Closet Talk (Rated R a la Morbius)

First topic message reminder :

So, let me get this straight...

Most of us here are either gay or bi?

Damn...

many, many a time… but why do you ask? This seems so random.

Have you not, Morb?

He probably hasn't considering how recent he's been out.

I'm not even gay and I'm relatively sure I've kissed a guy. Drunk night, faint memory, sounds like the kinda thing this guy would do...

But it's cool. I've kissed enough girls to make up for it

lol, I emember thata classmate I hate kissed me on the cheeck, I hated it, since I hate him

I don't remember such a time.

Then again, unlike Slayer, I don't go out drinking.

I haven't kissed a guy yet, part of me really wants to.

Only part?

You still get reports of how clerics in this country are still trying to block proposals for gay marriage, claiming it "undermines the true meaning and the majority for the sake of an injustice in the minority".

In that sentence alone, the church just proves itself to be nothing more but a bigoted, hypocritical establishment. Considering how they have had a reputation of burying disgusting scandals such as child abuse as "harmless", they shouldn't be allowed to block a same-sex couple from marrying over supposed "morality". It doesn't undermine marriage extending it to gay couples, it enhances it!

Since "marriage" is pretty much something that can now be filed out at a post office, the church shouldn't be allowed to say anything.

3mptylord wrote:Only part?

Sorry. Bit of a misinterpretation.

I obviously mean that I want to kiss a guy, part of me wants that very much, whilst the other is keen to wait for the right time.

MorbiusMonster wrote:You still get reports of how clerics in this country are still trying to block proposals for gay marriage, claiming it "undermines the true meaning and the majority for the sake of an injustice in the minority".

In that sentence alone, the church just proves itself to be nothing more but a bigoted, hypocritical establishment. Considering how they have had a reputation of burying disgusting scandals such as child abuse as "harmless", they shouldn't be allowed to block a same-sex couple from marrying over supposed "morality". It doesn't undermine marriage extending it to gay couples, it enhances it!

Since "marriage" is pretty much something that can now be filed out at a post office, the church shouldn't be allowed to say anything.

First, duh. You thought higher of religion before?

Second, I disagree. The church should, in my opinion, have the right to deny whomever they please. It may be wrong, archaic or bigoted... but it's their religion. You telling them to change their lifestyle is no better than them trying to change yours. As you said, you can get married in secular establishments: the post office, hotels, etc. ...why do you want to get married in a church?

MorbiusMonster wrote:

3mptylord wrote:Only part?

Sorry. Bit of a misinterpretation.

I obviously mean that I want to kiss a guy, part of me wants that very much, whilst the other is keen to wait for the right time.

Ah. I can't remember who my first was. In my opinion, that's for the best. You hear so many messy stories about firsts that don't go as planned: just sounds like too much hassle.

Hey I believe in the church. Well me is out, FOR NEW PHYREXIA

I'm more talking about the bad examples of good faith. Extremists exists in all aspects of life... some are just more vile than others.

I'm a catholic and I support Gay Rights. I think its ridiculous not to.

I think the problem is that too many Christians *read as bigots* forget that homosexuality does not equate to promiscutitous hedonism.

Handeath wrote:I think the problem is that too many Christians *read as bigots* forget that homosexuality does not equate to promiscutitous hedonism.

Indeed. And since republicans tend to be extremist Christians, we get lots of biogted anti-homosexuality polititions.

And we wonder why has there been a rise in atheism *facepalm*

I'm not sure ethic differences is the reason for the rise in atheism.

I personally think that we should teach about being gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender in schools from a relatively fair age of about 7-9 years. Children that age tend to be indiscriminant, so may just simply accept it as it is.

This situation is one in which the controversy only justifies going ahead with it. Anyone who has an opinion that it will make children gay only shows how it should be taught, to prove it untrue. A lot of kids who may be gay in future should be told how it is alright and what to do if they have certain feelings. Children that aren't gay can be enlightened to what it is like for people who are.

You'll have your Bible bashers claiming it is either a sin or blasphemey, but in my opinion, if there is a God and He created us equal, then surely it is a sin or blasphemey to block equal human rights or discriminate.

You obviously haven't been to America. lol

State politicians across the nation are trying to ban sex ed in high school...I think even in Tennessee these laws have gone so far as to prevent contraception being being MENTIONED, as well as being taught, and if a teacher or speaker speaks about it, they can be fired.

It probably won't be another million years before homosexuality is discussed nationally in school rooms as early as first through third grade.

Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic ideal, but things like that are easier said than done.

I reckon that homosex should be included in sex ed, but I don't think it should be independently taught.

I meant that, if people are refusing to teach sex ed, why in hell would they teach about homosexuality other than how it can be "solved" with abstinence.

It's kind of silly really trying to block sex education. At some point in their life, one way or another, a human being is going to have sex. Why simply deny informing them of the inevitable; it's like refusing to teach simple chemistry in the fear they'll become terrorists using IEDs?

People claim that teaching sex education will make children want to have it, which perfectly shows how it needs to be taught to avoid such great errored ideas. Abstinence isn't a safe sex plan, it's a no sex plan and won't stop people from having sex; if human nature is correct, it makes them want to have it more.

Sex Education, in itself, is misleading. It doesn't teach about having sex, it discusses dealing with emotions, relationships and the importance of good health. In other words, it should be called Adolescent Education, because it teaches about an important part of growing up. The worst probably anyone has ever suffered in Adolescent Education is talking about their feelings or about their parts, which can be embarassing first time.

All it really takes is careful rewording, not talking about how you must never have sex (because that is stupid and hypocritical) and getting across the message that discussing these things is harmless and the worst anyone can suffer from it is embarassment. You can do all the pledging like "Clean Teens" or "Yes to Safe Sex", in fact, it does help allow people to come to better terms with their feelings.

Again Morbius, the fight to stop sex ed is an American thing. I mean yes, there is a small anti-following over here; but it's on the curriculum with no plans to change it. Also, abstinence isn't Sex Ed in the UK: they teach you how to say no, but they're not stupid. You must've had bad experience with sex ed: or you're just willfully adopting the US' issues as global problems.

My sex ed went over: saying no; STDs (and how they can be caught from more than just vaginal sex); condoms; other contraceptives; the fact you can get condomns for free from the school nurse and various other places, oral; hygiene; anal and masturbation were briefly mentioned; etc. I digress that nothing was explicitly gay, but I don't really think it excluded it. For good or bad, the entire thing seemed predominantly aimed at women. Besides: the hygiene and safety things are encompassing.

I think most of what I learnt was from Biology. PSE (Personal Social Education) rarely went into the subject, perhaps only once showing us a video. The only thing I remember from that is when someone in the back of the class laughed at certain words and the fact that a human can *ahem* at 40mph.

3mptylord wrote:Again Morbius, the fight to stop sex ed is an American thing. I mean yes, there is a small anti-following over here; but it's on the curriculum with no plans to change it. Also, abstinence isn't Sex Ed in the UK: they teach you how to say no, but they're not stupid. You must've had bad experience with sex ed: or you're just willfully adopting the US' issues as global problems.

My sex ed went over: saying no; STDs (and how they can be caught from more than just vaginal sex); condoms; other contraceptives; the fact you can get condomns for free from the school nurse and various other places, oral; hygiene; anal and masturbation were briefly mentioned; etc. I digress that nothing was explicitly gay, but I don't really think it excluded it. For good or bad, the entire thing seemed predominantly aimed at women. Besides: the hygiene and safety things are encompassing.

I think they teach more to women, well, because htey are easier to, you know, get abused