I think the real issue here is that there are still some prudes who
think it inappropriate to talk to teens about condoms.

Nice deflection, Bob. I certainly am not a prude, and have never said that
nobody should speak to kids about "condoms". However, there's a huge leap
from discussing them in a clinical, academic setting,

and having teens put them in their mouths in public to "see how they taste".

The fact that you
can't discern the difference suggests that you don't have a lot going for
you in the judgement and common sense department.

Since the intention of society is to destigmatize homosexuality

The intention of "society" as determined by who?

If the kid is not
yet sexually active, he might indeed be homosexual; or even bisexual.
So what?

Perhaps some people think that promotion of homosexuality isn't a good idea,
and that pressuring kids into such behavior might be out of line.

Of course,
being a good brain-dead party-line liberal, you're not about to pass
"judgement"...

The same spineless girly-men pushing "sensitivity training"
in public schools so we don't inadvertently offend gays and lesbians have no
problem with being concerned whether parents and/or taxpayers are offended.

I guess that makes it quite clear how much value the educrats place on those
specific groups. Thanks for confirming that the parents and taxpayers are
lower on the totem pole than the queer activists... :O(

I can't think of a better response to a teen expressing anti-gay
prejudice

So a 15-year old boy not wanting to put a condom in his mouth in front of
other students is now a manifestation of "anti-gay prejudice"?

Ever consider that it's a manifestation of being a 15-year old boy?

Funny how you can't seem to express any outrage over forcing such an act on a child,

but instead you feel compelled to insult the child.

Why not tell him just to sit back
and enjoy it, being the moral coward that you are?

than to point out that his eventual adult sexual preferences
aren't necessarily known and determined yet.

Are you suggesting that his preferences can somehow be molded and influenced
at this point?

That certainly flies in the face of the militant queer
activists who aregue that homosexuality is pre-determined, and an "immutable
characterists" such as race, sex, and ethnicity.

If you are indeed making
the argument that homosexual tendencies CAN be influenced by your
environment,

then it would be consistent to believe that the teacher might
actually be PROMOTING such activity?

Read the article. The male pronoun is used:

Both Danfelser and Escudero claim this was the first complaint he has
received about his presentation, which he has been doing for years.

Then they need to get his ***** out of the classroom yesterday.

- it's bad enough if we're talking about a female teacher, but if
a male teacher suggested to a minor that he might like participating in

oral

sex with a male, his ***** needs to be removed from the classroom

immediately.

It is a sex ed class, and kids are expected to speak frankly about
their concerns, and teachers are expected to speak frankly about the
issues. If the suggestion was not a sexual advance on the teacher's
part, and could not be taken as such, then frankly I see nothing wrong
with it in a sex ed class. The idea is for kids to be informed, and
in point of fact there are men who enjoy oral sex with males,

There are also people who enjoy giving and receiving golden/brown showers,
being tied up and spanked, and having various rubber objects inserted into
various body cavities. Obviously these have nothing to do with the STATED
intention of sex ed (to prevent unwanted pregnancies),

so why do these
topics need to be discussed in an environment where such behavior is
perceived to be condoned?

and this
is legal behavior between consenting adults, which is what the class
is teaching about.

What part of THE STUDENTS ARE NOT CONSENTING ADULTS do you not understand?

Again, you are going far beyond the original mandate of sex ed when you
think that teenage boys need to taste condoms as part of the educational
experience...

Why is more wrong to suggest that the kid might someday enjoy oral sex
with a male than oral sex with a female? Or shouldn't they talk about
that in sex ed class either.

You don't see a problem with a male teacher encouraging minors to taste
condoms, and telling some teenage boy that he might enjoy gay sex some day?

You would think that in a day of rampant lawsuits, that would be enough to
raise a red flag with the school.

Instead, you continue to defend it as a necessary part of the coursework.

provided that the teacher follows whatever rules and laws are in place.

So you think this is appropriate as long as there is no law specifically
prohibiting it?

I think that we aren't in a position to judge whether it was
appropriate

Why aren't "we" in a position to judge?

"We" pay taxes and send kids to
school, but we can't make judgement calls on what is done with that money
and in front of "our" kids?

Are you really suggesting that we suspend all
personal judgement and let the State decide such matters without question?

and in the absence of a law or policy prohibiting it for
a good reason, I believe in the 1st amendment.

The First Amendment doesn't mandate that others supply a forum for such
speech, so such claims in a classroom setting are invalid.

You need to get a clue what the constitution really means...

I guess you're one of those types who's concerned more with
technical legalities than common sense.

Common sense is that in a class of 30 kids, at least one of them will
indeed be homosexual,a nd others will at least experiment with the
idea.

Common sense is that having a male teacher pressure a minor male student
into putting a condom in his mouth

and telling him that he might enjoy that
type of stuff some day goes WELL BEYOND what is necessary for sex ed,

and into pushing an agenda that most parents will not approve of.

Common sense
is that taking an adolescent kid at a time in his life when his hormones are
kicking in and placing him under that type of psychological stress is not in
the best interests of the kid.

It's assholes like this teacher who ***** up teenage kids,

and spineless wimps like you that allow it to happen...

Therefore, unless our society is planning an anti-gay pogrom, a
sex ed class is supposed to be teaching kids that homosexuality is
normal in some people, and that there are certain protections that are
appropriate, and that those protections are not to be stigmatized any
more than the homosexual behavior is.

So you view this as a choice of one extreme or the other: Either we promote
all-out persecution of gays, or we promote homo-specific behavior in the
classrooms and suggest to impressionable adolescents that they may LIKE
sucking *****.

You are essentially supporting the same position of the
"militant queer" movement, which makes it suspect as to how much you really
care about the welfare and self-esteem of those 15-year old boys who are
subject to this crap in the classroom.

Does the teacher deny encouraging the kids to taste the condoms?

I don't recall seeing whether the teacher was asked.

Once again, Does the teacher deny encouraging the kids to taste the condoms?

You know, having your daughter gang-banged in a porno flick might be a

way

for her to pay for her college education, and who knows, she might like

it

some day.

Who knows? She is 18 now and an adult. I'm concerned that she not do
something unsafe, but otherwise, it is none of my business if she
decides to have kinky tastes.

So it wouldn't bother you a bit?

Maybe we should encourage her to explore
something that she (and you) perhaps found embarrassing? ;O)

Some young ladies find the remuneration worth the potential
embarrassment. That's their business. I'm not a sex ed teacher, so I
would find it inappropriate to encourage or discourage any legal
activity, unless she asked me.

Thanks for confirming that you ARE a liberal, Bob - addled with moral
relativism and incapable of making a judgement call.

But I'm sure at least at least one sex ed teacher has been asked by a
kid about making porn movies, and I doubt that a teacher merely saying
it is a bad idea is going to impress any kid who was seriously
considering it,

So what do you think they should tell the kid?

If it was a male teacher encouraging young boys to taste
condoms because "they might like it someday", that teacher might wind up
with a few broken bones (in Texas, he might be lynched).

Then the bone breakers and lynchers should go to prison for a long
time. THAT is inappropriate.

And do you also support the idea that grown adults who pressure minors into
performing "lewd and lascivious" acts should also go to prison for a long
time?

just letting you know that what passes muster in girly-man Fairfax

County, VA doesn't fly out west...

You just said that it DOES "fly" in California, Arnold-baby, which was
west of Fairfax County, the last time I looked at a map.

California isn't what I was referring to...

Those porn
movies get their women from somewhere, and no one has run the
producers out of town, or lynched them, yet, so far as I know.

I don't care about porn movies filmed with, and produced by consenting
adults, and whether they are gay, straight, or somwehere in between. I'm
more concerned with grown adults promoting homosexuality among kids in
public schools.

In other words, what you do behind closed doors with
consenting adults and your own money, is your own business, but what you do
with children, in public schools, with taxpayers money is everyone's
business.

Parents and taxpayers have no right to shut down a porn studio in
the SFV - they have EVERY right to can a teacher who promotes homosexuality
and pressures students into performing acts that any reasonable person would
equate with specifically homosexual activity.

In the meantime, the New Mexico Health Department is backing the
teacher (I find it interesting that this comes under the Health
Department and not the education department; the teacher may not be a
regular-ed teacher), and THEY aren't being "run out of town". Since
it appeared in the local press, if the locals were really upset, it
would have been worth more than a single short article more than a
week ago.

Or the media chooses to ignore what doesn't meet their agenda - we have seen
that plenty of times before... :L|