• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

marke said:
California, in just one example, has passed a sex education law requiring that homosexuality, transgenderism and explicit sexual practices and devices be taught in schools, and that anything religious in nature be banned from the instruction. Wicked men and women see no problem with such perversion, but God and good Christians certainly do see big problems with the perversions being forced on little kids inside or outside an educational environment.

California's Education Code 51930-51939

...the bill, which was amended to force transgender and LGBT material into the curriculum; material that included "education" on lubricants, sex toys and anal sex.

This is not safe education, it is perversion leading to huge problems in the lives of those who get caught up in the perversions. Here are snippets from the specific language of the bill:

Encourage the use of lubricants as it improves the quality of sex.
Some teachers are telling teenage daughters of unsuspecting parents how to have pleasure in sex, how to engager in perverted sex, and how to use sex toys to increase pleasure. Parents should be alarmed at this. Teachers are pushing perversions on innocent girls and if parents do not protect them then nobody will. That is tragic.

Suggest using adequate stimulation...

Recommend finding a safe. private environment and comfortable sexual position.

Tell 13-year-old girls that for their 'health?' Those who wrote this and promote it are all ungodly perverts.

California's New Sex-Ed Curriculum is About to Roll Out...What You Need to Know
Click to expand...



The bill linked to in that article seems to be quite different from the one the article is talking about.
Bill Text - AB-329 Pupil instruction: sexual health education.

Do you have a link to the actual bill this article is about?
 
marke said:
No. Kids should be taught that sex outside of marriage is wrong because it does bad things to those who engage in it. AIDS is not spread by monogamous sex in a committed marriage relationship between a husband and his wife, but by prolific sex, most commonly by homosexuals.
Click to expand...
so you do support sex education. Don't you think homosexual kids need to know?



We should teach kids what is right and to follow the godly precepts outline for us in the Bible, and that deviating from the will of God always produces unwanted consequences. To hell with them if they refuse to believe God.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you're aware of this but you share your world with other people. And they might not agree with you, and they'll vote in School board elections.



Exactly. Kids do not have to be taught how to have sexual pleasure. They will learn that when the time comes. It is as natural as breathing. And you are right, kids need to be taught not to experiment with sex but to wait for sex until after joining a mate in a committed marriage relationship as husband and wife (not a perverted relationship which consists of a husband and his husband, if you catch my drift.)
Click to expand...
yes you want to bring wash kids into believing your narrow-minded view. You are no better than the perverts you ridicule in your Op.



Sex which causes STDs is dirty. Kids need to be warned. Adulterous sex which ignores the restraints of a marriage is dirty because it is wrong.
Click to expand...
if it's dirty because it's wrong and has to be wrong because of something. saying it's wrong because Bible is not good enough.

Kids need to be taught to hate all forms of sex which violate marriage vows or cause harm to self or others.
Click to expand...
and when you figure out they were taught to hate something or indoctrinated everything you taught them right out the window. You can't lie to people and expect them to believe you.
Kids do not need to be taught that Christian values are taboo when it comes to sex.
Click to expand...
the problem is nobody can agree Christian values are. there's Christians with different values than you have and yes I know you don't think they're Christian and you are but they think they're Christian in your not. The only thing I can gather from that is you're all wrong.



Humans are also likened to animals in the Bible, but only those uncivilized barbarians who reject God and Biblical instruction.
Click to expand...
oh I'm sorry to break this to you even if you think you're following the Bible you're still an animal. People aren't plants.
 
marke said:
Atheists and assorted rebels against God cannot see the wisdom in proper sex and sex education. Wicked hedonists think that sex should be taught to little kids because there is nothing wrong with it and it feels good. The ungodly do not understand how perverted sex damages humans in multiple ways. How tragic that these dummasses are destroying the innocency of today's youth with their perverse teachings.
Click to expand...

The people that think they know what God wants better than everyone else do not understand how their fundamentalism damages humans. I think that's the primary reason people rebel against God. You make him seem like a jackass.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I don't think he understands Christian fundamentalism is exactly why Christianity is in decline. I don't want to go to church with people like that.
Click to expand...

Hi Clax...Hope you are doing well and keeping cool down there in H-Town. I don't think his thinker is working too well. and your point is spot on. I don't know what he's attempting to accomplish with his bigotry and hate rhetoric, but if his goal is to drive good people away from Christ's teachings, he is doing a stellar job in that endeavor. Stay safe buddy, and have a great summer.
 
Logician Man said:
Hi Clax...Hope you are doing well and keeping cool down there in H-Town. I don't think his thinker is working too well. and your point is spot on. I don't know what he's attempting to accomplish with his bigotry and hate rhetoric, but if his goal is to drive good people away from Christ's teachings, he is doing a stellar job in that endeavor. Stay safe buddy, and have a great summer.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what he's trying to accomplish. He's right and if you disagree you're wrong.

