Re: Obama nominee to Dept of Education position advocates non-halachic sex practices to children

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:27:35 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cstein1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 9, 11:34 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:35:51 +0000 (UTC), cindys

<cste...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please explain homosexual fisting to your 12-year-old child or
grandchildren.  That is just one of the practices this nominee
insisted on teaching schoolchildren in Massachusetts.  Read the
link.  Read the links within the link.  Good for dieting.
------------
And what about heterosexual fisting? Nobody ever got pregnant or an
STD from fisting.

That's because most people would run away screaming if someone
suggested it to them.

And suppose a kid heard the word from his friends
and didn't know what it was? And then he asked the sex ed teacher. And
the teacher explained it. I don't see a problem.

I don't like that.  People don't need to know everything, and they
don't need to know a lot of other things at an early age. How much
kids know about some things is a decision for the parents to make.

Which would be exactly contrary to the point of public school sex
education.

Sex education within limits is okay. As long as parents can keep there
kids out of it if they want, though I myself wouldn't do that if the
curriclum were moderate. (And I don't necessarily mean it has to be
as moderate as what I described that I had in 1960. But I can't
remember what it contained except a bunch of biology and that one line
about inviting a girl to to swimming.)

The point of public school sex education is to give kids a
chance to ask questions and provide them with answers and information.
If the kids know enough to ask the question, they are entitled to an
answer.

That doesn't follow.

Every parent has a different idea regarding what is
appropriate for his or her child to "know." The public school sex
education curriculum is not customized for each child on the basis of

And that would be the problem. OTOH, most parents would agree on the
issues of the Revolutionary war or what a solution to a quadratic
equation is, so there is no problem including those in almost any US
school curriculum.

what his or her particular set of parents want him or her to know. If
the parents have an issue with this, then they should opt their child
out entirely.

All of nothing? I'm generally not in favor of such a rule. But you
do here seem to be saying that if the English or biology teacher is
asked the same question, rather than the sex ed teacher, they can say
I don't know. Is that ok?

But bear in mind that the reason that sex education was
first established in public school was because many parents were not
providing their children with any information at all. If all parents

Yes I know. There is a public interest in children knowing enough to
not get a venereal disease and in not transmitting it to others; and
in not getting pregnant when they don't affirmatively want to
(although that topic has its own problems)

But there is little or no public interest benefit in a kid knowing
about fisting. LIke many other things someone might want to do to
you or with you, like hold up a 7-11, if in the unlikely event someone
suggests it to hir, s/he can ask then, What is it? and if in the
unlikely event someone tries it with hir, s/he can say yes or no then.
If one person is willing to force it on the other, the first one won't
be calling it by name or allowing the other party to just say no.

provided sex education for their children, there wouldn't be a need
for sex education in public school in the first place.

Yes. But that's still true even if none of them answered questions
about fisting.

There's nothing wrong with a teacher's saying "I don't know" even if
he does.

And there's nothing wrong with a teacher providing a child an answer
to a question about sex in sex education class.

If naming it sex education means all the rules are dropped, then we
should call it by some other name. Unwanted Disease and Pregancy
Aversion class is the first one that comes to mind.

 Unless he's had first-hand experience, unlikely, he can
always say "I don't know exactly".  "Exactly" is usually a way to
avoid a lie if that bothers him.

If answering questions about sex makes a teacher uncomfortable, then
he probably shouldn't be teaching the class.

OTContrary, we shouldn't hire teachers who insist on answering every
question a child can think of, whether he is comfortable doing so or
not.

I would also like to
see evidence that the nominee "insisted" on "teaching about" fisting
to schoolchildren in Massachusetts.

That I doubt.  Sadly, all the lies that circulate so freely now have
made me much more skeptical than I was, and I was always skeptical.

Maybe, if a kid asked about it,
the teacher should have responded that it's a disgusting, nonhalachic,
unbiblical practice, popular with "queers" and perverts, and the kid
should be ashamed of himself for having raised the question in the
first place. Yeah, that's what sex education should be all about.

And BTW, if one of my sons asked me what "fisting" was, I would tell
him. And I've also had to explain to both of my sons that
homosexuality is genetic and people are born that way, and that

Explain?  That implies it's totally true.  

As far as I'm concerned, it is.

Ann Landers and my brother

Ann Landers and your brother? Are they geneticists?

Why? Has the gay gene been found? I hear it hasn't. And if a gene
is found, how long will it take to prove that genes alone control who
is gay and who isn't.

And does the gay gene replace the straight gene, or is there a
bi-sexual gene, or are there more than one gene involved in this?

And what about gestation and environment (which includes both the
physcial environment and the interpersonal environment)? Have those
been excluded as causes. I don't think this could have been done
conclusively or even close.

think for some it is genetic and for some it's not. I tend to agree.
For some, even some who like it, I think it would be like eating
snails, an acquired taste.

(contrary to what they've been taught in their Jewish school), people
don't "turn gay" from reading pornography.

Maybe not from pornography, but what about from first-hand activities
initiated by someone who is older?

Now you're beginning to sound like Omega.

Oy.

People are gay or they're
not. Children are not "turned gay" because someone preyed upon them.

I'm not suggesting here that someone could be reversed but that
someone's range of practices could be enlarged from what they would
have been.

I was thinking either A) of a heterosexual who became bi-sexual in his
practices (regardless of his inner feelings) when someone did things
to him or got him to do things.

or B) a person with little or no experience who could have and
conceviably might yet enjoy heterosex, but was first introduced by
homosex, as above. At that point, he might go looking for
heterosexual relationships in addition (or to the exclusion of the
other) or he might well just confine himself to homosexual
relationships.

The guy below must have thought I was in one of these two categories.

At the very least, those who are bi-sexual and find physical
satisfaction from both men and women would, I think, have been able to
find enough physical satisfaction from just the opposite sex if
nothing had occurred to get them started with homosexual practices.

How do you know? Every gay and bisexual man I have ever known in my
entire life (and believe me, I've know a lot of gay men but not too
many gay women) has stated unequivocally that by the time he was 5
years old, he already knew there was something different about him.
And for the homosexual ones (not bisexuals), they were never attracted
to girls, no matter how hard they tried. And every gay man I have ever
known would have given anything to have been born straight. And the
suicide rate amongst gay people is very high. This is not a lifestyle
"choice." Nobody willingly and happily makes this "choice." The only
"choice" gay people sometimes make is to get married (to women) and
have children and try to pretend that they're not gay while all the
while secretly still feeling attracted to men.

As one who was sexually molested by a homosexual, I'm sure that was
his goal.

I don't know how you can be so sure. If you were molested, you were
presumably a child.

??? Or drunk, or asleep, or unconscious or partly conscious by one's
own use of drugs, or drugged by somneone else without one's knowledge
or consent, or tied up**, or forced. I almost left out forced.

**perhaps as part of what he was led to believe was a party game.
(Like when they put a big funnel in someone's belt and tell them to
lean back and they put a quarter on hir forehead and tell hir the goal
is to flip the quarter into the funnel, but while he's leaning back,
before the leader says "Go", they pour water in his pants. That's a
popular fake party game.)

I myself was asleep.

Pedophilia is not part of homosexuality.
Pedophilia is a sick mental illness.

I was 21 years old.

If you were sexually molested by
a homosexual, then he had a mental illness (just like a heterosexual
pedophile). Normal adult homosexuals seek out relationships with other
adult homosexuals.

What is the "normal" group? Woudn't any group with 51% of the
population qualify as normal? What do the other up to 49% do.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this guy sought out
relationships with other homosexuals. But since he didn't find one,
he settled for me. "Any port in a storm."

They do not try to "turn children gay." This is the
first time I have ever heard of a child being molested by a
homosexual. Pedophilia is almost always a mental illness of
heterosexuals.

I was 21.

Best regards,
---Cindy S.

Best regards,
---Cindy S.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading