Compliments of Ruth P.

This is outrageous and disgusting. Where is the MSM? Where is the outrage? Why do we have to hear about homosexuality in all of its degradation in every sphere of our lives?

He is rotten obama sucks for nomination him and our imperial senate stinks for voting to confirm him

I really feel sorry for kids who are stuck in the public schools Government Indoctrination Centers these days.

Private or home schooling is the only way to go, even if it means downsizing your life or joining a co-op of like-minded home-schoolers to be able to afford it.

Santa might be permitted at the summit, provided he comes out of the closet to celebrate his homosexuality in public.

The latest attack on childhood innocence, from the article:

So who knew? Santa Claus is a ho-ho homosexual. When the story goes public, it rocks the world. Well, at least in writer-performer Jeffrey Solomon's "Santa Claus Is Coming Out," his newest one-man show exploring gay issues. What Solomon's really interested in is how to discuss gay sexual orientation with young children.

This travesty is being sponsored by GLSEN, the militant homosexual action group founded by depraved pervert and un-safe schools czar Kevin Jennings.

I don't understand HOW THIS CAN BE HAPPENING IN MY COUNTRY!

I don't understand HOW THIS CAN BE HAPPENING IN MY COUNTRY!

To the social left, there is no difference between "some non-mainstream lifestyle choices should be quietly tolerate" and "all deviant lifestyles should be openly celebrated." There is no sense of proportion. To the left, you are either an enlightened sophisticate who cheers child pron in the schools, or you're a neanderthal who wants gays stoned to death (which is okay if you're a Muslim).

More of the caliber of persons the Obama Administration employs:

White House economist:
'F--- up' conservative professor

According to a university colleague, former president of Harvard and current White House economist Larry Summers once asked for help to "f--- up" one of the school's conservative professors.

HE IS GOING TO HELL! YES' I SAID THAT! HELL I TELL YOU!

The United States, which was once a country of mostly straight-laced and notoriously defiant people living under a system based on maximum personal liberty, is being transformed to become more like the countries of Europe, with people who are mostly lazy, dependent on welfare and notoriously cowardly living under a system based on minimum personal liberty.

It's amazing America lasted as long as she did but it can only be the terminal phase of a nation's decline when the government can put a homosexual pedophile in charge of the schools.

Would the Republicans be any better? Maybe we should ask Newt Gingrich, currently on tour with his pal Al Sharpton the bloated race pimp.

Kevin Jennings what he have to do with the sinister CFR and its ultimate plans

Englebert: I'm not thrilled with that line of yours "maximum personal liberty." I think too much shouting about liberty goes on with the Right Wing, but no one considers the consequences of that word. Check out the horrifying pictures of the "Up Your Alley" festival to be found at zombietime. Men having sex in the streets and urinating on each other. That's where total liberty leads. When you say, "Liberty" it goes in most of the current generation's mind as "smoke pot," "legalize prostitution" and "marry anthing you want to."

The word we should be using is "Civilization." That's a balance between Liberty and Order. Too much Liberty and you have Sodom & Gammorah; too much Order and you have the old East Germany.

So, Englebert, I don't like it when you say "maximum personal liberty," but I certainly did love your song "The Last Waltz."

I have a question (or questions). Outside of a forced overthrow of this tyrannical president and his weirdo administration, what means is going to stop him? I am not talking about our votes three years from now... I talking about stopping him NOW! What effective means are at our disposal? What would the administrator of a mental hospital do if some guy who fancied himself Napoleon took over and threatened to destroy the hospital and a nearby city?

I vote, sign petitiions and attend tea parties. I let my Congressman and Senators know how I feel (I'm fortunate to have some pretty good ones). I let the local liberal rag know my views on a varitey of issues. I do not have the means, health or background to run for office. Of course, I pray. What more can I do? If there is nothing more that can be done, then why do I keep seeing comments such as: "What more will it take to wake up America?" or "Is their anything we won't passively put up with?"

Check out the horrifying pictures of the "Up Your Alley" festival to be found at zombietime. Men having sex in the streets and urinating on each other. That's where total liberty leads.

You are confusing liberty with anarchy.

Public sex fairs infringe on the right of quiet enjoyment held by property owners and lessees in and around the fair. These fairs also interfere with the right of the general public to make use of public thoroughfares.

The same would be true if Folsom Street were known for an all-night loud music festival instead of a sex fetish festival.

Public order is an often misunderstood and misinterpreted concept.

Allowing a re-enactment of Sodom and Gomorrah in public, where it interferes with the broader public's ability to use a common resource, is anarchy, not liberty. Liberty allows for consenting adults to re-enact Sodom and Gomorrah on private property, with private funding, where it neither interferes with nor imposes on the rights of others.

I have a question (or questions). Outside of a forced overthrow of this tyrannical president and his weirdo administration, what means is going to stop him?

Presidents are only 1/3 of the government. Congress is where the laws are passed and the purse-strings are controlled. The way to defeat Obama is for the GOP to take control of congress. Even taking a few senate seats would put a stop to 90% of his plans (which he and he cronies are fully aware of... why do you think they are pushing health care and Cap'n Trade so hard NOW?).

Other than that? Nothing.

Check out the horrifying pictures of the "Up Your Alley" festival to be found at zombietime. Men having sex in the streets and urinating on each other. That's where total liberty leads. When you say, "Liberty" it goes in most of the current generation's mind as "smoke pot," "legalize prostitution" and "marry anthing you want to."

Better that than the nanny state the progressives are setting up. The fact is, that sort of sick "Up Your Alley" fest is an exceedingly rare event, not common at all. What the progs want is control everywhere, so if the price of "total liberty" is legalized prostitution and a few sick fringe festivals, then so be it. I'd rather deal with that than the Orwellian bureaucratic nightmare they're trying to create.

It's always fun to see what posts the leftists will stay away from.

It's always fun to see what posts the leftists will stay away from.

Posted by: J at December 7, 2009 3:58 PM

It's being defended by a few sick intercourses over at the Gateway Pundit blog.

Topics like this simply do not belong in school conferences. If I were to take a survey at work on the etiquette of spit versus swallow or were to organize a workshop on the proper technique for fisting, I would be FIRED--and rightly so. It disgusts me how stuff that would be illegal in the workplace is perpetrated upon the children in this country's public schools in the name of diversity, tolerance, or Political "Correctness". The Massachusetts Department of Education needs to fire the people responsible for this.

We need to keep up the pressure on Congress. We can't stop because we are being ignored.

One thing that Congress and the mainstream media is hoping is that if they keep this crap quiet, other more traditional liberals who aren't far left, won't get wind before the election. My brother and sister-in-law believe what they get from the msm... the dirty republicans want us all to die and are telling vicious lies about the ObamaMessiah. Honestly, and I can't get them to understand that this administration is loaded with perves and commies. We have to find ways to expose this over and over until those in denial realize the truth.

This is terrible, and I admit, completely unacceptable ... all the more so, because it is a complete and thorough pack of lies. The so-called "videos" are actually only audio clips overlaying a still photo of Jennings. So, there is no tangible proof that the person speaking is irrefutably Jennings himself, in addition, there is no proof that the audio clips were actually taken from a youth conference.

Those clips could have been made by anyone at any one of the hundreds of adult conferences that occur every year in this country that cover such topics ... I'd also like to point out that said conferences are not necessarily for the sole purposes of homosexuals, there are plenty of HETEROSEXUALS that practice BDSM, "fisting," Group Sex, and several other manners of sexual expression. Thus, the stigma that so-called "sexual deviance" only applies to homosexuals is grossly and inarguably incorrect.

In addition, the Gay Rights Movement is completely separate from the contemporary push for changes in public schools' sex education programs. In no way, shape, or form does the push for equality for all people, including those of differing sexual orientations and gender identities, also include violating basic child molestation and statutory rape laws that this country has had in place for decades.

Before judging and generalizing the homosexual community, I suggest those with such ignorant and homophobic tendencies research the sexual preferences and methods of expression amongst the heterosexual community first. In addition, it's going to take a lot more than random audio clips from an unnamed, so-called conference (it could've been a random conversation at a local bar for all we know) to build a case against Kevin Jennings.

Also, just a random side note that may be too progressive for most minds to grasp: sexuality is fluid and exists on a wide-ranging scale that's as diverse as all the different cultures across the world. Think. Learn. Read. It won't kill you. Promise.

By the way, in case you're wondering, this post was written by a Christian.

I don't even have kids, but if I ever do I'll fight to my dying breath before I let the filthy fags and dykes in the public schools have them. This is absolutely disgusting...these sickos are trying to recruit your kids into the faggot agenda as early as possible. I've completely had it with these disgusting, fudge packing, kiddie fiddling fags.

Ok, read through these. Mixed reactions.

I will say the fellow who wrote "Rock Lobster" is an aberration. A very small amount of children do have sexual desires as he described. Of course, it's extremely unhealthy to act on them. From the selections available, I would say that book is unsuitable.

Some of the passages cited as objectionable made me question what exactly the author of the article was railing against. The one about the boy handing out tampons to his girl friends; what, you want to keep the fact that girls have periods quiet? If anything the kid seemed downright charitable.

There were more where the person didn't seem to read the text and claimed that the passage somehow "celebrated" promiscuity when in fact the message was clearly against it.

Masturbating at age 12-13 is about average, and mentioning that you engage in an activity that very nearly everyone does seems only mildly objectionable. Younger children exploring each others bodies is also not uncommon. Since these accounts are biographical it makes sense to include them as context for their later actions.

There are two mentions of girls "coming out" as gay at age 12. Again, that's about right for the onset of puberty. What do you want them to do? Lie about who they are? Quietly accept insults since they deserve them for being different? I for one would be proud to have a child that could stand on their principles even at such a young age.

From the selections I derive two major flaws. Inclusion of "Rock Lobster" as it represents the experience of only a tiny fraction of individuals, and failure to more exactly divide the texts as to age range. There is a whole lot of developmental ground between 12 and 17, and many older children would be able to appreciate the full and nuanced message of some of the more "objectionable" books.

As to the clips; have you ever been to an open discussion of sexuality among teenagers? You would be amazed at the questions they come up with. If you want to get them the good information about acting responsibly, you have to engage them first by sating their curiosity.

Of course, you could try lying to them and scaring them, but that doesn't work very well.

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/

Disclaimer: No-one should participate in sexual activity unless and until they can appreciate the consequences. This includes all persons under the age of 16 and a good fraction of the people above that age.

Disclaimer: No-one should participate in sexual activity unless and until they can appreciate the consequences.

A child's immaturity and inability to appreciate the consequences of serious behavior is precisely why government employees, who do not know them personally, have no business dispensing a sex-positive message.

If you take among the more benign talking points from the various discussions involved in this controversy, even they could potentially be misinterpreted by naive children.

Since government employees lack the personal dimension of the parent-child relationship, they have absolutely no business dispensing a sex-positive message with a couple sound bytes here and there. That message is easily misinterpreted, and intrudes on personal family values.

Public school sex education should not be glamorizing, encouraging, promoting, or normalizing adult behavior. Honest consequences-based education has proven effective at reducing underage smoking and drinking; it is not necessary that these courses focus on the ways those products can be used in a low-risk manner by adults making an informed decision. Doing so dilutes the message and confuses children.

You present a false dichotomy between abstinence-only education and sex-positive education. Each of those programs represent an extreme viewpoint that has well-demonstrated failings. The third option, frank discussions of the consequences of unsafe sex, delivered with parental consent, neither has the statistical failures of misguided and unrealistic abstinence-only programs nor the slippery slope and cultural insensitivity of a sex-positive message more in line with a college-level course covering human sexuality.

As to the clips; have you ever been to an open discussion of sexuality among teenagers? You would be amazed at the questions they come up with. If you want to get them the good information about acting responsibly, you have to engage them first by sating their curiosity.

Talking points like this are part of the problem.

I doubt that any official program can separate the sexually-active teenagers from the sexually-inactive teenagers. "Sating [sic] the[ir] curiosity" of the latter group will encourage them to become sexually active.

Your proposals fail because they shatter the innocence of the latter group, by replacing the parent in what is ultimately a very personal choice outside of the state's business.

From the selections I derive two major flaws. Inclusion of "Rock Lobster" as it represents the experience of only a tiny fraction of individuals, and failure to more exactly divide the texts as to age range. There is a whole lot of developmental ground between 12 and 17, and many older children would be able to appreciate the full and nuanced message of some of the more "objectionable" books.

Once again, we encounter the differentiation problem.

Do you actually believe some education bureaucrat can accurately determine which 17 year old is capable of handling an adult message and which isn't?

If you can't, you should leave such discussion and exploration up to the parents.

Let's be clear: the state has no business promoting sexual exploration as a "fun" or "natural" activity. The only vested interest of the state is protecting children from their own stupidity by delivering a critical message that might not be delivered at home.

Sexual exploration has no place in school.

There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college.

As usual, we're taking the same facts and interpreting them differently. What you view as "sex-positive" I view as "honest consequence-based" information. I'll admit that the source is so biased I'm just assuming he's leaving out any part where consequences are actually discussed; in fact, consequences are clearly discussed in several of the passages he cites.

If you're just going to count every instance of "I did it and I enjoyed it" as "sex-positive" then you're just really out of touch. People do the things they enjoy, and generally they enjoy the things they keep doing. Admitting sexual activity is fun for the person doing it most the time isn't any kind of scarring revelation. The message, as you said, has to be honest and consequence based. It's fun but also dangerous.

"I doubt that any official program can separate the sexually-active teenagers from the sexually-inactive teenagers. "Sating [sic] the[ir] curiosity" of the latter group will encourage them to become sexually active."

Sating is used correctly. It's the gerund of "to sate", meaning to appease a desire by indulgence (of information, in this case).

Anyway, this is a silly point. "Hey, let's try all those things Mr. Henderson was talking about our first time!" Hardly.

"Your proposals fail because they shatter the innocence of the latter group, by replacing the parent in what is ultimately a very personal choice outside of the state's business."

... You really believe that teenagers are innocent of knowledge of sexual activity, and that being exposed to that material for the first time in an educational setting will somehow transform them into irrational sluts? I can't even begin to see where you get these points.

As I've mentioned before, I would have a whole lot less of a problem is parents actually did take the responsibility to do this, but far, far too often they fail.

"Do you actually believe some education bureaucrat can accurately determine which 17 year old is capable of handling an adult message and which isn't?"

As an "education bureaucrat" who has extensive training and experience with, and in fact whose job description prominently states the responsibility for, determining what children are capable of learning; yes, yes I do believe that. Better suited then the parents? If you'd seen the number of pregnant teenagers with ignorant parents that I have, you might say yes too.

"Sexual exploration has no place in school."

I completely agree. However, accurate and honest information always has a place in my school.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: