Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day

oops! DBL post!

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Clearskies]

Why do some men in prison become homosexual, because of the lack of females?
Many people can become 'conditioned' to go either way.
bisexuality is so much more common in America than it used to be.

I actually felt sorry for a lesbian who had been sexually abused from an early age by uncles, brothers and I think, a grandfather and we began a friend relationship that turned sexual.
If I had been in a structure that was different than I had, I could've become used to it and
become bi-sexual or lesbian.

Clearskies - If you enjoyed it, and you had true feelings for and desire for another female, chances are you're either bisexual or lesbian. you don't "become" and men in prison don't "become" gay, they simply use sex as a way to claim dominance over lesser inmates. they don't change thier hardwired thiking and suddenly stop desiring women, they simply fulfill physical needs with whatever they have available. presented with a choice between a hairy-backed monster of a man, and a woman, any straight man would choose the woman, regardless of how many men he may have had intercourse with in the absence of a female choice.


Secondly, how dare anyone talk about "exposing kids" to homosexuality. Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Heterosexuality are ALL natural. Some people are naturally hardwired with desire for the opposite sex, the same sex, or both. it is noone's "fault" nor is it anything to be afraid of, or be looked down upon. We are not the only animals that ehxibit this kind of behaviour, it is resent in dolphins and other highly intelligent creatures as well. It is simply a biproduct of the sense of pleasure derived from sexual activity. As soon as sex is no longer looked upon as solely for reproduction, and is seen for what it is - a bonding, recreational pleasure-filled activity, people will realise there is nothing to be frightened of.

That being said i am a rediculously straight male, I'm just open minded.

reply to post by Clearskies

Why do some men in prison become homosexual, because of the lack of females? Many people can become 'conditioned' to go either way. bisexuality is so much more common in America than it used to be

Maybe they were closet homosexuals in the first place?

Straight prisoners, even lifers, do not engage in homosexual sex activities.

Besides, many prisoners collect many, many porn magazines to keep their sanity.

reply to post by whiterabbit85


What I'm saying is that close, shared relationships can lead to sexual experimentation.
The Color Purple? Fried Green Tomatoes?
I don't believe that ALL prison relationships are only about violent, rape, do you?

The female body is beautiful. I like mine, usually.
So are men's(my husband's, I don't look at other men's)
I don't fantasize about male or female bodies and sex.
God made a great creation, but sex is what we do with it. Right or wrong

If prisoners engage in meaningful homosexual relationships while in prison, chances are they were always prone to feelings towards members of the same sex.

Yes I agree that close relationships can lead to experimentation, but I contend that it is the closeness that allows you to fulfill desires that have always been there, rather than the relationships themselves inspiring said desires.

Originally posted by Clearskies
If I had been in a structure that was different than I had, I could've become used to it and
become bi-sexual or lesbian.

Sigh Clearskies. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the homosexual orientation is born. Even after countless members on ATS have personally told you they were born that way. The Gay Community is huge, and the consensus is they were born that way. That's what they say.

It's not intellectually sound for you to speculate that under a different environment you would have been conditioned to be gay. That's wild speculation. You have no real reason to assume this would be the case.

You just want homosexuality to be the byproduct of the environment, and not nature, so no one can say God made homosexuals. That's all this is. That is transparent to us.

reply to post by whiterabbit85


I think if the prison situation proves anything it is that Kinsey was right. People are more inclined by nature to bisexuality, not homosexuality or heterosexually (like many species of animals), perhaps it really does all depend on the environment.

Originally posted by Clearskies
The female body is beautiful. I like mine, usually.
So are men's(my husband's, I don't look at other men's)
I don't fantasize about male or female bodies and sex.
God made a great creation, but sex is what we do with it. Right or wrong

Not really, IMO, humans are just less hairy apes, lol. We just look good to each other because we have to keep the species going. Our bodies are really wierd when you step back from the species and look at it.

I do believe that people are either hardwired, or their hormone concentrations dictate their sexual preferences. I even believe nature may intend it, and ramps it up when populations that are not highly subject to predators explode. It is NOT a choice, those of you who say it is must be bi-sexual. I am SO straight I can honestly say I've never had the slightest attraction to or thoughts of being with another man. So I never had to make a choice. And being so comfortable with my own sexuality makes me very tolerant of others. It's nice not to have to be afraid that I won't be able to resist another man if the sexuality of others was not obsessed about by those who claim to be straight, and ridiculed by those who feel guilty and ashamed of their own secret desires for the same sex because they are brainwashed or afraid of the reactions of those close to them.

reply to post by karl 12

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by TKainZero

 

I have to say I realy couldn't care less-they probably nice people so whats the big deal?
What I do object to is religious bigotry and ignorance forcefully imposing itself on other people's lives.

As usual, people like you cannot understand that this type of action, although in opposition to religion being forced upon a person, is in the same genre of actions.

It is forcing children to be exposed to something that they do not need to be exposed to. And, at a very early age.

There are MANY things I want to control in my 6 year old daughter's life. I want to make the decisions of what she should, and should not be exposed to.

My decision, is that I want my child to have exposure to the "norm" first.

There is no proof that homosexuality is a natural state. There are differing opinions that sway back and forth with each released research paper. Whatever the answer is, in this case, it doesn't really matter. The point is, our little should not be drawn into the pro's and con's of the situation either.

It is a difficult lifestyle, and from what I know, I wouldn't wish it upon anybody. Nor, would the gay people I know.

I would not bash homosexuality to my child, but, at the same time, I don't want her growing up, playing house, thinking that homosexuality is an option that she should be exploring.

It is insane to think that these young children need anymore on their little minds, than the load that our world has already placed there.

Give them exposure to "solid" lifestyles. Comfortable notions.

Let them be young for a short while, before this world takes it away. Because, there is no rush. They will be facing the uncomfortable, and the questionable, and the unsure, all soon enough.

Leave kids out of this... Whether you ARE a homosexual, or hate homosexuals.

Just let them be kids. Just for a little while longer.


[edit on 10-1-2009 by SumnerKagan]

Originally posted by SumnerKagan
reply to post by karl 12

 

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by TKainZero

 

I have to say I realy couldn't care less-they probably nice people so whats the big deal?
What I do object to is religious bigotry and ignorance forcefully imposing itself on other people's lives.

As usual, people like you cannot understand that this type of action, although in opposition to religion being forced upon a person, is in the same genre of actions.

It is forcing children to be exposed to something that they do not need to be exposed to. And, at a very early age.

Why do they not need to be exposed to it?

There are MANY things I want to control in my 6 year old daughter's life. I want to make the decisions of what she should, and should not be exposed to.

As I do with my four- and two-year old sons. One of the things I don not widh them to be exposed to is bigotry.

My decision, is that I want my child to have exposure to the "norm" first.

Define "norm". If you take the "norm" as being the kind of behaviour and morality espoused in anti-villification laws, then you are failing to meet it with your definition. You are classifying these women as being outside "normal", which is in essence the very behaviour equal-opportunity and anti-racism laws were enacted to prevent.

I would not bash homosexuality to my child, but, at the same time, I don't want her growing up, playing house, thinking that homosexuality is an option that she should be exploring.

So, by your lack of action you are, in fact, bashing homosexuality in the eyes of your daughter, teaching her that there is something wrong with homosexuals. Among the things I will be teaching my children are not open for them to explore are nazism, racism, bigotry in any form I can find it and child-abuse. It helps that my kids are mixed-race, it means they will be more open to messages of tolerance simply by the fact that they have different skin tones to each other and to their parents. Tolerance, like charity, begins at home. So does intolerance. It's not too hard to see which one you're beginning in your home.

It is insane to think that these young children need anymore on their little minds, than the load that our world has already placed there.

It is insane to think that children can't process and normalise the situations they see around them every day. First you say you don't want your daughter exposed to this because you don't want her thinking it's the "norm", then you say children shouldn't be exposed to these things because they are too heavy to bear. Make up your mind.

Give them exposure to "solid" lifestyles.

What is not "solid" about committed monogamy?

Comfortable notions.

*snip*. "Comfortable notions", if that isn't the weakest thing I've read on this thread, I don't know what is. Tell me, what is "comfortable" about divorce and contested custody hearings? Those things affect children of heterosexual parents and the friends of those children and have documented damaging psychological and developmental effects on children. No homosexuality required.

Let them be young for a short while, before this world takes it away.

How is witnessing this ceremony taking their "young" away from them? What takes their "young" away from them is the anti-gay marriange lobby politicising the children's attendance. Now you have to explain to the kids why what the teacher and her partner did was wrong. THAT is what takes their "young" away. Not witnessing a loving ceremony.

Because, there is no rush. They will be facing the uncomfortable, and the questionable, and the unsure, all soon enough.

Leave kids out of this... Whether you ARE a homosexual, or hate homosexuals.

Just let them be kids. Just for a little while longer.

You mean "let the nation be juvenile" for just a little while longer.

"Won't somebody please think of the children?!?" Where have I heard that before?

All your arguments do nothing more than justify bigotry.

To misquote the USMC: The Republican Party is looking for a few compassionate conservatives to white-wash their appeals to intolerance...

Mod Edit: Removed unneccesarily rude comment.

[edit on 1/14/2009 by seagull]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV


*snip*. "Comfortable notions", if that isn't the weakest thing I've read on this thread, I don't know what is. Tell me, what is "comfortable" about divorce and contested custody hearings? Those things affect children of heterosexual parents and the friends of those children and have documented damaging psychological and developmental effects on children. No homosexuality required.

Re: the snip. Thinnking about it last night after I'd logged off I realised that it wouldn't read the way I intended it. The "you" should have read "what". Sorry, fellow ATS member. While I fully meant to attack what you said and show my opposition to it, I didn't mean to call you "disgusting". I do apologise for being extremely rude.


edit: one day I'll get these quotes worked out...

[edit on 15-1-2009 by HowlrunnerIV]

heh, the funniest thing ive seen on this thread so far is how much people argue about being tolerant or understanding, when the op was stateing an OPINION about the event, and now the op and any who agree with him are being persecuted for haveing that opinion, just because their view isnt SOCIALY ACCEPTABLE. and i say that beacause at this time in our society viewing homosexuality in a bad light is seen as the pervaence of bacwards right wing uneducated hicks. last i knew everyone has the right to personal opinion without being pariahed. wheres the tolorance and understanding now?

that being said school is for learning what you need to survive in society and should not be used as a battleground for political issues. there is too much of this in the universities and we dont need it in our grade schools.
come on the 6 year old girl was wearing a vote no prop 8 pin on her, sorry i dont know too many 6 year olds with a firm grasp of political issues enough to choose to wear that on there own, i'd be willing to bet her parent stuck it on her and just told her that " you want your teacher to be happy right?" "then you wear this" face it people this was propaganda
for the cause. as for the teacher i hope her and her partner have a happy life, but school is not the place for propaganda.

Just my opinion.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by lunchbox1979]

Originally posted by lunchbox1979
...school is not the place for propaganda.

Just my opinion.

So where did you learn about democracy, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights?

Just my question...

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


in history class, but i fail to see your point being that those three items are already a part of american history and i didnt need a pin to read about it in a book. maybe im just confused about it but the op was about an current event and about a contraversal (yeah my spelling sucks right now, comeing of a 13 hour shift at work ) law waiting to be voted on. those kids were used as propaganda, its the same as if thoses kids were taken to a political rally and had party pins slapped on them. (yeah kind of a reach but just trying to prove a point) ah well.

just my opinion

So, to twist your meaning and reach WAY further than you intend...

you would have had no problem with the white Deputies who took American flags out of the hands of black men, women and children marching in demand of their constitutionally-guaranteed human and democratic rights in the South in the 60s?

After all, school is where you learn the values of your society. School is where you (Americans in general, that is) learn that your nation and society are the most advanced, most free in the world and that the rest of us look up to you.

To quote you a story illustrative of what I mean:

When I was in primary school the daughter of my teacher went on a 12-month student exchange to the US. While she was there the school (to her utter amazement and dirision) practiced the "duck and cover" nuclear attack drill. She was also called into the principal's office one day to be informed that "the Socialists" had won the Australian general election and that when she went home the country might have changed and some of her freedoms might be gone.

"The Socialsts"! It was the flipping Australian Labour Party under Bob Hawk, the best friend Washington has had in Canberra prior to John Howard! The exact same party that in WW2 turned away from traditional ally Britain and to new friend the US!

So, school is exactly where propoganda begins. So-called "safety drills" such as "duck and cover" do nothing to protect citizens from nuclear attack, but they sure do drive home the message about how evil the USSR is because it might nuke you while you're in school, or at home, or at the mall, without warning. Evil bastards, of course the MX was never designed for the same purpose, was it?

School is where you learn lessons of tolerance. School is where you are first punished for intolerance, whether sexual, racial or religious. School is where you (supposedly) learn what an absolute prick King George was and why you had to fight a war for independence (although a couple of years ago Leno asked the public what was celebrated on July 4 and one woman replied "I don't know, haven't we always had our independence?") School is where you learn about men with names like Grant, Lee, Booth and Lincoln and why they're important.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


So, you're saying that propaganda is OK because it's already been going on at school?

And you must not have children if you believe the FIRST place they receive instruction on manners and 'Loving their neighbor' is by the faculty at school!
It begins early!

However, tolerance of gay people, doesn't necessitate endorsement, cheerleading or community-service for them, right?

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by whiterabbit85

 

I think if the prison situation proves anything it is that Kinsey was right. People are more inclined by nature to bisexuality, not homosexuality or heterosexually (like many species of animals), perhaps it really does all depend on the environment.

You are absolutely right.

First off, we need make it clear here that the three labels of straight, bi and gay are all MAN MADE. Since when does nature bend to man made words and descriptions?

These are categories designed to simplify. It is a manufactured system of simplifying something that is so complex and dependent on thousands of factors so as to be almost impossible to simplify.

Kinsey had the right idea. But what he never realized, or what has evolved since, is that only an extreme minority are 100% exclusively heterosexual.

There is now increasingly more evidence, especially with the advent of the internet and increased communication, that more men than not experience some level of same-sex attraction.
That doesn't actually mean what most would imagine it to mean. It encompasses several factors from competitiveness, comparison, kinship, close friendship, all the way through to direct sexual fetish for one part of the body or another.

There's even research to show that homophobic men are hiding something, trying to over compensate for their desires.
Another great example of the research to show this is is the work done by Professor Henry Adams of the University of Georgia. His work involved openly homophobic men in test conditions. Their physical response to gay pornographic footage showed that there was a sexual desire there, whether they admitted it or not.

My theory is that both Kinsey and Henry Adams were correct, fewer men are 100% heterosexual than society has ever accepted (ancient Greece anyone?) and more do experience either a desire for same sex experiences as a part of their sexual identity, or as a fetish specifically focused on one part of the anatomy or one act performed by another man.
It certainly seems that those who express homophobia are either consciously or subconsciously battling their own sexual desires towards others of their gender.

I think this is all changing now though, thankfully. As more and more people have access to the internet, and inevitably men look for stimulating media, they increasingly find that they are actually not alone in their sexual identity. More and more men are finding others to talk to about this, and it seems that most are continuing with their heterosexual lives while accepting this aspect as a part of their sexuality.

Another example of this is the new term of "g0y" (with a zero). This best describes a man who is not comfortable with the stigmas and associations immediately made when labeling yourself as "gay".
Most people immediately associate being gay with a specific sexual act, when in fact, this is seldom a focal point for any gay man.
G0y is a new term for those who actually don't like the commonly associated sexual acts and stereotypes of the gay community. They refuse them and embrace what is more comparable to a sexual kinship, a close male bond. Which is something most men feel at some time to a close friend, but the g0y guys accept this sexual side and appreciate it as a part of that friendship.
They refuse the stereotype camp, dramatic and over the top, and prefer to maintain themselves as they are, as masculine as they have ever been. Some pursue heterosexual relationships too, some don't. They are the epitome of "regular guy who happens to like men too".

And on the prison thing... I work with a guy in his 70's who was a Prison Officer for 40 years. Some of the stories he tells me would make your eyes water.
The tale of Porridge in a sock and left to dry on a window ledge immediately springs to mind

Originally posted by Clearskies
Why do some men in prison become homosexual, because of the lack of females?
Many people can become 'conditioned' to go either way.
bisexuality is so much more common in America than it used to be.

I actually felt sorry for a lesbian who had been sexually abused from an early age by uncles, brothers and I think, a grandfather and we began a friend relationship that turned sexual.
If I had been in a structure that was different than I had, I could've become used to it and
become bi-sexual or lesbian.

I was not "conditioned" to be attracted to other men.

How about this, Bisexuality is not increasing because of conditioning or a change in values, it's always been present as Kinsey and Henry Adams showed decades ago. The reason it seems more prevalent than it ever was is simply because fewer people are being indoctrinated into organized religion at an early age.
It is more accepted in media, in life in general, and people are communicating anonymously through the internet and having that epiphany that in fact they are pretty normal and their sexual desires are normal too.

What is abnormal in this situation is the complete blanket denial of the masses to accept that the majority are bisexual in nature. And the determined arrogance some people have to force their views on others and deny them the right to enjoy their lives how they wish.

The healthiest attitude to have with regard to sexuality is to accept how you feel, regardless of what others think of it. The best way to deal with this is to refuse any allocation of label, enjoy your sexuality without having the need to excuse yourself or deny your feelings.

Why does it matter to anyone else who you choose to sleep with as long as you are consenting adults? The fact is, it doesn't matter to anyone else. No one has the right to try to make you feel bad or abnormal for something that is entirely normal.

Bisexuality has always existed, it isn't increasing in existence, it's merely increasing in awareness and acceptance. More people are stating that they are bisexual because they no longer feel such a need to comply with a religious or social view and they can find that they are not alone.

This is shown in EVIDENCE presented by Kinsey and Adams decades ago.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Well IMO, the 'sexual revolution' was part of a NWO planned destruction of the American family unit.
The Ugly Truth
What kind of pervert was Kinsey?
Male Survivor: Overcoming Sexual Victimization of Men and Boys
The Kinsey Report

Essentially "The Kinsey Report" said that aberrant sexual behavior was so common as to be normal. Thanks to psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman, (www.drjudithreisaman.org) we now know that Alfred Kinsey and the "Kinsley Report" were frauds.

Kinsey,a University of Indiana zoologist, pretended to be a Conservative family man. In fact, he was a child molester and homosexual pervert who seduced his male students and forced his wife and associates to perform in homemade pornographic films. To prove that children have legitimate sexual needs. Kinsey and his fellow pedophiles either abused 2,000 infants and children or relied on data obtained in Nazi concentration camps. (Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, 1998, p.312)

Reisman concludes: "America's growing libidinous pathologies...taught in schools...and reflected in our fine and popular arts, the press, law and public policy largely mirror the documented sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey team itself."

Sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey's goal was "to supplant what he saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous "anything goes" bi/gay pedophile paradise." (Reisman, Crafting Gay Children: An Inquiry, rsvpamerica.org... 202001.htm p.4) He cruised Times Square looking for interviewees. More than 25% of his samples were prostitutes and prison inmates including many sex offenders. Kinsey, who died prematurely of disease associated with impotence and self-mutilation (orchitis, Reisman p. 278), said 10 per cent of American men were gay when in fact only two per cent were.

RenewAmerica

Kinsey's perversion started early. He became a scoutmaster at the age of seventeen, and in 1921, in a letter he wrote to a fellow YMCA counselor, boasted of a "nature library" that he possessed. This collection comprised nudist magazines that contained pictures and drawings of nude men and boys, and Kinsey would show them to his young male charges in his tent — alone — late at night.

This was a pattern that would continue and become more acute as Kinsey aged, as he definitely seemed to tend toward boys and young men in the sexual arena. As a professor at the University of Indiana, he took long camping trips with young male students. During these excursions Kinsey would parade around nude in front of the young men, bath with them and, according to the wife of one of the students, take advantage of them during group masturbation sessions.

Belying this sordid behavior was the facade of normalcy that Kinsey so adroitly erected and maintained, with the help of allies in academia and the media. He even managed to marry a woman, Clara Bracken McMillan, who was willing to be party to his deviance, thereby providing him with extra cover. She not only tolerated his homosexual escapades with his students, but she actually participated in such activities as wife-swapping and the creation of sex films with Kinsey's staff in the attic of their home. Additionally, Kinsey maintained a collection of "gorgeous" homosexual male photographs, and forced members of his staff to engage in various forms of sexual activity, ostensibly for the purposes of breaking down moral barriers against such behavior. Now, the above is not a comprehensive list of Kinsey's sexual transgressions, for they are legion. But suffice it to say that the more you study the man, the more you realize that he was not a scientist but the Marquis de Sade with a research team.

How did Kinsey come to the conclusion that children are sexual? That is the most frightening aspect of his story. Kinsey was a silent partner in the molestation of 317 children. In chapter five of his 1948 report on the human male, Tables 30-34 present data on children's orgasms-beginning with five-month-old infants.

In a 1990 interview, Dr. C.A. Tripp (a Kinsey colleague), defended the 'legitimacy' of Kinsey's research. He said that Kinsey would "listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches . . ." How did the pedophile know when the infant reached orgasm? The children reacted by "groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with the abundance of tears."

What?
Pedophilia in Pop Culture

In Greece and in the Roman Empire, the use of minors for the sexual satisfaction of adults was a tolerated and even prized costume. In China, castrating young boys to sell them to rich pederasts was legitimate commerce during millennia. In the Islamic world, the rigid morals that ordain the relationships between men and women was not rarely compensated by the tolerance with homosexual pedophilia. In some countries this lasted al least until the beginning of the 20th century, making Algeria, for example, a garden of delights for depraved travelers (read the memoirs of André Gide, “Si le grain ne meurt”).

Also, denying yourself of sexual wants and needs is what has saved untold millions of marriages.
Even if I had a secret sexual relation with another man, (Which is adultery in the Bible)
I would know about it and it would change my marriage of nearly 14 years with my husband, not to mention our children's lives.
Denying ourselves, sometimes is what makes civilized nations prosper!


[edit on 2-2-2009 by Clearskies]