He actually is a right-wing social justice Warrior. The original social justice warriors were the Evangelical Christian right.

I'm reminded of a quote by one of my favorite Republicans.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

- Barry Goldwater
 
marke said:
Homosexual sex is wrong. It is perverted and destructive. It should be considered a very bad thing for society.
Click to expand...

Christianity is wrong. It is perverted and destructive. It should be considered a very bad thing for society.
 
Peter King said:
And that is of course a bunch of nonsense. She may not be a conservative christian but unlike Trump she is a christian and has done loads of religious things and has stood up for her faith and actually knows and respects the bible. You may think you voted ethically but you really are just the opposite by voting for that cheating/lying/steeling orange idiot.
Click to expand...

Hillary is not pure and innocent like her deluded followers think. She is a narcissist devil who despises Christians.
 
TheEconomist said:
I keep running into you, making bold claims about the misuse of statistics, data, and logic in "science," but I have yet to see you write explicitly about how inferences from data should be carried out and issuing discussions organized. It's not because you fill up your posts with concepts like "fallacies," "strawmen arguments," or "erroneous interpretation of data" that it somehow makes sense. Accusations need to be backed up. For starters, in my experience, people who speak like this have no clue how to answer even basic methodological questions, so I'll ask a bunch of them, just to make sure we're not talking with an ignorant.


If I pressed you to explain what is a regression, would you be able to explain it clearly? And if I asked you to move from a model to an estimator, one assumption at a time showing us clearly where and how each assumption fits into the argument, would you be able to do it? If I talk about orthogonality, would you be able to tell me what does this have to do with regressions?

Or maybe you've got some sense of how to work in a more predictive setting. Then, how about you explain to us what is a kernel and why you can use it to approximate relationships without specifying the exact functional form? Can you give an example where it is used and point out why people can introduce kernels in this method? Do you know how tres methods work? How about neural networks? Or perhaps you would care to tell us how come factor-based forecasting models tend to perform well for macroeconomic data? Can you propose a method to extract latent factors from a large dataset, assuming the data has a factor structure? Can you tell me what is the link between latent factor and the psychological literature on personality or even on intelligence?

I can go into even more basic stuff. What is the link between statistics and probability? In the Neyman-Pearson framework, why do we work from the comparison of a null versus an alternative hypothesis? When I say that a point estimate lies outside the 95% confidence interval around zero, what does this mean? What's the difference between noise and signal? What is backtesting or pseudo-out-of-sample forecasting? If someone runs 10 000 such backtests to pick out an investment strategy, what would you tell them?
Click to expand...

Don't be absurd. I don't claim to know what I don't know, I claim to understand what I do understand and to be able to read literature and ask questions. You touch on statistics and probability. I haven't been schooled in the fine details of statistics and probability, but I can understand the problem probability presents to those who wish to assume life originated on earth apart from God. It does not take a genius to see the problem but it may take a genius to try to find a way to answer the problem without acknowledging God.

Here is a sample of the argument detailing the dilemma:

Proponents of intelligent design believe that the components of life are so complex that they could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary process. To bolster their argument, they calculate the odds that a specific protein might assemble by chance in the prebiotic environment. The odds against such a chance assembly are so astoundingly immense that a protein required for life to begin could not possibly have assembled by chance on the early Earth. Therefore, the argument goes, life must have been designed.

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance | Science 2.0
 
TheEconomist said:
I keep running into you, making bold claims about the misuse of statistics, data, and logic in "science," but I have yet to see you write explicitly about how inferences from data should be carried out and issuing discussions organized. It's not because you fill up your posts with concepts like "fallacies," "strawmen arguments," or "erroneous interpretation of data" that it somehow makes sense. Accusations need to be backed up. For starters, in my experience, people who speak like this have no clue how to answer even basic methodological questions, so I'll ask a bunch of them, just to make sure we're not talking with an ignorant.


If I pressed you to explain what is a regression, would you be able to explain it clearly? And if I asked you to move from a model to an estimator, one assumption at a time showing us clearly where and how each assumption fits into the argument, would you be able to do it? If I talk about orthogonality, would you be able to tell me what does this have to do with regressions?

Or maybe you've got some sense of how to work in a more predictive setting. Then, how about you explain to us what is a kernel and why you can use it to approximate relationships without specifying the exact functional form? Can you give an example where it is used and point out why people can introduce kernels in this method? Do you know how tres methods work? How about neural networks? Or perhaps you would care to tell us how come factor-based forecasting models tend to perform well for macroeconomic data? Can you propose a method to extract latent factors from a large dataset, assuming the data has a factor structure? Can you tell me what is the link between latent factor and the psychological literature on personality or even on intelligence?

I can go into even more basic stuff. What is the link between statistics and probability? In the Neyman-Pearson framework, why do we work from the comparison of a null versus an alternative hypothesis? When I say that a point estimate lies outside the 95% confidence interval around zero, what does this mean? What's the difference between noise and signal? What is backtesting or pseudo-out-of-sample forecasting? If someone runs 10 000 such backtests to pick out an investment strategy, what would you tell them?
Click to expand...

Don't be absurd. I don't claim to know what I don't know, I claim to understand what I do understand and to be able to read literature and ask questions. You touch on statistics and probability. I haven't been schooled in the fine details of statistics and probability, but I can understand the problem probability presents to those who wish to assume life originated on earth apart from God. It does not take a genius to see the problem but it may take a genius to try to find a way to answer the problem without acknowledging God.

Here is a sample of the argument detailing the dilemma:

Proponents of intelligent design believe that the components of life are so complex that they could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary process. To bolster their argument, they calculate the odds that a specific protein might assemble by chance in the prebiotic environment. The odds against such a chance assembly are so astoundingly immense that a protein required for life to begin could not possibly have assembled by chance on the early Earth. Therefore, the argument goes, life must have been designed.

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance | Science 2.0
 
CLAX1911 said:
I don't think he understands Christian fundamentalism is exactly why Christianity is in decline. I don't want to go to church with people like that.
Click to expand...

You don't have to go to church with Christian fundamentalists. You can go wherever the hell you like.
 
Logician Man said:
Hi Clax...Hope you are doing well and keeping cool down there in H-Town. I don't think his thinker is working too well. and your point is spot on. I don't know what he's attempting to accomplish with his bigotry and hate rhetoric, but if his goal is to drive good people away from Christ's teachings, he is doing a stellar job in that endeavor. Stay safe buddy, and have a great summer.
Click to expand...

The devil's crowd hates Christians almost as much as they hate God.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I know exactly what he's trying to accomplish. He's right and if you disagree you're wrong.

He actually is a right-wing social justice Warrior. The original social justice warriors were the Evangelical Christian right.

I'm reminded of a quote by one of my favorite Republicans.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

- Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...

Republicans are not automatically saved because they vote republican, as some may erroneously think. Lots of republicans are just as wicked as their godless democrat pals.
 
Deuce said:
Christianity is wrong. It is perverted and destructive. It should be considered a very bad thing for society.
Click to expand...

You are certainly free to express your strongly believed theological views just like everyone else.
 
rose-are-red-no6gi1.jpg
 
marke said:
The devil's crowd hates Christians almost as much as they hate God.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know, and it appears you don't either. I certainly don't hate Christians and if any Gods exist, I don't hate any of them either. It would seem between the two of us, if there is a hater, you are the one doing the hating, not me. I hope for your sake, you are finally able to see the good in all people, get passed your judgemental and condemning ways, and join the non-haters so the world will become a better place for all of us to co-exist peacefully, regardless of differing religious world views.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
Homosexual sex is wrong. It is perverted and destructive. It should be considered a very bad thing for society.
Click to expand...

There's been homosexuals as long as there's been sex, everywhere in the world, and the perversion and destruction has always been only in the minds of perverted, destructive religious fundamentalists.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
You don't have to go to church with Christian fundamentalists. You can go wherever the hell you like.
Click to expand...

Most people are exposed to religion as children and they're exposed to fundamentalist churches. by the time you figure out you don't have to be a fundamentalist you figured out you don't have to be Christian at all. And it's exceedingly hard to be a Christian wear most of the time you're going to be arguing with other Christians about how Christian you are for not being part of a fundamentalist Church.

I understand why people walk away from it.
 
marke said:
Republicans are not automatically saved because they vote republican, as some may erroneously think. Lots of republicans are just as wicked as their godless democrat pals.
Click to expand...

know what I'm saying is your views are that of social justice warriors but on the right side of the political spectrum.

You're every bit as authoritarian as the far left. I'm a libertarian I reject authority illegitimate morality codes.

Basically put I don't think of you as any different from the person who says that I must accept a man who dresses as a woman as a woman. You're the same thing it's just a different flavor.
 
Logician Man said:
I wouldn't know, and it appears you don't either. I certainly don't hate Christians and if any Gods exist, I don't hate any of them either. It would seem between the two of us, if there is a hater, you are the one doing the hating, not me. I hope for your sake, you are finally able to see the good in all people, get passed your judgemental and condemning ways, and join the non-haters so the world will become a better place for all of us to co-exist peacefully, regardless of differing religious world views.
Click to expand...

I'd just be satisfied if he accepted the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs and values as he does, and that they are nevertheless deserving of respect and dignity. But it would seem even that is too much to ask of him.

When I used to read his posts (instead of seeing them show up in replies) it reminded me of this cartoon:

Christians-war-against-christianity.jpg
 
Tax dollars going for something you can learn on your own.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I'd just be satisfied if he accepted the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs and values as he does, and that they are nevertheless deserving of respect and dignity. But it would seem even that is too much to ask of him.

When I used to read his posts (instead of seeing them show up in replies) it reminded me of this cartoon:

View attachment 67258496
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom