Actually, my understanding comes from listening to both tapes and other research on GLSEN. I't not only what is said but how it's said as we all know.

I have only read what is posted and linked to on this thread regarding this subject. Yes, inference is lost in the printed word.


In any case, tax dollars being used for that sort of thing and having those discussions with children against their parents wishes is wrong. Plain and simple.

In the first part, I disagree - if my tax dollars are spent within the education system so that my child recieves education in all matters that affects her growing into an aware, mature, non-discriminatory adult capable of making her own decision regarding adult subjects, including sex - even if I disagree with or am ignorant of the sexual practices being discussed - then I consider my tax dollars well spent. On the second part - parental permission to discuss such topics with my child - I believe I have already stated my position above. Plain and simple.


People are compelled to put their children in school. In Florida a teacher can now be held in contempt of court for allowing a student to pray, but discussions of fisting with fourteen year olds are okay?

I don't believe that people are compelled to put their children in public school. I understand that if you wish to, you can home-school your children or private school them, as long as the education that they receive is compliant with the goals of the public school curriculum. Prayer in school, if desired, should be allowed on a personal, private basis and not a required group activity. If you wish to disagree, then your kids should be required to join the young Muslim boy described in another thread and pray to Allah while prostrating themselves in the direction of Mecca, too. What is good for one religion should be good for another, right? Finally, discussions of fisting with a fourteen year old is perfectly acceptable if the teen wants to hear this information and his/her parents have given their permission for him to attend the discussion. If they are old enough to ask...



Isn't it funny how we are only tolerant to one side of the spectrum?

I may well be so unconciously, but I actively try to see all points of view and accept those that I disagree with gracefully. Don't you?


All of this parsing has nothing to do with the point of this thread, which is why we should have a "safe schools czar" who promotes teen/adult sexual relationships, and does not seem to understand what is and what is not age appropriate material.

I do not see any promotion of teen/adult sexual relationships in the material presented on this thread. Lots of exhortations of it by participants, but no clear evidence of statement.


Seriously, 12 year olds being told "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it" by their teacher? How do you defend that? Or the man who chairs the organization that pushes that view.

Did I miss something in my reading of the presented material? I don't recall reading the phrase, "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it". Could you direct me to the quote? I can't defend what isn't there. And if it isn't there, the attribution fails, too.


Then we have his admiration for Harry Hay of NAMBLA fame, whatever good the man did he was a pedophile. Kevin Jennings may be a fine human being but he does not need to be involved with children.

Again, an attribution to material not presented factually on this post.


If he were a right winger who advocated teenage girls having sex with older men his defenders here would be calling for blood.

If you replace the phrase "right winger" with "a person" in the above sentence, I'd join in with the howling of the mob. As it is, I don't think that partisan politics has a role in this discussion. You are arguing on the basis of sexual orientation and past performance of Kevin Jennings, not political affiliation, though you seem to be trying awfully hard to make it a political subject. Are you inferring that all gays are Democrat and all hetero's are Republican?

perldog007
12-10-2009, 03:05 PM
The kid told Jennings he was involved with an older man. The kid apparently admitted to suicidal ideation. Those are the facts as portrayed by Jennings.

The literature listing locations of gay bars was handed to underage students and also advises teens to visit gay coffee houses to find guys who don't drink that can entertain. Do you really think that means other teens? Teens with their own places?

Those are facts, not smears. The only smearing is accusations of homophobia and blanket labeling of anyone who objects to this man's appointment as some kind of "wing nut".

perldog007
12-10-2009, 03:18 PM
I have only read what is posted and linked to on this thread regarding this subject. Yes, inference is lost in the printed word.



In the first part, I disagree - if my tax dollars are spent within the education system so that my child recieves education in all matters that affects her growing into an aware, mature, non-discriminatory adult capable of making her own decision regarding adult subjects, including sex - even if I disagree with or am ignorant of the sexual practices being discussed - then I consider my tax dollars well spent. On the second part - parental permission to discuss such topics with my child, I believe I have already stated my position above. Plain and simple.



I don't believe that people are compelled to put their children in public school. I understand that if you wish to, you can home-school your children or private school them, as long as the education that they receive is compliant with the goals of the public school curriculum. Prayer in school, if desired, should be allowed on a personal, private basis and not a required group activity. If you wish to disagree, then your kids should be required to join the young Muslim boy described in another thread and pray to Allah while prostrating themselves in the diirection of Mecca, too. What is good for one religion should be good for another, right? Finally, discussions of fisting with a fourteen year old is perfectly acceptable if the teen wants to hear this information and his/her parents have given their permission for him to attend the discussion. If they are old enough to ask...




I may well be so unconciously, but I actively try to see all points of view and accept those that I disagree with gracefully. Don't you?



I do not see any promotion of teen/adult sexual relationships in the material presented on this thread. Lots of exhortations of it by participants, but no clear evidence of statement.



Did I miss something in my reading of the presented material? I don't recall reading the phrase, "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it". Could you direct me to the quote? I can't defend what isn't there. And if it isn't there, the attribution fails, too.



Again, an attribution to material not presented factually on this post.



If you replace the phrase "right winger" with "a person" in the above sentence, I'd join in. As it is, I don't think that partisan politics has a role in this discussion. You are arguing on the basis of sexual orientation and past performance, not political affiliation, though you seem to be trying awfully hard to make it a political subject. Are you inferring that all gays are Democrat and all hetero's are Republican?

I am arguing on the basis that people who promote adults having sex with teens and distribute age inappropriate material don't need to be in education.




I am inferring that those partisans who defend Obama no matter what ( I am a registered democrat btw) are mindlessly defending Jennings simply because the objections to his appointment come from the right.

The quote pertaining to "Don't knock it..." is on the the second tape in the links I provided.

Not everyone can afford private school, it's a false choice. Home schoolers require a person in the home to do such, again not always practical in this day of both parents working.

When a parent can stay home, home schooling is under increasing attack by progressive elements.

In any case, I am all for education and honest discussion. That's different from promoting a lifestyle or high risk activity. If you didn't hear that or gather that from the writings and quotes of GLSEN members and leaders then we will have to agree to disagree.

Children are hearing discussions on homosexuality to include graphic descriptions of sexual acts without parental knowledge or consent. This is within the boundaries of GLSEN as set forth by Jennings. He needs to be removed.

Surely, we can find an educator with a more level headed approach.

mmd
12-10-2009, 03:24 PM
Oh, man! Perl, you keep misrepresenting the facts! There were no (AFAIK) references to bars! It is not illegal for a teen to enter a coffee shop. Not that I advocate the steering to specific commercial establishments, but wouldn't you think that advising a teen to go to an establishment that is vetted by a national organization that is intent on presenting a good, responsible image is better than allowing him/her to experiment with his/her sexuality by going to the seedy gay and druggie hangout park at night?

And lastly, please do not conflate disagreement and refutation of your posts with accusations of homophobia and being a "wing-nut". I have done nothing of the sort.


(Edit to add)


Children are hearing discussions on homosexuality to include graphic descriptions of sexual acts without parental knowledge or consent.

Yes they are. It happens every day on the school playgrond, on the school bus, at the mall, wherever teens hang out together. I would rather a registered Democrat gay teacher with odd sexual preferences and with a curriculum and course materials that I have seen and approved give my children accurate information on the subjects that they are curious about, than have them receive misguided and possibly dangerous mis-information from their peers who most likely got their information from internet chat rooms.

mmd out...

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 03:26 PM
Once again, does anyone have a link to the text of Jennings' speech "Winning the Culture War"?

With all respect, it seems like a smear to me too. Most of the material presented so far has been carefully selected bits with little context. I see no evidence of Jennings having "promoted adults having sex with teens".

AFAIK, the parents of every student in every school sex-ed course have the opportunity to refuse permission. I certainly had. In fact there was one - a particularly loathsome "abstinence-only" talk - which had I known exactly what it consisted of, I would have pulled my daughter out. It did make for some good discussions around the dinner table though, and the school got so many complaints the fellow was not invited back. But one way or another teenagers always love to talk about things which they know would shock their parents. Best that they get accurate information.

TomF
12-10-2009, 03:26 PM
I used the term "smear" advisedly, Perldog, and not in relation to you. That's twice now that you've read something personal into a post of mine, which was not pointed your direction.

I used "smear" in relation to the "internet goop" out there which is now doing all it can to promote the idea that Jennings supports pedophilia. The attempt's being made via Jennings' comment about admiring Harry Hay's effectiveness in growing the gay rights movement.

You've said you're not homophobic, and I'll believe you. Nor am I labelling you a "wing nut" - or have I ever used the term in this thread. But I see significant bias in the selective edits on the website link, which mirror similar bias in other easily-googleable links opposing Jennings.

You're perfectly entitled to feel, as you seem to, that Jennings is a poor choice. I'm just pointing out that the links supporting your view which you've so far provided make inordinate leaps of logic, reflecting belief rather than proven fact.

perldog007
12-10-2009, 04:38 PM
Oh, man! Perl, you keep misrepresenting the facts!

No sir, the literature handed out at Brookline High in 2006 contained among other things a list of gay bars. I posted a link earlier in the thread. You are making false accusations against me, kindly go back and check out the link to the little black book.

Mr. Wilson has on numerous occasions in the thread posted his opinion that resistance to Jennings is mostly from the "right" and based on bias against him being gay.

Keith, my son, against my advice adopted a religious abstinence policy while he was in high school. Pretty sure the Marine Corps has beaten that out of him but I don't ask and he hasn't told. He's a man now and it's none of my business.

While that policy is one I don't see as workable based on my own youth, apparently it works for some folks. I don't know why you would not want your daughter to hear all viewpoints.

Tom, I believe that the totality of circumstances, i.e. the unreported counseling of the sophomore in a relation with an adult and expressing suicidal ideation, and the information in the 'little black book' being distribute to under age children in a school, and the language and manner of presentation expressed on those tapes, although admittedly edited for bias, paint a picture which suggests that GLSEN is more concerned with normalizing homosexuality for political gain than with school safety.

I would object also to non sexual indoctrination of children by any other political action group. It's an agenda we don't need in our schools.

Information? certainly. Advocacy? no. If you don't see advocacy in GLSEN and Jennings then there's not much I can say to you. Enough people do to raise the issue.

Some of them may be religiously motivated. Some may be bigoted. I would say most are just concerned about how we are treating our kids in the educational system most of them have no choice but to participate in.

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 04:48 PM
I don't know why you would not want your daughter to hear all viewpoints. It wasn't what but how; old-time fear and shame and guilt; very, very nasty.
. . . .GLSEN is more concerned with normalizing homosexuality for political gain than with school safety. I disagree. Schools are often very nasty places, even now, for gay teens. And political gain? How does one gain politically from normalizing homosexuality? For that matter, what in the world is wrong with normalizing homosexuality?

perldog007
12-10-2009, 04:57 PM
It wasn't what but how; old-time fear and shame and guilt; very, very nasty. I disagree. Schools are often very nasty places, even now, for gay teens. And political gain? How does one gain politically from normalizing homosexuality? For that matter, what in the world is wrong with normalizing homosexuality?

Well, for starters it's not normal. It is natural and homosexuals need to be respected as people, but it's not the norm. Political gain is achieved by normalizing homosexuality and indoctrinating youngsters to the world view of GLSEN.

Their mandate for safe schools is to provide for special protection of GLBT students against bullying, not to punish bullies per se. That makes no sense at all.

If we focus on the conduct of bullies, the act of bullying then we make the school safer for everybody.

The most common reason for bullying is body size/type and appearance, not sexual orientation. GLSEN has nothing to do with school safety and neither does Mr. Jennings.

What you call nasty old time fear and guilt is what some folks believe. I don't share their convictions but hesitate to denigrate their beliefs, which apparently you have no problem doing.

The Amish people near me believe in that, I disagree but still find them human,lacking horns and tails, etceteras.

TomF
12-10-2009, 05:03 PM
Yes, I think the GSLEN is an advocacy group, promoting different attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One way they do this is by contributing factual material in sex ed situations.

The NRA is also an advocacy group, promoting specific opinions about gun issues. However they also contribute factual info re gun safety and handling.

Kaa
12-10-2009, 05:05 PM
Well, for starters it's not normal. It is natural and homosexuals need to be respected as people, but it's not the norm.

I fail to see your point. Green eyes are not normal -- right? Being abnormally (note: abnormally!) tall is not normal. Having a perfect pitch is not normal. So?


Political gain is achieved by normalizing homosexuality

Perldog, make up your mind. If you're defining "normal" as "different from the average", normalizing homosexuality is just as impossible as normalizing green eyes.

And if you're defining "normal" as "acceptable", well, then we have problems with your premise that homosexuals are "not normal".


What you call nasty old time fear and guilt is what some folks believe. I don't share their convictions but hesitate to denigrate their beliefs, which apparently you have no problem doing.

I believe Keith has problems with "some folks" trying to force their convictions on his daughter. Isn't that exactly what you're railing against?

Kaa

perldog007
12-10-2009, 05:12 PM
Another way GLSEN strives to accomplish their goals is by having teachers tell 12 year olds 'Don't knock it if you haven't tried it........ '

One is appropriate, the other is not, neither should be the main focus of a "school safety czar" I need to see something other than that kind of advocacy to convince me he is a good choice.

The incident with the sophomore and the little black book tell me there are likely better choices for the position.

If we determine the need for a gay school czar then this guy has my vote, he's apparently a passionate advocate of gay rights issues and in some aspects a very effective educator.

For the position of "safe schools czar" I need to see some more safety qualifications. I am a certified protection officer a certification awarded by the IFPO ( from Canada no less!) I know more about school safety than Jennings and likely more about homophobic bullying.

I am not suggesting myself for the job. We can do better, for our children we should

Rick-Mi
12-10-2009, 05:16 PM
I fail to see your point. Green eyes are not normal -- right?

Green eyes are genetic, homosexual sodomy is a choice......

perldog007
12-10-2009, 05:19 PM
I fail to see your point. Green eyes are not normal -- right? Being abnormally (note: abnormally!) tall is not normal. Having a perfect pitch is not normal. So?

green eyed people, tall people, and people with perfect pitch are not political blocks lobbying for what some would call special rights.




Perldog, make up your mind. If you're defining "normal" as "different from the average", normalizing homosexuality is just as impossible as normalizing green eyes.

hypothesis contrary to fact


And if you're defining "normal" as "acceptable", well, then we have problems with your premise that homosexuals are "not normal".

If you read the thread I have never suggested this




I believe Keith has problems with "some folks" trying to force their convictions on his daughter. Isn't that exactly what you're railing against?

Kaa Yes I am, I am not degrading Jennings and GLSEN as "very nasty" and I am pointing out that Keith seems to have a problem with the viewpoint that is traditionally "right of center" but no problem with the progessive viewpoint being pushed.

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 05:22 PM
Left-handedness is not "normal" either. Left-handed people were once treated badly because of religiously-based superstition, IMHO, the situation with homosexuals today is quite analogous - and one can no more "promote homosexuality" than one can convince people to become left-handed.
Political gain is achieved by normalizing homosexuality and indoctrinating youngsters to the world view of GLSEN. How? What specific political gain do they get? Are they running "Gay Party" candidates for office? What do they gain - besides respect and acceptance and inclusion in society?
The most common reason for bullying is body size/type and appearance, not sexual orientation.Probably true. That's not OK either.
GLSEN has nothing to do with school safety and neither does Mr. Jennings. Nonsense. They may do other things as well, which you obviously don't like, but their primary mission is promote acceptance of gays and to stop gay students from being harassed or attacked. One way they do this is to try and convince people, both gay and straight, that it's OK to be gay. This is a good thing.
What you call nasty old time fear and guilt is what some folks believe. I don't share their convictions but hesitate to denigrate their beliefs, which apparently you have no problem doing. No, I have absolutely no problem at all saying that some beliefs held by some people are harmful, bad, and dead wrong. Neither do you. We might disagree about precisely which beliefs fit that description, however. (See, Rick-Mi, I'm not a moral relativist, I just disagree with you.)

Rick-Mi
12-10-2009, 05:26 PM
Another way GLSEN strives to accomplish their goals is by having teachers tell 12 year olds 'Don't knock it if you haven't tried it........ '

One is appropriate, the other is not, neither should be the main focus of a "school safety czar" I need to see something other than that kind of advocacy to convince me he is a good choice.


007 after this much clear cut evidence has been presented, you are never going to convince people who are in favor of pushing the homosexual agenda in schools. Fortunately, they represent a very small minority.

Kaa
12-10-2009, 05:26 PM
hypothesis contrary to fact

Sigh. Which hypothesis is contrary to which fact?


Yes I am, I am not degrading Jennings and GLSEN as "very nasty" and I am pointing out that Keith seems to have a problem with the viewpoint that is traditionally "right of center" but no problem with the progessive viewpoint being pushed.

If you want an example of someone who has a problem with a different viewpoint, I suggest Rick-Mi :-)

I also don't see why people shouldn't prefer some viewpoints and dislike others. According to your position Keith is certainly entitled to consider some viewpoints harmful to his children and try to shield them from these viewpoints. And what's wrong with calling them "very nasty" if he considers them very nasty?

Kaa

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 05:29 PM
. . . having teachers tell 12 year olds 'Don't knock it if you haven't tried it........ 'As far as I can tell, this is purely your invention. There's stuff in "Queer in the 21st century" that I would obect to as part of any school curriculum, but that's not there, nor is it in anyting from GLSEN I've seen.
people who are in favor of pushing the homosexual agenda in schoolsAnd precisely what would this "homosexual agenda" be?

perldog007
12-10-2009, 05:33 PM
Green eyes are genetic, homosexual sodomy is a choice......
Yes no maybe. I have known some folks who definitely had very imbalanced hormones for their gender.

I don't care what the man does in his time off from work. It's what happens in the schools that I object to and making this agenda a "safety " issue causes me problems.

I am against name dropping to make a point, but if you knew my story you would know I am at least in a position to have an informed opinion on this kind of bullying.

Before I got it out of my system I was kicking in a door in West Philly with a bail chit in my pocket. I understand how damaging it can be.

Having said that, bullying and violence are a problem for more than gay students and holding clinics on fisting isn't going to make that go away. Punishing offenders will.

Keith are you trying to tell me that gay groups don't have political agendas?

By focusing only on issues that confront glbt students GLSEN and Jennings are provably unconcerned with the larger picture of school safety. You have apparently conceded that orientation is not the primary motivation for bullying. So by concentrating on the GLBT issue Jennings and GLSEN are ignoring the larger at risk population. That is not concern for safety of students. Spin it how you want.

I am not saying we don't need to be concerned with protecting all students, I am just saying that we need to protect all students.

I hesitate to denigrate an entire group of folks based on beliefs. I also hesitate to call somebody's religious beliefs nasty because they believe in abstinence. My son did, and he's a great kid. In fact without nasty people like him we wouldn't have the freedoms that we do.

LeeG
12-10-2009, 05:33 PM
The most common reason for bullying is body size/type and appearance, not sexual orientation.


This is delusion for the sake of argument.

LeeG
12-10-2009, 05:38 PM
Green eyes are genetic, homosexual sodomy is a choice......

Except sexuality isn't confined to sodomy, although it appears popular amongst heterosexual males if porn is any indication.

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 05:41 PM
By focusing only on issues that confront glbt students GLSEN and Jennings are provably unconcerned with the larger picture of school safety. GLSEN is concerned with the treatment of gay students. That's their mission. They aren't concerned with general bullying, nor with feeding the hungry, taking in stray cats, helping the homeless, or saving endangered species. That's OK. Habitat for Humanity isn't concerned with harassment of gay students, and that's OK too.

Jennings, OTOH, if he's doing his job for the government, should be concerned with everybody. If it turns out he's only worried about gay students, that's wrong. However, that's not what anyone has claimed.
I also hesitate to call somebody's religious beliefs nasty because they believe in abstinence.I didn't say that. I said that this one particular fellow presented some nasty ideas. He did.

Kaa
12-10-2009, 05:43 PM
I also hesitate to call somebody's religious beliefs nasty because they believe in abstinence.

Oh, I suspect what was nasty wasn't the belief in abstinence. What tends to be nasty is the attitude towards people who believe otherwise. We get to listen to rants about "sluts" and "harlots" and the sinfulness of sex, and God's punishments, and whatnot.

Kaa

Rick-Mi
12-10-2009, 05:44 PM
I don't care what the man does in his time off from work. It's what happens in the schools that I object to and making this agenda a "safety " issue causes me problems.

I am against name dropping to make a point, but if you knew my story you would know I am at least in a position to have an informed opinion on this kind of bullying.

Before I got it out of my system I was kicking in a door in West Philly with a bail chit in my pocket. I understand how damaging it can be.

Having said that, bullying and violence are a problem for more than gay students and holding clinics on fisting isn't going to make that go away. Punishing offenders will.


007 we are pretty much on the same page, except you have been more cordial in the way you respond to the pro Kevin Jennings crowd. In fact, I alluded to the same thing about the failure of schools to prevent and stop bullying previously in this thread. That is where a strong emphasis needs to be made right now in the educational system which cuts across all race, sex and orientation lines. Sadly, the activists are much more interested in pushing a much different homosexual agenda.

perldog007
12-10-2009, 05:44 PM
As far as I can tell, this is purely your invention.
That is cited by MassResistance in the second tape from the link I posted and a written transcript is there as well. I am repeating and referencing, not inventing.


There's stuff in "Queer in the 21st century" that I would obect to as part of any school curriculum, but that's not there, nor is it in anyting from GLSEN I've seen.
No, it's there in the MassResistance report.


And precisely what would this "homosexual agenda" be?

The gay rights movement has several demands, they have recently marched on Washington. The specific list is not relevant to this discussion. Mr. Jennings suitability as a safe schools czar is. But we can't seem to stick to that.

We want to run down the minutia and argue the semantics of every point into the ground. The fact is that bullying of GLBT students is not the biggest safety risk to our children in school.

The fact is that the actions of GLSEN under Jenning's leadership seem to have more to do with promoting homosexuality in schools than with student safety.

If the man is a safe schools czar I want to see some qualifications for safety of the students and educators.

I am not sure my son would have been any safer at Atlantic City High School if he properly knew how to fist, swallow semen, or where he could go to meed a guy who doesn't drink and can entertain.

In fact his "very nasty" religious beliefs and work ethic may have contributed to his safety. Bizarre, but probably true. That was his choice, not one I encouraged. Quite frankly, I thought his values would subject him to ridicule and bullying, but he earned respect.

perldog007
12-10-2009, 05:47 PM
Oh, I suspect what was nasty wasn't the belief in abstinence. What tends to be nasty is the attitude towards people who believe otherwise. We get to listen to rants about "sluts" and "harlots" and the sinfulness of sex, and God's punishments, and whatnot.

Kaa

Seriously? you don't see the barbs and insults in posts from the left as well?


BTW, my son went through High School wearing a promise ring. Much to his g/f's chagrin. Never heard him rant about sluts,harlots, or sin, just that he believed that he should wait. So that's another generalization to go along with the one about Jenning's opponents having a problem with a gay man in education.

Rick-Mi
12-10-2009, 05:50 PM
The fact is that the actions of GLSEN under Jenning's leadership seem to have more to do with promoting homosexuality in schools than with student safety.

If the man is a safe schools czar I want to see some qualifications for safety of the students and educators.

I am not sure my son would have been any safer at Atlantic City High School if he properly knew how to fist, swallow semen, or where he could go to meet a guy who doesn't drink and can entertain.


Ding, ding, ding!!!

Kaa
12-10-2009, 08:27 PM
BTW, my son went through High School wearing a promise ring. Much to his g/f's chagrin. Never heard him rant about sluts,harlots, or sin, just that he believed that he should wait. So that's another generalization to go along with the one about Jenning's opponents having a problem with a gay man in education.

Perldog, hard as it is to believe, it's not all about you. Or your son.

Did you notice how I said "tends to be nasty"? This means that some people -- but not all people -- who are in favor of abstinence will be nasty when talking about sexually active teens. Are you going to tell me such people do not exist?

I have no problems at all with people who like abstinence -- for themselves. It's their choice. But we're talking about people who tell others what's proper and what's not -- and why. That's a bit different.

Kaa

perldog007
12-10-2009, 09:24 PM
Perldog, hard as it is to believe, it's not all about you. Or your son.

Did you notice how I said "tends to be nasty"? This means that some people -- but not all people -- who are in favor of abstinence will be nasty when talking about sexually active teens. Are you going to tell me such people do not exist?

I have no problems at all with people who like abstinence -- for themselves. It's their choice. But we're talking about people who tell others what's proper and what's not -- and why. That's a bit different.

Kaa

I would not tell you that at all, it's all about Kevin Jennings with his demonstrated focus on homosexual issues being put in charge of "safe schools" and his suitability for that position.

Indeed, we are talking about people who tell others what is proper and what's not and why, it's the same thing. I am reading posts of people who are not only telling me that it's proper to have Mr. Jennings in his current position, but why.

This is somehow more morally defensible than the religious fundamentalist who holds beliefs on what kind of sexual behavior is proper and why.

None of which has anything to do with the apparent mission of school safety.and the plausibility of a homosexual-centric acceptance program as a means to achieve that goal.

It's a less than compelling argument, with dubious benefits. Wouldn't all the children be better served by an aggressive stance against all bullying? Shouldn't all minorities be accepted and mainstreamed not just gays?

Hard as it is to believe, I am using my own and my son's experience to illustrate a point just as another poster did to support an opposing belief and position. I didn't notice you letting that guy know it wasn't all about him. Or his daughter.

I can't see much moral difference between those who champion abstinence while insisting that promiscuity is wrong and those who insist that teaching fisting to fourteen year olds, Telling 12 year olds that experimenting with homosexuality is akin to eating vegetables and don't knock it if you haven't tried it, who defend handing out material to children that includes a list of local gay bars, is right and think there is nothing wrong with teens and adults having sexual relationships and that all this somehow is a proper focus for school safety in lieu of focusing on more far reaching issues.

Then they want to tell me why. Vive la difference? Que difference?

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 10:28 PM
it's all about Kevin Jennings with his demonstrated focus on homosexual issues being put in charge of "safe schools" and his suitability for that position. May I point out that Mr. Jennings' job now is not the same as his job before his appointment? He was head of GLSEN, which is an organization which focuses exclusively on gay issues. If in his current position he focuses exclusively, or even largely on gay issues to the exclusion of other important problems, I will join you in condemning him (although perhaps not for the same reasons). He has not done that. No one has shown any evidence that he will. You can read his official biographical summary here, (http://www.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/jennings.html) if you're interested in what he's actually done. And I should point out that his first political appointmant was by a Republican governor.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here in the right-wing attacks on various members of the Obama administration,. The tactic is first to pick someone who's not a straight white male. Then one finds a few quotes which appear, when taken in isolation, to support the idea that the person is a dangerous radical, and repeats them endlessly. Thus Anita Dunn turns into a Maoist, Kevin Jennings into a sex-crazed predatory queer who wants to teach all 14-year-olds about "fisting". To do this, one of course has to ignore the rest of evidence of the person's entire career, anything else they've said and done, and fling any common sense out the window - but as long as it supports the preconceived idea the Obama appoints wackos, any evidence, no matter how tenuous or implausible, is the Truth. However, Mr. Jennings is not a wacko, has had an extremely distinguished career, and has already done far more good in the world than most of us will ever do.

perldog007
12-10-2009, 10:47 PM
You can spin it any way you want. You read the GLSEN site, you know the agenda that he has set and his apparent belief that the way to mainstream homosexuality and advance gay issues is to promote homosexuality in schools as a safety issue.

Fair enough. That's not the person I want as a safe schools czar and it doesn't tell me how he is going to make the schools safe. What his official bio you linked tells me is that he left teaching 15 years ago to concentrate on GLSEN. That's been his focus and I still don't understand how that will make our schools safer.

I didn't say he was a wacko, personal attacks aren't my thing. I am saying that there are more pressing issues in school safety than GLBT issues and that the scope of bullying goes far beyond orientation. To focus on that as GLSEN has will be less than effective.

I still maintain that his own account of the sophomore in a relation with an adult who expressed suicidal ideation and which was not reported may tend to indicate a tendency to promote homosexuality over child safety.

I still maintain that the material distributed at Brookline High in '06 may also tend to indicate an interest in promoting homosexuality over safety.

When we evaluate somebody for a job, we look at their resume. His is heavy on gay issues, light on student safety overall. The criticism is not totally unfounded.

Wouldn't it make sense to hire a person who had been a resource officer for the last fifteen years focused on the safety of all students?

Keith Wilson
12-10-2009, 10:58 PM
I didn't say he was a wacko,No, you didn't. Several of the sites you and other people referenced were much less reasonable, although "wacko" was my own word. My last paragraph was not directed at you. I do think you are confusing "promoting homosexuality" (I still don't see how one can realistically do this) with promoting acceptance of homosexuals.

I think Jennings has done a very good job for gay students with GLSEN; I expect he will be able to expand his focus and do a good job for everybody in his new position.

ljb5
12-10-2009, 11:04 PM
You read the GLSEN site, you know the agenda that he has set and his apparent belief that the way to mainstream homosexuality and advance gay issues is to promote homosexuality in schools as a safety issue.


I think it would have been irresponsible if someone working at GLSEN didn't promote gay issues. It's their job.

So you shouldn't freak out that someone whose job was to promote gay issues actually had the audacity to promote gay issues.

On the other hand, he doesn't work there anymore. People often move from one job to another and their responsibilities change as a result. Dick Cheney, for example, stopped being the CEO of Halliburton and stopped promoting their agenda as soon as he entered the White House.

perldog007
12-10-2009, 11:05 PM
No, you didn't. Several of the sites you and other people referenced were much less reasonable, although "wacko" was my own word. My last paragraph was not directed at you. I do think you are confusing "promoting homosexuality" (I still don't see how one can realistically do this) with promoting acceptance of homosexuals.

I think Jennings has done a very good job for gay students with GLSEN; I expect he will be able to expand his focus and do a good job for everybody in his new position.

. He hasn't demonstrated any tendencies to place safety ahead of the GLSEN agenda of protecting gay students by promoting homosexuality ( you do this by desensitizing impressionable young folks with "workshops" where you tell them " dont knock it if you haven't tried it" and go into graphic detail of various sexual acts, handing out materials like "Queer in the 21st century" etc, basically by doing exactly what Jennings and GLSEN have been doing and what was outlined in the 1995 speech).

On what do you found your expectations and why is he more qualified than somebody who has spent the last fifteen years focused on protecting all students, like a resource officer?

ljb5
12-10-2009, 11:09 PM
On what do you found your expectations and why is he more qualified than somebody who has spent the last fifteen years focused on protecting all students, like a resource officer?

He founded an organization devoted to protecting the rights of an under-served and persecuted minority.

Whether you like it or not, that shows more initiative and is more pro-active than being a resource officer.

perldog007
12-11-2009, 05:59 AM
He founded an organization devoted to protecting the rights of an under-served and persecuted minority.

Whether you like it or not, that shows more initiative and is more pro-active than being a resource officer.


That's an opinion, what about folks like the resource officer in Harwich CT that started a boat building program volunteering his own time to reach out to at risk teens who did not fit into other extra curricular activities regardless of orientation?

That shows initiative to me, and it clearly demonstrates putting the kids welfare ahead of any political agenda. Not to mention that the officer did this without being paid for it, did Jennings?

GLSEN is focused on promoting gay rights issues by mainstreaming homosexuality, as stated earlier, fair enough. This is America and we have freedom of speech and I am not advocating that anybody have their civil rights violated.

If the focus on school safety is going to be GLBT acceptance then the under served minority will be the majority of bullying victims.

We are still left with the notion that the man has spent the last fifteen years focused on the GLBT student issues and has shown us nothing regarding an understanding of any other school safety issues, which is to say most of them.

Mr. Jennings and GLSEN, while perhaps admirably serving the interests of GLBT students, have demonstrated a tendency to put safety of students at a lower priority than promotion of homosexuality to young people.

Initiative is good. Experience and knowledge of safety issues is what i want in a safe schools czar on my tax dollar.

perldog007
12-11-2009, 06:53 AM
I think it would have been irresponsible if someone working at GLSEN didn't promote gay issues. It's their job.

So you shouldn't freak out that someone whose job was to promote gay issues actually had the audacity to promote gay issues.

On the other hand, he doesn't work there anymore. People often move from one job to another and their responsibilities change as a result. Dick Cheney, for example, stopped being the CEO of Halliburton and stopped promoting their agenda as soon as he entered the White House.

Somebody apparently was promoting Haliburton/KBR...... I will never be convinced that Cheney had nothing to do with all of the money Haliburton made on the war, and continues to make.

Nothing wrong with a gay rights advocacy group. There is something wrong with the way the subject is being presented to students.

For starter's , if that kind of crude descriptive language is needed to communicate with these kids somebody needs to be teaching english before we worry about the proper way to get your fist up your classmate's butt.

We should freak out when a person who is entrusted with protecting our children has shown a tendency to promote a personal agenda ahead of student safety going back to the time before he founded GLSEN.

None of which tells us why a man who left education fifteen years ago to promote GLBT agenda issues by 'educating' children on homosexuality in the way that GLSEN has is a qualification for making our schools safe and drug free.

Perhaps it was the mention of "poppers" and list of gay bars in the booklet handed out to children in 2006?

Seriously, other than partisan posturing what can anybody tell me about how teaching children the details of gay sex makes our schools safer? For who?

Is somebody trying to tell me that gay relationships are free from violence? Sounds like some folks are pretty far disconnected from the gay community.

Could it be that some believe that teaching our kids proper fisting and fellatio etiquette will stop gang violence and bullying? Drugs on campus?

Anybody want to buy a vowel or something?

TomF
12-11-2009, 09:44 AM
With respect, Perldog, I provided a quote and link from the National Association of Secondary School Principals earlier in the thread, in which they applauded Jennings' appointment. Applauded it on the basis of the contributions he'd already made to school safety.

Their opinion of his contributions to school safety goes back earlier than this appointment - they'd given Jennings a Distinguished Contributions award for that very thing back in 2007. I doubt it was for developing curricula teaching fisting, or semen-swallowing etiquette. And presumably, the Secondary School Principals would have given such an award to, say, a career safety resource officer instead ... had they felt that person's contributions to their own schools' safety was more marked.

Finally, the skills needed to be a senior administrator with a national mandate are somewhat different from the skills needed in the direct-service-delivery level. As the founder and exec director of an influential national advocacy organization, Jennings has rather demonstrated that executive ability ... even to those who dislike GSLEN's opinions.

That combination of striking support by a pre-eminent stakeholder organization of educators for what they consider his distinguished contributions to their schools' safety, and undeniable executive success, suggests Jennings is well qualified to take on a broader but related role within the same education sector.

Keith Wilson
12-11-2009, 10:04 AM
I've seen GLSEN's website (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/home/index.html), and a some of the printed material they put out. They send me fund-raising letters every couple of months, also. (I haven't ever sent money; maybe now I will.) Nowhere does any of it have graphic descriptions of any kind of sex. In fact, the only place I've ever seen such things were right-wing websites. Now I'm not saying they made it up; they didn't. I am saying it was carefully selected from a much larger amount of material to give the impression that it's standard procedure - i.e. a smear, based on a very small amount of controversial material, ignoring the totality. Check out the website; it gives a pretty clear idea of what they're about.

Kaa
12-11-2009, 10:25 AM
Anybody want to buy a vowel or something?

Well. Clearly sex-ed according to a sexual morality different from yours sticks in your craw. Fine -- go hassle your school district, then. For me it's not really a question of abstinence vs. promiscuity -- it's a question of intolerance vs. tolerance. You think they're morally equivalent -- I don't.

Kaa

ljb5
12-11-2009, 11:01 AM
Somebody apparently was promoting Haliburton/KBR...... I will never be convinced that Cheney had nothing to do with all of the money Haliburton made on the war, and continues to make.

Yes, I was being facetious when I said Cheney stopped working for Halliburton.


Nothing wrong with a gay rights advocacy group. There is something wrong with the way the subject is being presented to students.

Well, you've got a right to your opinion.... but that's about it. The guy you voted for lost the election. This is our political system. Respect it.

Donn
12-11-2009, 11:10 AM
I've seen GLSEN's website (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/home/index.html), and a some of the printed material they put out. ....Check out the website; it gives a pretty clear idea of what they're about.

I agree. The best place to look for accurate unbiased information is the website of the organization in question.

While you're at it, check out Rush Limbaugh's website, and the RNC's website.

007...you're howling at the moon here. If Obama appointed Michael Vick head of the SPCA, these kool-aid drinkers would find a way to justify it.

perldog007
12-11-2009, 11:11 AM
The feelings of the National Association of Secondary School Principals are theirs to have and to hold and I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that promoting homosexuality as a an acceptable lifestyle may make schools safer for some students.

Your pre-eminent stakeholders are part of an undeniable measurable decline in America's world standing regarding public education. Perhaps their focus on fringe social agendas as opposed to more substantive safety issues has had something to do with said decline ? American education has hardly been a model to follow in recent years so I am not placing that much weight on the associations leanings.

I will say here and now that it's a good thing that gay students have an advocacy group dedicated to making schools a safe place for them. No child should be denied education based on sexual preference or orientation.

Mr. Jennings may have demonstrated executive skills, but we just elected a president who didn't have any executive experience.

What Mr. Jennings does not have is demonstrated experience dealing with the majority of safety issues confronting students. The glbt community is a small part of the student body with specific issues that Mr. Jennings has spent the last fifteen years focused on.

We still have the apparent of instances where Mr. Jennings and GLSEN have chosen to promote homosexuality ahead of student safety.

The GLSEN website does indeed give a pretty clear idea of what they are about, they are concerned with the acceptance of GLBT students and their safety. I may disagree with some of their methods as portrayed in this thread, but it's a wonderful goal. By all means donate if you are so inclined. I am a C.O.R.E. man myself, to each his own.

Kaa, we aren't talking about sexual morality we are talking about student safety. Clearly what sticks in my craw is the blind support for this appointee just because folks on the right object to his appointment.

For me it's a question of political correctness versus real concern for student safety.

I am not saying that the man is disqualified because he is gay. I am saying that does not qualify him, and the kind of materials and workshops GLSEN and GSA have visited upon our impressionable youth do not address the major safety issues on campus today.

I am saying that defending this man's appointment just because you approve of this administration is morally equivalent to opposing it because of his orientation.

perldog007
12-11-2009, 11:16 AM
007...you're howling at the moon here. If Obama appointed Michael Vick head of the SPCA, these kool-aid drinkers would find a way to justify it.

Guilty as charged sir, I have made six online job applications, had my coffee. Too cold for epoxy to cure, not in the mood for a kayak trip and don't have a wetsuit/drysuit ( they would have to kill a lot of wet/dry to make a suit for my big butt )

So I need a hobby for the day. Besides it's good practice. I freelance content and copy write here and there. Call them what you will, this is a smart and educated bunch.

Rump rangling in the bilge for a few hours a day can only improve your typing speed and written communication skills.

perldog007
12-11-2009, 11:25 AM
Yes, I was being facetious when I said Cheney stopped working for Halliburton.



Well, you've got a right to your opinion.... but that's about it. The guy you voted for lost the election. This is our political system. Respect it.

I am respecting our system by doing what good citizens are supposed to do, questioning our officials and engaging in debate.

I would like to think that Mr. Jennings no longer has the GLSEN agenda as his first priority since the safety of all students is presumably his interest and vocation at present. I would also like to think he has qualifications in areas like physical security, gang violence, drug policy, and dealing with the majority of bullying incidents which typically are based on appearance/body type/size and not sexual orientation.

I remain unconvinced and nobody defending the man's appointment except Tom F. has offered anything to suggest he is qualified. Tom has pointed out that the man has had executive experience.

True, he has. Sarah Palin arguably has more executive experience and I don't think she would go for gay students being bullied either, but the same folks that are defending Jennings are generally ( that means not always ) the ones we find smearing Palin on this board.

While I will readily concede that executive experience is a good thing, it does not provide a base of experience or knoweldge of the problems facing our students. Since most students aren't GLBT,it would seem that Mr. Jenning's work makes him ill prepared for serving the interests of the larger student body.

Kaa
12-11-2009, 11:26 AM
Your pre-eminent stakeholders are part of an undeniable measurable decline in America's world standing regarding public education. Perhaps their focus on fringe social agendas as opposed to more substantive safety issues ?

Perhaps it doesn't have anything to do with safety issues at all?

The real problems of the US public education system are not student safety problems.


Kaa, we aren't talking about sexual morality we are talking about student safety. Clearly what sticks in my craw is the blind support for this appointee just because folks on the right object to his appointment.

Well, maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but you sure have been talking a lot about fisting and lists of gay bars and "don't knock it till you try it" and all the other stuff that looks like sexual morality to me.


I am saying that defending this man's appointment just because you approve of this administration is morally equivalent to opposing it because of his orientation.

Um. Well, I neither defend this man's appointment (and I don't care much about it, this position is fairly useless and ineffective), nor approve of this administration. So..?

Kaa

perldog007
12-11-2009, 11:44 AM
Perhaps it doesn't have anything to do with safety issues at all?

The real problems of the US public education system are not student safety problems.

Agreed, which makes the endorsement of the association less worthy of consideration for me.




Well, maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but you sure have been talking a lot about fisting and lists of gay bars and "don't knock it till you try it" and all the other stuff that looks like sexual morality to me.

May look that way to you, it looks like a group that does not have student safety at the top of their list to me.




Um. Well, I neither defend this man's appointment (and I don't care much about it, this position is fairly useless and ineffective), nor approve of this administration. So..?

Kaa

Then I guess you don't have a dog in this fight and are just bored, fair enough.

Kaa
12-11-2009, 11:50 AM
Then I guess you don't have a dog in this fight and are just bored, fair enough.

Not exactly. For me, the thread is less about a government official and more about what's suitable/appropriate/acceptable to teach kids in a public school with regard to sex.

Kaa

perldog007
12-11-2009, 12:00 PM
Not exactly. For me, the thread is less about a government official and more about what's suitable/appropriate/acceptable to teach kids in a public school with regard to sex.

Kaa

Fair enough as well. I don't object to much of the subject matter, but have problems with the presentation.

I don't think children should be encouraged to try any type of sex by teachers as occurred with the female teacher and the "Don't knock it...." examply from the Massresistance tape #2.

I don't think high school kids need a list of gay bars, or advice on where to meet guys who can ''entertain'.

I don't think teen/adult sexual relationships are appropriate age of consent and legality not withstanding. When a child reports such a relationship and responds to a suggestion to use condoms by indicating suicidal ideation, that needs to be reported to a mental health professional.

When we have to resort to terms like "f---ing" and "blow jobs" to teach sex education maybe some vocabulary work is needed.

Certainly accurate information and appropriate warnings are appropriate. If children have questions about sexuality they need a good source of information. I don't think they should be denied information on belief systems that advocate abstinence, or that they should be censored from information about homosexuality or promiscuity.

To me the thread is about Mr. Jenning's appointment as "Safe schools czar" and his suitability for the job.