What kind of twisted explicit sexual perversions are schools now teaching?

"It's the damndest thing I've ever seen."

TheEconomist said:

I just think it is unfair to cast Marke in the role of the bad guy because you happen to dislike his point of view.

Click to expand...

I don't cast him as a bad guy at all. He's an angry guy. He's filled with impotent rage and he lashes out at everyone, then turns around and behaves like a persecuted victim.

And if you don't agree with HIS views, you're going to Hell.

marke said:

For over forty years, the New Left -- a collection of Marxists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and anarchists have been waging a Gramscian style "quiet revolution" for the overthrow of Christianity and America's Constitution, Rule of Law, sovereignty, and way of life.


Marxist Subversion & Perversion of American Youth

Click to expand...

Anarchists tend to hate tankies. I have no idea what that website is but it doesnt even look credible.

marke said:

The goals of CSE (government endorsed comprehensive sex education):

1. Teach kids to masturbate.
2. Teach kids to accept and explore diverse sexual orientations.
3. Promote high risk sexual behaviors including anal and oral sex, and teach that such sex is safe and healthy.
4. Teach kids how to achieve pleasure in sex.
5. Teach kids that sexual promiscuity is good and is an individual right.
6. Teach that abortion is good, is safe and has no negative consequences.
7. Encourage kids to experiment with sex among their peers of both sexes.
8. Teach kids of both sexes how to use condoms, why they are needed and do not inform them of failure rates.
9. Teach kids that religious objections to sexual promiscuity and perversion are lies to be dismissed as harmful myths.
10. Teach kids to disrespect parents who oppose sexual experimentation among kids or parents who promote Biblical objections to ungodly sexual activities.
11. Teach kids to confide in school officials (without parental consent or knowledge) about sexual issues and abortion.
12. Teach kids to pursue legal remedies against parents who oppose their sexual experimentation.

StopCSE.org | How CSE Harms Children

Leftist liberals see no problem with these goals of SEICUS and CSE, but these perversions being forced onto American kids will do great damage to the future soundness and security of the whole nation if not stopped by people with good sense and morals.

Click to expand...

Do you actually believe that crap? You think teachers are going out of their way to teach kids to "disrespect parents who oppose sexual experimentation among kids"? You really can't see that is complete ludicrous propaganda?

TheEconomist said:

A pompous buffoon would cloak nonsense with jargon and provide their critique with an air of sophistication by drawing on unusual vocabulary. When you make insinuations about me, you should try to have something to back it up. I have nothing to hide behind big words. If you are confused, you can always ask me to rephrase my point.

Click to expand...

Arrogant buffoons should not accuse me of being arrogant. It reflects badly on them.

devildavid said:

Where is your evidence that Democrats are literally busing in illegal immigrants by the tens of thousands?

Click to expand...

Leftist Americans are providing money and guidance to thousands of illegals in their home country, enabling them to travel to the US. The illegal immigrants are instructed by the Americans how to apply for asylum and to enter the country in a manner in which they cannot be turned away. Then American leftists criticize Border Control officials for upholding the laws they are sworn to uphold, comparing them to death squads in the 3rd Reich. That is inexcusable.

noonereal said:

maybe you can find a rock to hide kids under?

Click to expand...

I can warn parents about what heavy breather government sex education perverts are doing to train their little girls in the art of getting and receiving sexual pleasure even before puberty. I do not back down from accusing Kevin Jennings of being a heavy breather sex pervert specially appointed by BO Bama to establish perverted sex indoctrination standards in American public schools.

TheEconomist said:

There is something to your claim, though I dislike the formulation. To make things clear, you're pointing out that naive atheists would argue that the "absence of evidence" is equivalent to the "evidence of absence." Yes, that is a fallacy, but it's not the most interesting aspect of the problem: the claim that there is "absence of evidence" is itself fundamentally problematic because "God did X" is not a scientific hypothesis. The power of God presumably knows no boundary, so there is no restriction on how he might do X, or on his ability to do X. Therefore, nothing can even in principle lead someone to conclusively reject "God did X." It might be true, and it might be false, but it is most certainly not science.

Click to expand...

Men define science and establish its parameters. They exclude God because God cannot be scientifically apprehended or measured. The common mistake men make is to assume God must be either unreal or insignificant because He cannot be scientifically measured. That is wrong. God is true and science remains ignorant about supernatural entities and issues. Science is extremely limited and unavoidably ignorant about a huge number of issues pertaining to life.

The less charitable way to read the argument made by some atheists is to do what you did. More charitably, I wonder what is the point of assuming the existence of God or claiming the existence of God when it is void of consequences for the kind of facts we should expect to see and the kind of facts we should expect not to see. God is presumably all-powerful, so everything and anything is possible. It adds exactly nothing to our capacity to understand how nature, human beings or societies work because omnipotence cannot constrain reality, by definition.

Click to expand...

Humans make themselves fools when they assume God does not exist because they cannot apprehend Him or force Him into their extremely limited concepts of what they like to call 'science.'

The existence of God might have normative consequences for how you experience life, make choices and behave, but it is thoroughly useless when plowing through data. Americans somehow have this belief that they have "to prove" God exists, that somehow their religious commitments are rationalized by connecting scripture to facts; and, the opposite for Atheists. I ignore the origins of this dispute, but I suspect it is due to path dependence: you're arguing like this because the dispute somehow was started on the battlefield of empirical relevance. It's probably the weakest possible argument you can make to defend the value of scripture and, for Atheists, trying to refute the existence of something that is compatible with every possible set of facts is about as stupid an exercise as it gets.

Click to expand...

Humans are notorious for assuming they understand nearly all there is to know about the issues of life when they as yet know nothing about God.

marke said:

Leftist Americans are providing money and guidance to thousands of illegals in their home country, enabling them to travel to the US. The illegal immigrants are instructed by the Americans how to apply for asylum and to enter the country in a manner in which they cannot be turned away. Then American leftists criticize Border Control officials for upholding the laws they are sworn to uphold, comparing them to death squads in the 3rd Reich. That is inexcusable.

Click to expand...

So, no evidence. Just more wacky claims with no evidence to back them. You can't be taken seriously. Your act is transparent.

TheEconomist said:

Read carefully what he is saying while asking yourself how a reasonable person could justify marke's objection to CSE. For reference, here is a line from his early statement:
I think he actually has a point, though some verbal cues in his statement might have prohibited many people from reading it with a cool mind. When someone on the right invokes concepts drawn from the lexicon of purity like "perversion," most people on the left immediately know they have to disagree. Actually, as every human being, they're not even aware of it.

One thing Marke gets right is that the CSE does embody a certain social vision: it is not merely descriptive, but in fact normative. To some extent, calling these objectives "sexual education" hides the fact we're imposing a view of sexuality on all children nationwide, irrespective of the objections made by their parents or by religious communities. I am quite sure everyone who laughs at Marke here would be reacting quite like Marke if the content of the CSE was dictated by Christian doctrines instead of a libertine attitude toward sexuality. The important question that is left aside here, in other words, is who gets to decide what to teach children? Almost everyone on the left here, it seems, condones the government deciding on behalf of everyone how children should learn about sexuality, what kind of topics should be covered and what kinds of opinions are acceptable in this context.

If we carefully reviewed the claims that sexual education reduces the prevalence of things both sides might agree are problems (say, teenage pregnancy and occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases), I would be surprised if the content of CSA irremediably helped in every aspect without fault. One thing Marke does point out and which is legitimate is that it does come with a message that tends to promote sexual activity. It's not obvious that if you increase sexual encounters, increase the number of partners and change the type of sexual activities by telling kids all of this is both natural and acceptable that also including a warning about wearing condoms is going to lead to a decrease in the aforementioned problem. That doesn't even take into account the possibility that any of these presumptions might turn out to be too simplistic, or just plain wrong. I am not sure you can reasonably assume you will get the effects you wish the program had. You would need empirical studies to make that claim, ideally work that you can tell is not sloppy.

By the way, none of this means that I agree with Marke, as I generally have only a few bones to pick with the list of goals he listed on page 1 of this thread. I just think it is unfair to cast Marke in the role of the bad guy because you happen to dislike his point of view.

Click to expand...

Well said. However, the goals I listed were taken from the source I listed. I did not make them up.

Gus Fring said:

Laws against pedophilia are committed exactly to that, to keep children "in the dark about sex". Are they bad?

Just because something exists it doesn't necessarily mean that children must experiment with it for educational purpose. What about those children who are not interested in sex and want nothing to do with it?

Click to expand...

Good point. Don't teach kids all the steamy explicit details about gutter sex when they still have not yet reached puberty. Let little girls be innocent little girls for as long as possible before teaching them how to perform sexually with the skills of the most experienced hookers in the red light district.

noonereal said:

This is a good thing.

We don't need each parent teach each kid a different myth

how many different species of anti vaxxers can a country stand? Look at how the creationism dolts have set back our kids.

Click to expand...

The son of a close friend of mine suffered brain damage after ingesting an assortment of drugs required by school officials. I think there may be reason to assume vaccines can or may do damage to some kids. Not even the brightest and best of educated professionals can be said to be above the possibility of being wrong about issues that many others may also be wrong about without realizing it.

calamity said:

Now where were these schools hiding while I was growing up?

Click to expand...

Sexual perversion is like leaven. It grows more prevalent and wicked over time. You may not have experienced in your day what kids are forced to experience in schools today.

CriticalThought said:

Do you actually believe that crap? You think teachers are going out of their way to teach kids to "disrespect parents who oppose sexual experimentation among kids"? You really can't see that is complete ludicrous propaganda?

Click to expand...

With Hillary and other leftists openly disrespecting and mocking Christians, why should I not believe the sex education designers' own literature when they instruct their instructors to teach kids to disrespect Christian principles of sexual abstinence and morality?

marke said:

Like you, I offer my opinions without force. Unlike you, I don't try to promote my views over others by claiming their views are thick with unjustified ignorance and bias while my views are calm, collected, reasonable and irrefutable.

Click to expand...

:shock: :roll: That is absolutely untrue. It is everything you are doing in just about every post. And your posts are nothing but biased, unreasonable and totally refutable.

Peter King said:

:shock: :roll: That is absolutely untrue. It is everything you are doing in just about every post. And your posts are nothing but biased, unreasonable and totally refutable.

Click to expand...

I get it. I am conservative and you are not. No wonder there is conflict.

marke said:

I get it. I am conservative and you are not. No wonder there is conflict.

Click to expand...

No, that is not the issue. I can get on to some degree with conservatives but you are not just a conservative you are an extremely religious person who does nothing but judging people who do not live in a matter his fantasy book states.

marke said:

I get it. I am conservative and you are not. No wonder there is conflict.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being conservative but of common sense. I am the total opposite of a conservative yet I don't think exposing kids to sex is a good idea, and the whole anti-pedophilia legislation agrees with me.

marke said:

Eat, drink and be merry, all God-rejecting savages, because tomorrow they all die without hope.

Click to expand...

There's a place for them. There are the women that are just play toys, then there are the ones suitable for marriage. Having fun with disposable women is accepted with a wink and a nod in even the most conservative churches around the world.

In the digital age, life has accelerated. Wee kiddies and teens are now exposed to the most graphic pornography at the stroke of some keys or some taps on a smart-screen. Better to arm them with age-appropriate knowledge of what they're going to see and talk about with their peers then to cast them into the sexual wilderness of an adult world without any preparation. As long as the sexual education informs, but does not promote sexual behaviour and as long as those teaching are well prepared and without an agenda, I think the earlier loss of innocence can be justified by the prospect of better protection for the children and teens.

Sexual education should be carefully crafted to be age-appropriate for the students receiving it. Elementary children do not have to know about how to put on a condom or how to safely take birth control pills. But they should be able to figure out when they are the target of others' sexual advances and how to get help if such a situation ever emerges. Very young children (Grades 4-6) should learn about their bodies and what sexual reproduction is and why it is necessary and natural. This should be done in conjunction with teaching them about plant and animal sexual reproduction. They should also learn about the consequences of sexual behaviour and the dangers of premature sexual activity. Finally young children should be made aware that some people choose or feel compelled to adopt alternative lifestyles without going into too much detail about the "plumbing" and social implications of those lifestyles.

By middle school and high school the curriculum should expand to include specific eduction about abstinence, contraception, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, sexual hygiene, abortion, parenthood, fostering and adoption. They should also be counselled in the emotional and psychological implications of entering into the adult sexual world when they are ready. They should be educated about the personal and social pressures they will experience or are experiencing in order to become sexually active and then taught appropriate strategies and coping mechanisms to avoid unwanted sexual activity until they judge themselves ready for it. They should be encouraged to talk to their parents or wider family before making any monumental decisions about their sexual lives. They should be fully informed about their rights, responsibilities and consequences of an active sex life and be fully informed of all medical options, rights and responsibilities available to them. They should study non-binary sexual situations/lifestyles in order to demystify (and perhaps make less attractive) these other sexual lifestyle alternatives (due to attraction to the forbidden and teen rebellion) but should also be fully informed of the legal, social, professional and biological challenges which go along with choosing or feeling compelled to adopt any of these lifestyles. They should also be educated in baby care, basics of parenthood, medical responsibility for infants, vaccinations, first aid and CPR, etc.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Peter King said:

No, that is not the issue. I can get on to some degree with conservatives but you are not just a conservative you are an extremely religious person who does nothing but judging people who do not live in a matter his fantasy book states.

Click to expand...

You can tolerate conservatives, just not religious conservatives? I think that may have been exactly what Hillary was saying about herself by calling some conservatives "deplorables."

marke said:

You can tolerate conservatives, just not religious conservatives? I think that may have been exactly what Hillary was saying about herself by calling some conservatives "deplorables."

Click to expand...

I don't think they are necessarily deplorable, I call their views on issue extremist and an extremism that I disagree with.

Peter King said:

I don't think they are necessarily deplorable, I call their views on issue extremist and an extremism that I disagree with.

Click to expand...

Leftist hedonist rebels against God have their standards and values and they think anyone outside the circle of those who promote such values are extremists.

marke said:

Leftist hedonist rebels against God have their standards and values and they think anyone outside the circle of those who promote such values are extremists.

Click to expand...

There is no god, the bible is not accurate it is only the ramblings of people 2 centuries ago. And the values of 2019 are thank goodness a lot different from those of 2 thousand years ago. We are not ignorant anymore and that is how simple it is.

Peter King said:

There is no god, the bible is not accurate it is only the ramblings of people 2 centuries ago. And the values of 2019 are thank goodness a lot different from those of 2 thousand years ago. We are not ignorant anymore and that is how simple it is.

Click to expand...

It's always an ironic wonder when those deluding themselves by believing the Sky Daddy/Earth Boi myth real call other people ignorant.