Right behind gay footballers

When children are taught about sex education at age 15 or whatever it is these days then it should cover gay sex also

No we shouldn't. Children in schools should not be told about the ins and outs of such things. They should be told how to put a condom on, preferably by an aesthetic female teacher and they should be taught about the reproduction system.

If you want your 15 year old coming home to tell you how his teacher taught him about lubricating his arse hole for anal sex then thats your prerogative but I doubt most parents want their children being taught that sort of stuff.

It should focus on condoms, other forms of contraception and the reproduction system.

In your opinion of course. However you havent failed to dissappoint in your continued role as devils advocate to the ridiculous degree.

Sex education is education on how to conduct safe sex properly, this should cover gay sex just as much as it should straight sex and lets not forget gays can be women too. If you think sex education involves teaching "how to lube an arsehole" then you completely misunderstand the educational system and sex education as a whole although i believe "straight" anal sex is covered in the sex education curriculum.

Last edited by Bluebird82 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

So I would like you to explain how psychopaths or sociopaths are naturally born killers?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... pists.html

I'll take the advice of a scientist and specialist in his field over yours thanks.

"He said not all monsters are born and that many are made worse by their environments on their roads to evil."

Fair point but that still means a percentage are. Im not saying its right or a justification for their actions as its not in a civilised world but its the truth. Deny it all you like. The human race just like others in the animal kingdom has those who are predators of their own.

Its been proven time and time again by scientists from the US, Germany and some of our own that the neurological make up of psychopaths is different to those deemed normal. It makes them predisposed to environmental factors.

And this is comnected to gay people being accepted in a civilised modern society how exactly?

Just another daft idea by some do gooder. What next.? The other month Nick Clegg had the rainbow flag flying from Downing Street to show his support for the Gays. It seemed to be at the top of his agenda. Nothing else to worry about then hey.

This sums it up for me . Yet another attempt by the PC brigade to get involved in football . I also think the bbc is constantly trying to drive a PC agenda .

Just another daft idea by some do gooder. What next.? The other month Nick Clegg had the rainbow flag flying from Downing Street to show his support for the Gays. It seemed to be at the top of his agenda. Nothing else to worry about then hey.

This sums it up for me . Yet another attempt by the PC brigade to get involved in football . I also think the bbc is constantly trying to drive a PC agenda .

Do you think racism and trying to stamp it out of society is just folly by the "PC brigade" too?

If not then please explain how this discrimination is any different.

In your opinion of course. However you havent failed to dissappoint in your continued role as devils advocate to the ridiculous degree.

Sex education is education on how to conduct safe sex properly, this should cover gay sex just as much as it should straight sex and lets not forget gays can be women too. If you think sex education involves teaching "how to lube an arsehole" then you completely misunderstand the educational system and sex education as a whole although i believe "straight" anal sex is covered in the sex education curriculum.

They can refer to it simply as vaginal and anal sex. Nothing needs to be said about sexuality. Enough said. Please explain why sexual preference needs to be brought into the discussion at all? There are risks with all types of sex of all sexualities and safety measures should be taken regardless. Why do you feel the need for 'gay sex' explicitly to be covered?

In your opinion of course. However you havent failed to dissappoint in your continued role as devils advocate to the ridiculous degree.

Sex education is education on how to conduct safe sex properly, this should cover gay sex just as much as it should straight sex and lets not forget gays can be women too. If you think sex education involves teaching "how to lube an arsehole" then you completely misunderstand the educational system and sex education as a whole although i believe "straight" anal sex is covered in the sex education curriculum.

They can refer to it simply as vaginal and anal sex. Nothing needs to be said about sexuality. Enough said. Please explain why sexual preference needs to be brought into the discussion at all? There are risks with all types of sex of all sexualities and safety measures should be taken regardless. Why do you feel the need for 'gay sex' explicitly to be covered?

They dont have to explicity discuss gay sex, nobody has said this. In sex education it is refered to specifically as "man and woman". In order for child specific education it would probably be better explaining that what is being taught is true for all sexual orientations. I remember a friend of mine thought that only gay men had to wear condoms when practicing anal sex, crazy. However i guess he wasnt to know as its not mentioned, taboo subject, which of course it shouldnt be.

They dont have to explicity discuss gay sex, nobody has said this. In sex education it is refered to specifically as "man and woman". In order for child specific education it would probably be better explaining that what is being taught is true for all sexual orientations. I remember a friend of mine thought that only gay men had to wear condoms when practicing anal sex, crazy. However i guess he wasnt to know as its not mentioned, taboo subject, which of course it shouldnt be.

'this should cover gay sex just as much as it should straight sex' is what you said. Totally disagree. Neither need to be mentioned.

Sexual preference need not be discussed. I don't know what you were taught in sexual education but they don't even go into sexual orientation these days or at least they didn't when i was in school. It was simply = safe sex i.e. learning to put a condom on, other forms of contraception and reproduction. Its fairly obvious 2 men/women can't reproduce and I think most will have worked that one out by the time their sexual education classes come along.

They can discuss everything in question above without even mentioning sexual orientation as happened in my school. They didn't need to do so.

1. Safe sex - condoms - the risks involved with vaginal and anal sex
2. The reproductive system - usually taught by a video explaining it
3. Other forms of contraception - the coil, injection and so on.

All of the above can be explained without going into the semantics of sexual orientation.

They dont have to explicity discuss gay sex, nobody has said this. In sex education it is refered to specifically as "man and woman". In order for child specific education it would probably be better explaining that what is being taught is true for all sexual orientations. I remember a friend of mine thought that only gay men had to wear condoms when practicing anal sex, crazy. However i guess he wasnt to know as its not mentioned, taboo subject, which of course it shouldnt be.

'this should cover gay sex just as much as it should straight sex' is what you said. Totally disagree. Neither need to be mentioned.

Sexual preference need not be discussed. I don't know what you were taught in sexual education but they don't even go into sexual orientation these days or at least they didn't when i was in school. It was simply = safe sex i.e. learning to put a condom on, other forms of contraception and reproduction. Its fairly obvious 2 men/women can't reproduce and I think most will have worked that one out by the time their sexual education classes come along.

They can discuss everything in question above without even mentioning sexual orientation as happened in my school. They didn't need to do so.

1. Safe sex - condoms - the risks involved with vaginal and anal sex
2. The reproductive system - usually taught by a video explaining it
3. Other forms of contraception - the coil, injection and so on.

All of the above can be explained without going into the semantics of sexual orientation.

Whether they both should be mentioned is a mute point as one of them IS mentioned. If one is, both should. Its quite simple.

What i said was it should be covered just as much as striaght sex, not that both should be discussed in detail. If this involves not mentioning either then thats fine, however currently sex education is 100% geared towards straight relationships.

So I would like you to explain how psychopaths or sociopaths are naturally born killers?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... pists.html

I'll take the advice of a scientist and specialist in his field over yours thanks.

"He said not all monsters are born and that many are made worse by their environments on their roads to evil."

Fair point but that still means a percentage are. Im not saying its right or a justification for their actions as its not in a civilised world but its the truth. Deny it all you like. The human race just like others in the animal kingdom has those who are predators of their own.

Its been proven time and time again by scientists from the US, Germany and some of our own that the neurological make up of psychopaths is different to those deemed normal. It makes them predisposed to environmental factors.

And this is comnected to gay people being accepted in a civilised modern society how exactly?

rather a lot actually

if you subjugate psychopaths into naturally born killers and basically they are dangerous people in society, gay people will be subjugated the same way

either way all of it is rather pathetic and shows an abhorrent lack of understanding and empathy to the feelings of others.

rather a lot actually

if you subjugate psychopaths into naturally born killers and basically they are dangerous people in society, gay people will be subjugated the same way

either way all of it is rather pathetic and shows an abhorrent lack of understanding and empathy to the feelings of others.

Really?

Still dont see how they are linked in any way? Surely this goes for naturally straight people too? There is absolutely nothing in the debate what so ever that links accurately to pshychopaths.

The only natural argument is the ones from the homophobics that declare it as "unnatural", well its a fact that its perfectly natural. Anything wider with comparisons to psychopaths and paedos is just the jaunt of a poster who is doing his best to recieve attention, its the ramblings of a very naive boy.

Whether they both should be mentioned is a mute point as one of them IS mentioned. If one is, both should. Its quite simple.

What i said was it should be covered just as much as striaght sex, not that both should be discussed in detail. If this involves not mentioning either then thats fine, however currently sex education is 100% geared towards straight relationships.

Not at all. The only time straight relationships are mentioned is when they talk about reproduction and as 2 people of the same sex cannot reproduce that makes perfect sense. They do not mention sexuality when discussing safe sex and contraception at all.

So I would like you to explain how psychopaths or sociopaths are naturally born killers?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... pists.html

I'll take the advice of a scientist and specialist in his field over yours thanks.

"He said not all monsters are born and that many are made worse by their environments on their roads to evil."

Fair point but that still means a percentage are. Im not saying its right or a justification for their actions as its not in a civilised world but its the truth. Deny it all you like. The human race just like others in the animal kingdom has those who are predators of their own.

Its been proven time and time again by scientists from the US, Germany and some of our own that the neurological make up of psychopaths is different to those deemed normal. It makes them predisposed to environmental factors.

see you pick out the quotes that support your limited knowledge and call me ignorant

this neurologist goes on to say that 'of course this is not automatic. The brain can compensate somewhat for violent tendencies and it is unclear how that works'

this study showed violent images to people and they showed no emotional response, it would be interesting to see whether an emotional response would be initiated after seeing nice images, now I know the answer to that. Or are you just going to continue saying psychopaths are naturally born killers because so far nothing youve posted supports your argument in anyway

Whether they both should be mentioned is a mute point as one of them IS mentioned. If one is, both should. Its quite simple.

What i said was it should be covered just as much as striaght sex, not that both should be discussed in detail. If this involves not mentioning either then thats fine, however currently sex education is 100% geared towards straight relationships.

Not at all. The only time straight relationships are mentioned is when they talk about reproduction and as 2 people of the same sex cannot reproduce that makes perfect sense. They do not mention sexuality when discussing safe sex and contraception at all.

Well they do, and thats from my experience. Im incredulous to the fact you feel you know the wording and content of every classroom across the country. The fact is I, amongst others, have had sex education geared in language towards a straight relationship with no mention if the same diseases etc can be caught by same sex intercourse.

Im afraid your point is now sillier than ever.

rather a lot actually

if you subjugate psychopaths into naturally born killers and basically they are dangerous people in society, gay people will be subjugated the same way

either way all of it is rather pathetic and shows an abhorrent lack of understanding and empathy to the feelings of others.

Really?

Still dont see how they are linked in any way? Surely this goes for naturally straight people too? There is absolutely nothing in the debate what so ever that links accurately to pshychopaths.

The only natural argument is the ones from the homophobics that declare it as "unnatural", well its a fact that its perfectly natural. Anything wider with comparisons to psychopaths and paedos is just the jaunt of a poster who is doing his best to recieve attention, its the ramblings of a very naive boy.

You clearly did not understand my point. Homosexuality is natural, so is psychopathy. They are both therefore able to be defended on the premise of 'being natural'. Of course, if you go more into it, you can then say that psychopaths bring harm to others which conflict with our way of being, which conflict with our laws and so on which gay people in the majority do not do. Thus they are therefore being set apart, one is a civilised member of society, the other is not.

The point is someone else in the thread said 'homosexuality is okay because its natural' when in fact its okay because of a lot of other factors including the fact that its natural, not just because its natural. There are numerous other considerations to take into account, which some posters have not done.

Nothing is ever just okay on the basis of it being natural. Thats idiotic.

rather a lot actually

if you subjugate psychopaths into naturally born killers and basically they are dangerous people in society, gay people will be subjugated the same way

either way all of it is rather pathetic and shows an abhorrent lack of understanding and empathy to the feelings of others.

Really?

Still dont see how they are linked in any way? Surely this goes for naturally straight people too? There is absolutely nothing in the debate what so ever that links accurately to pshychopaths.

The only natural argument is the ones from the homophobics that declare it as "unnatural", well its a fact that its perfectly natural. Anything wider with comparisons to psychopaths and paedos is just the jaunt of a poster who is doing his best to recieve attention, its the ramblings of a very naive boy.

exactly I completely agree with you

they are not linked directly but if you label one group its very easy to label other groups and it basically comes down to one sentence 'Im normal people like me are normal, you are not like me so you are not normal'

psychopaths are normal people
gay people are normal people
straight people are normal people

for people to try and say otherwise is nonsense

what people try to do is make people conform to their version of normal and they subsequently start segregating people unfairly

Well they do, and thats from my experience. Im incredulous to the fact you feel you know the wording and content of every classroom across the country. The fact is I, amongst others, have had sex education geared in language towards a straight relationship with no mention if the same diseases etc can be caught by same sex intercourse.

Im afraid your point is now sillier than ever.

Im talking from my own experience in school of sexual education as it was about 11 years ago so not hard to remember. The simple fact is they can easily say 'when having sex, whether vaginal or anal, always use contraception'.

Quite easy really and they didn't have to mention straight or gay relationships. Fascinating. Of course though, because my point disagrees with yours its silly. 10/10 on the logic.

You're talking from your own experience. If your school geared it into you from a straight relationship perspective then fair enough but not all schools do that either. Sexual orientation was not mentioned at all.

rather a lot actually

if you subjugate psychopaths into naturally born killers and basically they are dangerous people in society, gay people will be subjugated the same way

either way all of it is rather pathetic and shows an abhorrent lack of understanding and empathy to the feelings of others.

Really?

Still dont see how they are linked in any way? Surely this goes for naturally straight people too? There is absolutely nothing in the debate what so ever that links accurately to pshychopaths.

The only natural argument is the ones from the homophobics that declare it as "unnatural", well its a fact that its perfectly natural. Anything wider with comparisons to psychopaths and paedos is just the jaunt of a poster who is doing his best to recieve attention, its the ramblings of a very naive boy.

You clearly did not understand my point. Homosexuality is natural, so is psychopathy. They are both therefore able to be defended on the premise of 'being natural'. Of course, if you go more into it, you can then say that psychopaths bring harm to others which conflict with our way of being, which conflict with our laws and so on which gay people in the majority do not do. Thus they are therefore being set apart, one is a civilised member of society, the other is not.

The point is someone else in the thread said 'homosexuality is okay because its natural' when in fact its okay because of a lot of other factors including the fact that its natural, not just because its natural. There are numerous other considerations to take into account, which some posters have not done.

Nothing is ever just okay on the basis of it being natural. Thats idiotic.

why are you labeling psychopaths as a danger to society just on the basis they have been diagnosed with psychopathy its idiotic nonsense

also if its only psychopaths who are a danger to society how do you explain all the dangerous people in prison who show no sign of psychopathic tendencies?

rather a lot actually

if you subjugate psychopaths into naturally born killers and basically they are dangerous people in society, gay people will be subjugated the same way

either way all of it is rather pathetic and shows an abhorrent lack of understanding and empathy to the feelings of others.

Really?

Still dont see how they are linked in any way? Surely this goes for naturally straight people too? There is absolutely nothing in the debate what so ever that links accurately to pshychopaths.

The only natural argument is the ones from the homophobics that declare it as "unnatural", well its a fact that its perfectly natural. Anything wider with comparisons to psychopaths and paedos is just the jaunt of a poster who is doing his best to recieve attention, its the ramblings of a very naive boy.

You clearly did not understand my point. Homosexuality is natural, so is psychopathy. They are both therefore able to be defended on the premise of 'being natural'. Of course, if you go more into it, you can then say that psychopaths bring harm to others which conflict with our way of being, which conflict with our laws and so on which gay people in the majority do not do. Thus they are therefore being set apart, one is a civilised member of society, the other is not.

The point is someone else in the thread said 'homosexuality is okay because its natural' when in fact its okay because of a lot of other factors including the fact that its natural, not just because its natural. There are numerous other considerations to take into account, which some posters have not done.

Nothing is ever just okay on the basis of it being natural. Thats idiotic.

We have been through this.

The argument AGAINST homosexuality is that it is not natural. In this instance it is perfectly logical to combat that with the fact that it actually is.

Its like you saying you dont like me because my name is Karl, and then correcting you by saying my name isnt Karl. Im in no way suggesting everyone not called Karl is a nice person.

The fact you think the use if the natural argument is to say its fine because its natural is literally insane. The "natural" argument is to combat the overwhelming issue with homosexuality that it is un-natural.

Surely you can grasp that ?

Well they do, and thats from my experience. Im incredulous to the fact you feel you know the wording and content of every classroom across the country. The fact is I, amongst others, have had sex education geared in language towards a straight relationship with no mention if the same diseases etc can be caught by same sex intercourse.

Im afraid your point is now sillier than ever.

Im talking from my own experience in school of sexual education as it was about 11 years ago so not hard to remember. The simple fact is they can easily say 'when having sex, whether vaginal or anal, always use contraception'.

Quite easy really and they didn't have to mention straight or gay relationships. Fascinating. Of course though, because my point disagrees with yours its silly. 10/10 on the logic.

You're talking from your own experience. If your school geared it into you from a straight relationship perspective then fair enough but not all schools do that either. Sexual orientation was not mentioned at all.

So you have now changed you stance then as you coearly stated that they dont. Now its just down to your classroom. Im pretty sure you understand this point transcends nationwide and not to a small school in south wales.

And no it cannot disagree because im telling you a fact. Thats whats silly. I and others have never been told in school sex education that the same diseases can be caught when having same sex intercourse and is wholly geared toward straight sex relationships. If you experienced the opposite then excellent, lets make your classroom the standout model to follow. However others dont, hence the point.

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Never heard of him.

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Of course it is. I was continually dragging out conversation with him until he slipped up. He's already done so twice hence me referring to him as 'mush'. I know the Jacks like that word.

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Never heard of him.

.....and i'm the troll. Fascinating. Nice try Roathie. I suggest CaughtOutAgain as your next name.

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Of course it is. I was continually dragging out conversation with him until he slipped up. He's already done so twice hence me referring to him as 'mush'. I know the Jacks like that word.

"I dont troll"

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Never heard of him.

.....and i'm the troll. Fascinating. Nice try Roathie. I suggest CaughtOutAgain as your next name.

Where have i trolled then James?

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Of course it is. I was continually dragging out conversation with him until he slipped up. He's already done so twice hence me referring to him as 'mush'. I know the Jacks like that word.

"I dont troll"

That's not trolling. Like I said, look up the definition. You'll have plenty of time to do so when Gav presses the button on your account.

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Never heard of him.

.....and i'm the troll. Fascinating. Nice try Roathie. I suggest CaughtOutAgain as your next name.

Where have i trolled then James?

'Never heard of him' - Thats because you are him. Obvious Roathie is obvious. You gave it up in the other thread FFS.

50+ posts in one day, no prizes for guessing who Bluebird 82 is

Gave the game away on the Swansea atmosphere thread, Roathie.

Never heard of him.

.....and i'm the troll. Fascinating. Nice try Roathie. I suggest CaughtOutAgain as your next name.

Where have i trolled then James?

'Never heard of him' - Thats because you are him. Obvious Roathie is obvious. You gave it up in the other thread FFS.

So saying never heard if him is trolling? Of course im roath you daft plank

The chameleon is at it again....

Roathie may get the odd thing wrong here and there but he knows the score on most things and says it as it is. People jump on him continuously trying to prove him wrong and instead just fill the board with inundated shite that no one really wants to read and then Roathie gets the blame when he is in fact educating them.


Roathie talks a lot of sense to be fair and the sooner people realised that and stopped arguing with him just for the sake of it to try and win a lolly off the bloody dentist the better the forum will become.

So saying never heard if him is trolling? Of course im roath you daft plank

The chameleon is at it again....

Roathie may get the odd thing wrong here and there but he knows the score on most things and says it as it is. People jump on him continuously trying to prove him wrong and instead just fill the board with inundated shite that no one really wants to read and then Roathie gets the blame when he is in fact educating them.


Roathie talks a lot of sense to be fair and the sooner people realised that and stopped arguing with him just for the sake of it to try and win a lolly off the bloody dentist the better the forum will become.

You used to be a decent poster for a while when you had that avatar of that guy smoking and then you started trolling and having numerous accounts and so on. Shame. Oh well I'll let you get on with things. You said you'd stick to one account but instead you haven't done so. Im not going to pretend you haven't made good points either because at times you have.

The thing is, you'll be banned and you'll be back, so all of your good points never get associated with you because you have more accounts than the global banking system.

Whatever floats your boat. You call me a daft plank yet I knew it was you all along. No other person posts as much as you and me so it was fairly obvious who it was hence me calling you mush.

So saying never heard if him is trolling? Of course im roath you daft plank

The chameleon is at it again....

Roathie may get the odd thing wrong here and there but he knows the score on most things and says it as it is. People jump on him continuously trying to prove him wrong and instead just fill the board with inundated shite that no one really wants to read and then Roathie gets the blame when he is in fact educating them.


Roathie talks a lot of sense to be fair and the sooner people realised that and stopped arguing with him just for the sake of it to try and win a lolly off the bloody dentist the better the forum will become.

You used to be a decent poster for a while when you had that avatar of that guy smoking and then you started trolling and having numerous accounts and so on. Shame. Oh well I'll let you get on with things. You said you'd stick to one account but instead you haven't done so. Im not going to pretend you haven't made good points either because at times you have.

The thing is, you'll be banned and you'll be back, so all of your good points never get associated with you because you have more accounts than the global banking system.

Whatever floats your boat. You call me a daft plank yet I knew it was you all along. No other person posts as much as you and me so it was fairly obvious who it was hence me calling you mush.

You do realise you wrote that about 2 weeks ago dont you?

And ive always stuck to one active account. I only use the other when it gets banned.