LGBT school lessons protests in the uk

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
In this case, your personal view one same sex relationship is irrelevant because we are talking about whether the state position should be taught at a young age in school, it is not about peoples personal views on if those relationships are acceptable.

Plus you keep trying to link those relationships to anal sex, when this is only about the status of the relationship and not about sexual health.
It's no more irrelevant than anyone else's personal view, such as yours.

Also, the state position is that schools are free to teach "lgbt lessons" or not.
It is down to individual head teachers, or school boards, or other groups to decide these things. In each case, it's a subset of the total stakeholders in a school community.

Now, the protesters are also a subset of the school stakeholders - parents who don't want lgbt content.

Your position is that one subset should triumph over another.

And as I have explained numerous times, a relationship which is premised on certain physical intimacy is one that is abhorrent to a certain subset. There need not be graphic or any reference to the sexual behaviour to trigger these people.
 
Last edited:


A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
I did.

It remains utterly irrelevant to the no outsiders programme. It has a relevance to sex education, but if you continue to insist on it being relevant to the education we provide to 7 to 12 year olds, then I will continue to point out its irrelevance.
The programme references relationships. I made a point about relationships. You replied. But you want to pivot away.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
But we've established that anal sex is not unsafe in itself.



Sure - you're basically explaining the existence of homophobia. Now tell us why it should form the basis of how children are educated.
We have established that it is less safe than vaginal sex. It is the cause of much higher disease rates, as documented.

Your homophobia is someone else's shoving their views on other people's children.
The current position is that lgbt lessons are optional. If the protestors want that to remain the case beyond September 2020 then is the current set-up <scarequote>homophobic</scarequote>?
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
Primary sex organs if reproduction is your goal, if it's sex for fun then other parts of your body can be used, ever hear of a blow job?
Pesky facts, eh? Also, a woman gets a thrill out of being kissed on the back of the neck. So the back of the neck is a sex organ now.

Not very useful, your approach.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,050
Pesky facts, eh? Also, a woman gets a thrill out of being kissed on the back of the neck. So the back of the neck is a sex organ now.

Not very useful, your approach.
I believe the biggest and most important sex organ in the human body is the brain.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
The programme references relationships. I made a point about relationships. You replied. But you want to pivot away.
No, you made a (flawed and incorrect) claim about sexual practices. That is irrelevant to the issue of whether kids should be taught to respect and accept gay couples and the families they lead because:

(1) relationships are about more than sex;
(2) not all gay couples are male gay couples;
(3) not all gay male couples have anal sex; and
(4) your claims about it being dangerous in any sort of absolute sense is incorrect.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
We have established that it is less safe than vaginal sex. It is the cause of much higher disease rates, as documented.

Your homophobia is someone else's shoving their views on other people's children.
The current position is that lgbt lessons are optional. If the protestors want that to remain the case beyond September 2020 then is the current set-up <scarequote>homophobic</scarequote>?
You're simply wrong. We do not base our education system on tiny risks just because those tiny risks are higher than other tiny risks. I have a very very small chance of being in a car accident. I have an even smaller chance of being in a plane crash. Both chances remain extremely small. It does not follow that we should remove all references to cars in the stories and education children have on the basis that travelling by car is comparatively significantly more risky than flying.

That is absurd.

And to be clear, the protesters are objecting to those things being taught in school to ANYONE, not just their specific kids. But of course the homophobia lies in anyone who thinks its problematic than any child - theirs or anyone else - is taught that gay people are worthy of respect and acceptance. It is pretty much the definition of homophobia, in fact.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
It's no more irrelevant than anyone else's personal view, such as yours.

Also, the state position is that schools are free to teach "lgbt lessons" or not.
It is down to individual head teachers, or school boards, or other groups to decide these things. In each case, it's a subset of the total stakeholders in a school community.

Now, the protesters are also a subset of the school stakeholders - parents who don't want lgbt content.

Your position is that one subset should triumph over another.

And as I have explained numerous times, a relationship which is premised on certain physical intimacy is one that is abhorrent to a certain subset. There need not be graphic or any reference to the sexual behaviour to trigger these people.
But it comes back to the core point: what should inform what is taught in schools. My contention is that that should not be driven by the homophobia of others. Yours is that it should, but without explaining why (your flawed understanding of absolute vs relative risk, combined with your obsession with anal sex doesn't count).
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
No, you made a (flawed and incorrect) claim about sexual practices. That is irrelevant to the issue of whether kids should be taught to respect and accept gay couples and the families they lead because:

(1) relationships are about more than sex;
(2) not all gay couples are male gay couples;
(3) not all gay male couples have anal sex; and
(4) your claims about it being dangerous in any sort of absolute sense is incorrect.
Reread the post. LGBT school lessons protests in the uk

I made a point about "promoting approval of certain relationships". I referred to incontrovertible biological and medical facts, which in a later post I cited via a medical journal.

You claimed I was talking about sexual education. You were wrong. Nowhere do I mention it.

Now you try to claim (having already been forced to acknowledge that anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal) that my claims about sexual practices are incorrect. Read the evidence cited.

(1), (2) and (3) above are irrelevant. Nobody has denied any of them. Your scattershot approach here is evidence that you cannot support your previous main claims.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
And to be clear, the protesters are objecting to those things being taught in school to ANYONE, not just their specific kids. But of course the homophobia lies in anyone who thinks its problematic than any child - theirs or anyone else - is taught that gay people are worthy of respect and acceptance. It is pretty much the definition of homophobia, in fact.
Again, reread the post you replied to. To be clear, I said IF. And I did because I want you to address the proposition that the current arrangement is "homophobic". Which you didn't.

And, as it happens, I have heard parents saying they don't want their children exposed to content other kids can consume.

And now you should see the straw man you base this post on:

But it comes back to the core point: what should inform what is taught in schools. My contention is that that should not be driven by the homophobia of others. Yours is that it should, but without explaining why (your flawed understanding of absolute vs relative risk, combined with your obsession with anal sex doesn't count).
Choice. Deal with it.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
Incidentally, for anyone interested in facts about the supposed dangers of anal sex that should apparently, according to A Voice, lead us to not teach younger kids that gay people exist and should be respected and accepted like anyone else are:

1. If you have receptive anal sex with a random gay or bisexual man in the UK, there is a 1.4% chance that he is HIV+ (based on c50,000 HIV+ people who are gay or bisexual men out of a total population of about 3.5 million gay or bisexual men). There is a 0.2% chance that he is HIV+ with a detectable viral load - based on about 85% of people who are HIV+ having undetectable viral loads.

2. If you use a condom while having sex with someone with a detectable viral load, there is about 0.25% chance of contracting HIV. This is based on the 2% chance of the condom not working (resulting in exposure) and the 1.4% chance of an exposure leading to transmission.

3. So having anal sex with a random man, using a condom carried a 0.05% chance of contracting HIV (0.2% chance of him being someone with a detectable viral load x 2% chance of exposure x 1.4% chance of exposure leading to transmission).

So that, according to A Voice - a 0.05% chance of contracting HIV, which is now a manageable chronic health condition - is the reason it's legitimate not to teach kids that gay people exist and are worthy of respect and acceptance.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
Reread the post. LGBT school lessons protests in the uk

I made a point about "promoting approval of certain relationships". I referred to incontrovertible biological and medical facts, which in a later post I cited via a medical journal.

You claimed I was talking about sexual education. You were wrong. Nowhere do I mention it.

Now you try to claim (having already been forced to acknowledge that anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal) that my claims about sexual practices are incorrect. Read the evidence cited.

(1), (2) and (3) above are irrelevant. Nobody has denied any of them. Your scattershot approach here is evidence that you cannot support your previous main claims.
Let's start with the fact that you are wrong in describing anal sex as dangerous.

'X is dangerous' is not the same as 'X is more dangerous than Y'.

As I pointed out, flying is statistically safer than driving. That doesn't make driving an inherently dangerous activity.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
Again, reread the post you replied to. To be clear, I said IF. And I did because I want you to address the proposition that the current arrangement is "homophobic". Which you didn't.

And, as it happens, I have heard parents saying they don't want their children exposed to content other kids can consume.

And now you should see the straw man you base this post on:

Choice. Deal with it.
There is a legitimate debate on whether parents should be free to impose their own homophobia on their own kids (they probably shouldn't). But they definitely should not be free to impose it on an entire school or entire education system as these protesters are trying to do.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
But it comes back to the core point: what should inform what is taught in schools. My contention is that that should not be driven by the homophobia of others. Yours is that it should, but without explaining why (your flawed understanding of absolute vs relative risk, combined with your obsession with anal sex doesn't count).
There is a legitimate debate on whether parents should be free to impose their own homophobia on their own kids (they probably shouldn't). But they definitely should not be free to impose it on an entire school or entire education system as these protesters are trying to do.
You're still not answering my questions on this particular point.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
Let's start with the fact that you are wrong in describing anal sex as dangerous.

'X is dangerous' is not the same as 'X is more dangerous than Y'.

As I pointed out, flying is statistically safer than driving. That doesn't make driving an inherently dangerous activity.
It is dangerous. You need to read up.

Is Anal Sex Safe?
There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

  • The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn't completely prevent tearing.
  • The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skinoutside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.
  • The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.
  • The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
It is dangerous. You need to read up.

Is Anal Sex Safe?
There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

  • The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn't completely prevent tearing.
  • The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skinoutside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.
  • The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.
  • The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.

I’ve already explained actual stats on the risks of HIV transmission. You can ignore them as much as you want - but a sexual activity which, with a condom and a random stranger, creates a 0.05% risk of HIV transmission is not dangerous.

It also remains irrelevant to the respect that should be shown for gay people and the families they lead.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,513
You're still not answering my questions on this particular point.
Sure I am.

I don’t think a homophobe has an inalienable right to impart their homophobia on their child and prevent them receiving any countervailing non-homophonic narrative. But they definitely do not have a right to impose their homophobia on other people’s kids and the whole education system.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,416
Incidentally, for anyone interested in facts about the supposed dangers of anal sex that should apparently, according to A Voice, lead us to not teach younger kids that gay people exist and should be respected and accepted like anyone else are:

1. If you have receptive anal sex with a random gay or bisexual man in the UK, there is a 1.4% chance that he is HIV+ (based on c50,000 HIV+ people who are gay or bisexual men out of a total population of about 3.5 million gay or bisexual men). There is a 0.2% chance that he is HIV+ with a detectable viral load - based on about 85% of people who are HIV+ having undetectable viral loads.

2. If you use a condom while having sex with someone with a detectable viral load, there is about 0.25% chance of contracting HIV. This is based on the 2% chance of the condom not working (resulting in exposure) and the 1.4% chance of an exposure leading to transmission.

3. So having anal sex with a random man, using a condom carried a 0.05% chance of contracting HIV (0.2% chance of him being someone with a detectable viral load x 2% chance of exposure x 1.4% chance of exposure leading to transmission).

So that, according to A Voice - a 0.05% chance of contracting HIV, which is now a manageable chronic health condition - is the reason it's legitimate not to teach kids that gay people exist and are worthy of respect and acceptance.
Have just seen this one, Livingstone. Posting without tagging me while mentioning me several times? Tut-tut.

Trying the stats now? I got as far as
If you have receptive anal sex with a random gay or bisexual man in the UK, there is a 1.4% chance that he is HIV+
and then I wondered what the percentage is for random straight men. And random women. And women who haven't had anal sex with a gay man. I'm sure you know.

You need to accept that anal sex is dirty and dangerous.
To further illustrate this, have a look at this


and bear in mind that the cohort who report the majority of all Syphilis cases are in fact a small minority of the entire population.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top