Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tennessee Senate approves ‘don’t say gay’ bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This makes me feel sick.
    There really is no hope.

    1. Pathological bias really needs to be a listed mental illness,
      at California State Prison inmates who display pathological homophobic, racist or religious bias are treated with anti-psychotic drugs and it really helps them. There needs to be more research into pathological bias before it will be a classified diagnosis. Clearly those who pushed this bizarre legislation through are suffering from some form of pathological bias.

      1. Pavlos,
        You are not going to go anywhere with this “mental illness” crusade you are after. I think personally that it is an insult to people with real mental illness to compare them to political hacks.
        I think its time to get serious about these kinds of things rather then acting like children.

        1. If you have paranoia, do you project your hostility toward other groups?

          1. LOL. Yet I been called many names on this site and I am the hostile one? Geez give it a break.

          2. You have not been called anything that I’m sure you must suspect at this stage about your state of mind.

          3. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 8:32am

            You don’t handle debate very well do you pepa.
            Never mind.

        2. @Pepa

          On the contrary I think Pavlos has a positive contribution to make with regards the possibility that pathological bias may be a mental illness.

          It is a hypothesis worthy of examination and already been demonstrated to have some basis and worthy of confirmation and correlation in alternative environments

          Unless of course you have categorical evidence that it is untrue?

          1. I have examined it carefully with an understanding of what mental illness really is and what it isn’t. Calling people mentally ill does not prove your right, just a sign of desperation.

          2. While I might not often find myself agreeing with Pepa, I do find it problematic that those who demonstrate bigotry and ignorance towards LGBT people are so often dismissed as mentally ill. While I accept that some of those who oppose our rights are statistically likely to suffer from mental illnesses, I don’t feel that it’s acceptable to use a commonly stigmatised group as a depositary for hateful individuals in general.

            I’d also wonder whether it’s helpful to use the “oh, their opinions can be dismissed because they’re just mentally ill” argument (although I’m not sure whether that’s being implied here). Because, well, surely their opinions should be dismissed because they are bigoted and hateful – not because of how those opinions came about. And I don’t know how likely the bigots are to rethink their hatred if we centre our discourse on potentially inaccurate guesses about their reasons.

            Still, if you have any citations for the studies you mention, I’d be interested to see them.

          3. Repy to Sally,
            I already provided a link to the article I was referring to but it has been pushed further down the comments thread by the build up of reply posts to comments ahead of it.
            Here is the link again
            “Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be An Illness”
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html

            There are other articles if you Google “Pathological Bias”

          4. Thanks Stu! To be honest, I was really hoping there might already be some peer-reviewed studies on this – it’s difficult to get an idea of the scientific standing of an emergent idea from newspaper articles. Of those who have a hand in these guidelines, only two qualified specialists are quoted, although the article mentions an unspecified number of “advocates”, whose professional standing is not given. A number of psychologists express sceptical views, “[t]he guidelines have not been endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association”, and they will presumably have to wait until the guidelines have a strong evidential basis before they are approved. Personally, I’d be uncomfortable giving too much credence to these ideas until a clinical consensus has been reached. I’ve given reasons above, and I also agree with Sally Satel, the psychiatrist who pointed out that “the diagnosis would allow hate-crime perpetrators to evade responsibility by claiming they suffered from a mental illness.”

          5. (Then there’s the issue of labelling people as mentally ill without an actual diagnosis. If we consider, for a moment, the possibility that the guidelines *were* to be introduced, it would still not be useful to label any homophobic person as suffering from the mental illness of pathological bias. It might be compared to the problematic tendency some people have to label anyone who resorts to violence as a “psychopath”. Specific clinical diagnoses cannot be applied by unqualified people.)

          6. Sally< I see your points, and I too am particularly concerned that labelling homophobia as an 'illness' could lead to that being used as some kind of defence. But I think the key word here is 'extreme' – so only people with extreme bias would potentially count as mentally ill. That is, bias that is wholly illogical and not open to reason or experience and interferes with the person's life – eg they won't go out because they're afraid an 'X' person might bump into them.
            Normal prejudice, so to speak, is understandable. We are probably all guilty of it to some extent and I believe it's a normal human response to anything new or different. So that is NOT a mental illness, but, possibly EXTREME prejudice could be.
            Most homophobes aren't mentally ill, of course. They're homophobic due to ignorance or fear, a few due to a definite wish to hurt or bully, and an even smaller number through a possible mental condition, I think.

          7. *nodnod* – yes, I agree entirely, Iris. My concern is really just that we avoid casually labelling *any* person who demonstrates homophobic tendencies as mentally ill, according to a diagnosis that none of us is qualified to make, and that cannot even *be* made within the boundaries of current psychiatric evaluation. I’m aware that people sometimes just need to vent – I’ve felt frustrated enough with bigoted people to want to do the same – but I feel that there are other ways of venting that might be less unhelpful and considerably less problematic.

          8. @Sally and Iris

            I agree care needs to be taken when describing homophobia as mental illness per se. I think there are grounds for further psychiatric and psychological research to establish whether there is a link between homophobia and certain mental illnesses or a propensity to be homophobic if suffering from certain forms of mental illness.

            My experience of people with mental illness are that it can polarise views and lead to extreme viewpoints.

            So, my own view is that there may be some homophobic people whose homophobia is worse when a mental illness they have is not under clinical control. This of course could be racism, sexism, extremism etc – not necessarily merely homophobia

            However, I do not think every bigoted person is mentally ill.

          9. @ Stu “I do not think every bigoted person is mentally ill.”

            It occurs to me that, as I replied to your comment initially, I may have given the impression that I believe *you* to hold the viewpoint that [bigoted must equal mentally ill]. Just in case you’ve felt slightly under siege over this, I’d like to apologise and clarify that I didn’t intend the bulk of my comment to target you as an individual – I only really replied to you specifically because you’d mentioned there might be articles on the subject and I was interested to learn more. I hope my comments haven’t come across as personal, anyway :)

          10. @Sally

            No, I didnt take it as a personal attack Sally …

            Articles you might find of interest is:

            Can there be an anthropology of homophobia? – D Kulick – 2009

            Complicating homophobia – J O’Brien – 2008

            Boundaries, Exclusion and Oppression in The Psychological basis of Homophobia: Cultural Construction of a Barrier – SJ Rasmussen – 2007

            I can’t find the ones that specifically deal with there being shared mental health traits of some particularly vehement homophobes at the moment (but will keep looking in my books!)

            I am sure most homophobia is a viewpoint (wrongly) but think it can be agitated by mental health issues

          11. @ Pavlos
            Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be An Illness”
            I read this article before and one thing is clear to me: ponder doe NOT equal a conclusion. Stating that a few psychologists are throwing an idea around does not mean it is conclusive. Also AGAIN, they state in the article the bias has to be EXTREME enough cause severe IMPAIRMENTS in a person’s normal life.
            This is the third time I had to explain what the article says and doesn’t say.

          12. @Pepa

            Nonetheless, it does say that there may be some link … you suggest there may be none … I tend to accept there may and this is an area that requires further investigation and study

          13. @ Stu
            Give it a rest. The article does not prove anything that you or Pavlos are claiming. You just “believe” that there might be a reason to believe that Christians are mentally ill. Fine that is YOUR belief and you are entitled to it. So here is my belief: you only care about mental illness so as to use it as a crutch against those who you disagree with.

          14. @Pepa

            Your infantile comments appear to know no bounds …

            Your are entitled to your views and beliefs as I am to mine ….

            Unfortunately, you are very wrong in yours – you know nothing about me – you have never met me, and yet you seem to know that I am a rapist (wrong), child molester (wrong), gay sex activist (laughable) and dont care about mental health (wrong).

            If you are going to debate Pepa, then throwing false accusations and judgements isnt adult.

            Some of us read academic and clinical reviews with open minds and recognise where further research is necessary …

            You clearly do not …

      2. Pavlos has a point. Homophobia, unlike Homosexuality, is entirely curable. Unfortunately I’m guessing no one seeks treatment.for their unnatural condition.

        1. Bias is not an illness. Homophobia is not an illness. Racism is not an illness. Unless they interferre with a person’s normal way of life and causes several dependencies among other things. Just call homophobia for what it really is: ignorance. Plain and simple.

          1. I can see what you are saying but I’m not sure it’s just that simple. Some people are just haters (and for some reason tend to be fundamentalist or radical whatevers) and I wouldn’t be surprised to find a degree of pathology behind that. They can’t all be that dumb lol.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 8:42am

            Ignorance and some degree of Mental Health issues.

          3. @Pepa

            Some will be simple ignorance – some will have distorted views due to mental illness

          4. Ah, we agree here, pepa :D “Unless they interfere with a person’s normal way of life…”

          5. Again this fascination about mental illness is getting to be creepy. Just to let you know Hitler also called his enemies “mentally ill.”

          6. @Pepa

            Its not creepy, its an adult debate – there is reason to look into the issue – better than burying our heads in the sand and not trying to understand …

            There are plenty of academic studies in the area – please feel free to consult and ATHENS search, google scholar or elsewhere – you will find plenty of material …

            I have read a lot on sex offending (given my previous job) it doesnt make me a sex offender, I have also read lots on piano’s but it doesn’t make me a pianist …in the same way, reading or discussing mental health and whether or not it has a link to homophobia neither makes one mentally ill nor homophobic

          7. “Godwins law”, by pepa.

          8. @Will

            Godwins law proved several times in this thread

          9. @ Stu
            Here is where you are again being more unreasonable than not. You want people to know that your enemies are “mentally ill.” Do you actually think that the public here in America would take you at your word therefore take your side? You really believe that? I know gays call the rest of humanity “homophobic” and “bigoted” and “mentally ill.” In the end you do not realize how much damage you are causing to the community’s image. Calling people “mentally ill” does NOT win them over to your side. It REPELS them from you and your cause. Think about it before you open your mouth and pretend that you speak on behalf of other gays, because certainly you do not speak for me.

          10. “It REPELS them from you and your cause.”

            As does falsely authorising people of rape and child abuse. Not to mention calling everyone a “gay sex activist” – a made up term if ever I heard it.

        2. @Pepa

          Again you misrepresent me …

          I have not said that “my enemies” (whoever they may be – I dont perceive I have enemies) are mentally ill. At no point on here have I said any particular person or group of people are mentally ill. What I have said is that it may be possible that in some cases mental illness may lead some people to polarise some of their views including those of hatred including homophobia, racism etc.
          That is not how you portray what I have said, and your description is disingenuous
          I do not think that most gay people think that everyone who is not gay is homophobic. I certainly don’t think that. Most of my friends are not gay – they are straight people who accept me and other gay people for who we are, friends. So again, you misrepresent me.

          However, the reality is that some people are mentally ill. As a healthcare professional I meet people who are mentally ill often. Mental illness has a stigma but it should not shame people.

          1. That last sentence sort of gave me a giggle. You don’t want to “shame people” who are mentally ill but that is clearly why you want this belief of yours to be true, to shame people who you perceive to be homophobic. Also many times you accuse of mental illness and use it to shame me using that label. I take a different route, mainly addressing the issues in a serious manner. You just want to label people as “mentally ill” to discredit them.

          2. Hmmm. Yes, quite.

            Lets look at the facts, shall we?
            – Obsessed with conspiracies you cannot prove.
            – Obsessed with sex and the assumption that all gay sex leads to them being rapist/child/abusers, and hence gay men cannot be monogamous
            – Belief in a global corporate conspiracy in which you “know” the truth, and anyone again you is a “kool-aid drinking worshipper of power” (this one is a particular delight)
            – Claimed a virtual stranger on an internet form is a rapist and a child abuser.
            – Ignores any call or proof, or anything that will threaten their world view
            – Generalises extensively, in sexual terms, to back up this “theories”

            Now, one one here is saying they are qualifies or able to make a diagnosis from an internet forum, but from what we see here, do you seriously expect us to believe you are anything other than imbalanced? Is any of your behaviour from a normal well balanced individual?

          3. Stu: “What I have said is that it may be possible that in some cases mental illness may lead some people to polarise some of their views including those of hatred including homophobia, racism etc.”

            Excellent comment, Stu. Ignore pepa. I don’t think he’s after rational debate at all. Or maybe he’s currently incapable of it.

          4. @Iris and Will

            Thanks for you rational and reasoned comments

            In the face of dogmatic and unrelenting diatribes from Pepa its good to have reasonable and honest support

      3. The really mentally ill person is you, because you considers yourself as a psychiatrist, being actually a semi-idiotic ignorant.

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 2:36pm

          Something you know plenty about eh, Rich?
          When’s lock-up?

      4. @pepa + Pavlos: I’m sure Pavlos meant it as a joke. There are no illnesses that cause you to directly hate gays. Politicians against gay people are usually insecure in one way or another. Unfortunately, research shows that the US has the greatest amount of people unable to demonstrate “stepping into the shoes of others” although they can still empathise based on their own experiences. I suspect most republicans probably fit into this category as they seem uncaring about the plight of people in their own society.

        I can sympathise with pepa’s frustration however, as suffering mental illness is really debilitating. Most people see it as a joke, a choice and treat suffers as if they’re sub-human. So whilst I can laugh along, admittedly you are perpetrating a bad stereotype, which is why pepa is probably angry.

        1. No I didn’t mention pathologicla bias as a joke, I was referring to genuine research, discussion and opinion of some psychiatric professionals that pathological bias might deserve to be a listed diagnosis, the jury is out presently, and the uproar and objection from anti-gay religious groups would undoubtedly be enormous as you could imagine.
          Pathological Homophobic or Racial Bias can not only be debilitating for the person who exhibits the behaviour but it can have severe consequences for those on the receiving end of their obssessive behaviour.

        2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 12:33pm

          I think if you read pepa’s messages Paul UK you’ll realise his anger is directly towards the LGBT community.
          He clearly has a problem with people being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transexual.
          So much hate and anger I am wonder about the already suggested Christian fundie comments.

          1. Nope, no anger just not buying the lies and the flawed arguments made by the gay sex advocates (which are different from gay rights activists which are now the minority).

          2. @Pepa

            Define gay sex advocate

          3. gay sex advocate or activist = a gay person that advocates for gay sex and the sexualization of children, teenagers, adults and the gay community. This person values sex above anything else and objectifies it as a commodity to sell, trade, or impose others with.
            gay rights activist = a gay person that fights for gay people’s right to be left alone and to be treated with respect and dignity.
            One demands adherence to new perverse sexual mores, while the other fights for justice, fairness and respect.
            Gay rights activists are in the minority as gay sex activists pose as them.

          4. LOL! And people are DOING THAT HERE? In this forum? You must be so much more intuitive than me, as I can';t see that. I see many of your insults and conspiracies, but not one perosn here who “values sex above anything else and objectifies it as a commodity to sell, trade, or impose others with”

            You really debase in your thinking.

          5. @Pepa the only person who has brought this down to such a wierd level as sex is you we have never even mentioned it until you have brought it up.

          6. @Hamish. I totally agree. He assumes we’re all as obsessed with sex and “touching” children as he is. And he thinks we’re the mad ones? Tut tut.

          7. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 10:06am

            Here! Here! Hamish.

        3. @Pepa

          Thank you for providing a definition of two views of gay activists that you have.

          I would consider myself neither. I am an equality activist.

          Please explain how anyone on here is a gay sex activist … because nothing in your definition seems to fit anything that anyone has said on this thread – yet it is a phrase you keep bandying around and accusing people of being. Now we have a definition from you, please explain how it applies …

          1. I would consider myself neither.”
            Exactly, that is why I believe that most gay rights (or mostly gay sex) activists are not genuine about helping gay people, they think they are here to “save the world” yet they cannot even keep a hospice open down the street. This is just narcissism. (And somebody that fights for “equality” instead of gay rights and that worships and empowers politicians, celebrities and royals do not have a sense of what equality means).

          2. And drink Kool-aid, don’t forget Kool-Aid. – that bits important, as it makes your comments sane,

          3. @Pepa

            Where do you get off?

            You know nothing about me or my support of hospices or other charities or causes …

            You have no idea whether I am a monarchist or republican

            You have no idea of my political ideology

            You certainly have no idea of my views on celebrity because you have that totally and utterly false

            If you are going to throw swome argument base it on facts rather than your biased assumptions you have made about me

            Ignorant, arrogant, unthinking, and wrong is all that comes across so far

          4. Stu, that’s pepa’s way, I’m afraid. On another thread he’d complained about how his comments had been met on other sites, yet he seems to go about his ‘debate’ in exactly the same way each time – misrepresenting people’s views so he can then voraciously dispute them; manufacturing conflicts where there are none; introducing topics on which others comment, then leaping upon anyone who dares to express an opinion.
            I’d guess that pepa thinks he’s been treated unfairly, but I’d suggest to him that perhaps the fault isn’t the other commenters’ on all those other sites, but largely his.

          5. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 5:33pm

            Yes and I believe he also said he had been banned from some too!
            Wonder why?

          6. Because he’s the sole purveyor of the truth, I expect, Jock. Or maybe because of some gay sex activist liberal Kool Aid promoting conspiracy which we’re all too silly to see. After all, how could it be anything to do with his manner and his offensive comments, eh?

          7. Jock S. Trap 25 May 2011, 10:15am

            Good Heavens no, couldn’t be that, Iris.

      5. SAN DIEGO — Racism, a concept absent from DSM-IV, is under consideration for inclusion in DSM-V under the rubric “pathological bias,” Dr. Carl C. Bell said at the annual meeting of the National Medical Association.
        In addition to racism, pathological bias might include sexism and heterosexism, and might be included in DSM-V as either a symptom or a full-blown disorder.
        …the first step will be to look at pathological bias scientifically, and to determine whether it is a valid construct that can be measured reliably, said Dr. Bell, also president and chief executive officer of the Community Mental Health Council, Chicago.
        Several committees are helping to define the research agenda and are spearheading the discussion.”
        These include committees of the American Psychiatric Association; the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; and the Social Sciences Research Council in New York.
        http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4345/is_9_32/ai_n29126060/

    2. There is always hope. Thinking there is no hope is capitulating to the mindless bigotry of the misinformed and socially crippled.

      1. This is how many gay activists are. They tell us all the time there is no hope, then during the election season turn around and say magically that there is.

        1. I can only assume you were seriously dumped on by someone you considered a “gay activist” to bring you down this troubled road of paranoia. Try to remember not all of us share that view of yours, no matter how you plug that “theory” here.

          1. I think you made your bigoted repulsion of everything I say really clear Will.
            You can try and bully me all you like but its not going to work. I know the tactics, you bully others into submission, including gays who do not submit to your ideology.

          2. Yawn. Of course you would think that, its naturally fits in with your persecution complex.

            In actual fact, I have littler tolerance for hysteria and falsehoods. You speak in paranoid delusions and half truths, and that must be challenged at every turn for that it is:- the ranting of someone in need of mental health services.

          3. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 7:57am

            OMG pepa, could you be any more paranoid?
            No-one is bullying you, it’s not clearly where you think people are.
            I think it’s more you just don’t like being challenged about your opinions but here’s a thing, thats what debate is.
            I kind of feel that as you write a blog and somewhat political, even if it is the Tea Party, you should know this but then I guess this is how the Republicans work.
            Their attitude for not liking criticism, is very similar to the UK’s Labour party in that if you don’t like what you hear smear it or the person saying it.
            I don’t know if it was a gay “activist’ or the gay “mafia” that really let you down but stop taking it out on every other Gay people you can.

        2. @Pepa

          The inadequacy of you preposition about “gay activists” is that you lump all “gay activists” into one group – such draconian compartementalisation of ideas is neither sophisticated nor does it demonstrate any true reflection of reality. In fact what it does do is perceive a polarised view of life that is biased and false.

          1. Hm, I thought lumping people together was a popular thing to do on here, so I thought it wouldn’t be a problem. Since ALL christians are mentally ill, ALL non-liberals are homophobic… well then ALL gay activists are bullies and confronting them requires police protection. Just throwing the same tactics gay activists on this site use directly back at them.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 8:46am

            See pepa thats sounds more like a paranoid hissy fit because most people aren’t agreeing with you.
            Sorry to say this but do yourself a favour – Grow up and grow a pair for pitys sake man!

          3. @Pepa

            Well clearly you dont read the threads here because there are plenty of us who seek to understand that all christians are not the same

          4. Stop kidding yourself Stu. People on here have already established that having a religious belief is tantamount to having a mental illness, please check your own words on the thread regarding the christian pygmy that was fired as a “drug advisor.” It is unattractive when you back-peddle.

          5. @Pepa

            What words specifically are they? Please feel free to try and show me words where I have said anything other than there are some bigots in Christian faiths but equally there are some gay friendly Christians – I can point you to plenty of expressions of this (including if you read carefully some on this particular thread).

            I don’t back track unless someone demonstrates to me that I am wrong about something – then I graciously apologise and move on …In terms of there being some bigots in the church and some who are gay friendly and my comments on here reflecting that – I am very comfortable that I have been wholeheartedly consistent …

            What other people say is a matter for them – there are plenty of others on these threads who have held similar views to me – and for you to ignore that is false, ignorant and insincere

          6. @Pepa

            Thought you wouldnt answer that question …

            Coward can’t admit it even when you get it wrong

          7. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 2:45pm

            Stu
            pepa has no interest in answering, apologising, even reasoning.
            He’s only interested in smearing, stirring up anger to fit his agenda.
            He is bringing his Repubilcan political dirty dealings into this thread.
            He is not worth bothering with.
            With you he crossed the line, proving his only angle is to win as he cannot hande debate or other people having opinions.
            Win what is questionable but you cannot reason with this creature.

          8. @Jock S Trap, Iris, Will, Hamish (and others)

            I’m going to back away from this thread now …

            I’m satisifed that I have tried (along with you and others) to have reasoned and rational debate – unfortunately that has been met with offensive name calling, accusations and false arguments often based on manipulation of comments or misrepresentation …

            If someone can not argue based on facts and needs to twist and misrepresent then its not worth continuing with the debate

          9. Absolutely understood, Stu. You and others, including me, have tried to be welcoming, tried to be polite and given due thought to pepa’s comments and made sensible responses, and we’ve got nowhere.
            I really suspect that that’s the way pepa wants it, so that he can be a victim or say that we don’t want to hear his views or just write us all off as with whatever silly epithet springs into his head.
            You’ve shown an incredible restraint in not reacting to his foul accusation below, and I’m very impressed at how you kept your cool and continued to try to engage with him. I doubt many people would have been so patient. You conducted yourself admirably.

          10. good on you Stu I’m finding it hard just to be bothered to wade through the sheer amount of comments to find his newest bullshi!t one which as usual will be unintellectual, untrue and just generally offensive but anyone left argueing with him if you do manage to get him to go see someone about his paranoid delusions or atleast listen to some proof please let me know lol

          11. Yes, agreed. I have given the proof this cretin wanted, and no reply. What a surprise. Besides, he’s off accusing other of “gay sex activism” on another thread now. No rest for the insane, eh?

          12. Jock S. Trap 25 May 2011, 10:19am

            Agreed.
            To be honest it’s not so much hard work as much as it just gets boring.

  2. GREAT! UK MUST Follow suit and bring back Section 28.

    Do not teach people, let them find out for themselves.

    One is not born homosexual but they become that way

    1. Well the only person who’d know if a Homosexual is born homosexual or not is normally homosexual.

      So I’ll assume that you are homosexual Joey? Very nice to meet you, join the club.

    2. Joey Joey Joey, you demonstrate why it is important for proper education on the subject of sexuality. You obviously missed yours and picked up some nonsense from a nutter.

      1. Yes sexual education is important, but it is wise to educate students who are old enough to understand. And I am not convinced that elementary school kids are capable of understanding human sexuality in any clinical or psychological sense.

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 8:08am

          Well I knew when I was about 6-7 so where would the help be to understand those feelings?
          All I remember is hearing all the time how being Gay was wrong and immoral.
          Kind of found out myself later when I became sexually active young, probably at a time you think it was best to teach kids the subject.
          But then my best friend at school also did and became pregnant at 12.
          Of course the dangers now are that being sexually active and experimental at a young age you don’t really know about things like STD’s and HIV.
          I only started to grasp the dangers when I was raped at 14 in 1986 and was forced to have an HIV test when it was all new then.
          Now at what age should we start teaching kids the dangers and the reality?
          When it’s too late for some?
          I understand no parent whats to think that their child is sexually active, weither that be Gay, Lesbian or Straight but fact is a lot of those parents probably started young to so…

        2. pepa, they don’t necessarily need to fully understand it, it’s more a case of being aware of it.

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:10am

            Exactly Iris!
            Aware and accepted but not to be made to feel ashamed or wrong.

          2. Its also a case of giving the teachers the opportunity to sensitively han dle the situations that will occur at different ages with different pupils. If a child has a question about sexuality or relationships eg they see a gay relationship on Glee – how do they answer it …. Teachers need to be equipped to support their charges, not restricted on how they interpret their morality

          3. That’s not the case. Once you make them aware you have to make them understand it, otherwise they can and do come up with with their own understanding that might not correct. Fine you want to make kids aware of homosexuality? Go ahead. But then they will ask what homosexuality is about. Then the conversation is going to head into a very uncomfortable zone. Your statement is just a cheap cop-out, it is totally unrealistic. If you look at Jock’s story above you indeed to need to go further than just making them aware. I thought talking to pre-pubescent children (who are not yours) about sex is just, well, creepy.

          4. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 8:54am

            But pepa since when has loving another person being an ‘uncomfortable zone’?
            See you’ve already lost the argument because you feel uncomfortable in the first place.
            You clearly have never dealt with children to have such a narrow view of how to educate them.
            There is nothing uncomfortable or awkward about explaining 2 people, Same sex or Opposite sex being in a loving, committed relationship.
            It’s natural and it should be encouraged. You just assume it has to be about explicit sex when it doesn’t.
            Maybe you should get your own head out of the sewer.
            Anyway you have proved my point in that you saying about the conversation heading to an uncomfortable zone – For You not the child.
            So you have now proved clearly what this law would be about and it ain’t nothing to do with the child.

          5. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 8:56am

            It does seem you are actually very ignorant when it comes to LGBT relationships.
            Basically this is what this law is about ignorance and denial.

          6. pepa, maybe I didn’t phrase it well. The sex education given to children is AGE APPROPRIATE. You go into as much or as little detail as appropriate and necessary. Young children don’t actually focus on much but themselves, so an awareness is all that’s necessary. You clearly have little experience of children else you’d know that knowledge/awareness is a gradual process.
            Yes, older children – say 10 and 11 year olds – DO ask for more information sometimes but their questions are actually well-thought out and fairly basic. Teachers do NOT get into sexual discussion with children that age and none really need or want it. Not ONE child of that age has asked me what gay people do in bed – not one. What’s this obsession with sex? Most of what we teach to younger children like that is about the approach of puberty, healthy bodies, respect and relationships.
            Your comments are without foundation.

    3. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 8:34am

      Joey
      The blood of every child that commits suicide because of this bill is on your hands.
      Being that you know sooo much about homosexuals prehaps you can enlighten us how one is taught to be Gay?
      This is the way I was born, your ignorance, like religion is chosen.
      Stop projecting your Evils on others.
      Oh and one more thing, how many more name changes you gonna have?

      1. Like I care about this.
        Ill Stop projecting Evils on others, when others stop projecting their homosexuality onto others. Deal?

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 8:13am

          Pray do tell Rich, oops sorry Joey, how do people ‘project their homosexuality onto others’?
          Second time of asking so I guess you must know that it is not possible, which kinda makes your comment pathetic as well as you.
          Unlike religion being LGBT cannot be taught it is how we are born, weither you like it or not.
          The fact you don’t care about children killing themselves though speaks volumes about you and your religion, though wish are you this week.
          I’m guessing with the name change you not Muslim anymore?

        2. “Ill Stop projecting Evils on others, when others stop projecting their homosexuality onto others. Deal?”

          No thank’s Joey. How about we start simple, you go get some edcuation around gay people, then you can address us as equals. Deal?

        3. @Joey

          So how does that work?
          .
          Run me through the idea of yours that Gays and Lesbians are projecting their homosexuality on to others?
          .
          Unless you want me to see you as a paranoid Fundamentalist Christian, what evidence do you have for this assertion?

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:12am

            There does seem to be a few very paranoid people on here.

        4. If you do not care about people dying then that is all the evidence that we need that your extremist fundamentalist views are irrelevant and evil in themselves. Your lack of compassion, lack of love, lack of sheer humanity is evident for all to see – and I hope you rot in hell, because buster (if your faith is correct) then having views where you do not care about suicide of others and fail to support or encourage and love people is gonna send you there …

          1. Above comment to Joey!

    4. “One is not born homosexual but they become that way”

      Yawn.
      The definition of a stupid person is someone who repeats the same line over and over again when everyone else knows, and proven it, not to be true. Repetition does not make for intelligent statement, Joey.

      1. A stupid person is what a stupid person does – or something like that …

        Joey … idiotic

    5. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 10:47am

      I guess if they say it or hear it enough they become to believe it.
      Thats the problem with believing in a book and not having your own mind and using it.
      In any case since when has anyone proved people are born straight?
      If people think humans are born straight then are they that stupidly naive they think people are born Gay.
      How come other species don’t seem to have a problem expect religious humans?
      At the end of the day we all know we are born this way or that and there’s nothing you nor any else can do about it.

      1. Paul O'Neill 21 May 2011, 11:25am

        Once again I will wearily repeat that not all Christians are homophobic, or stupid. And to assume otherwise is a form of bigotry in itself. Oh, and Joey, you’re very silly.

        1. Agreed, but the stupid ones who want to burn book on evolution and peddle paranoid nonsense, seem to be the most vocal, alas.

          1. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 11:54am

            Definitely!!

          2. Or maybe the ones who attract the media the most?

            Its hardly a story that a Christian or church support gay people …

            But the negative stories about homophobic christians fan the flame amongst some gay activists to be even more harsh to all Christians making it more difficult for some gay people to accept there are gay friendly Christians

        2. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 1:17pm

          Paul O’Neill
          I accept that not all Christians are homphobic but sadly you have to understand that those with power are to bring in laws like this.
          Those not homophobic tend not to be heard so that leaves most people thinking who speaks for whom.

          1. So the gay friendly Christians have to suffer (and be accused of being homophobic) because despite the fact that they challenge wrong theology or attitudes within their organisations. These actions are not publicised by a media who are not interested in good news stories or lack of conflict. This leads to a presumption that Christian is homophobic and that is itself is prejudiced and unfair.

          2. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 3:05pm

            Clearly in this country Stu things are different because we don’t have such a repressive government any more but more of an open one.
            But in the US, Christians clearly still have the louder voice and they have the power to bring in these damaging draconian laws, or even just debating them.
            In many ways the UK is a lot more advanced on these matters, thankful.

      2. Thats the problem with believing in a book and not having your own mind and using it.
        Hmmmm… Do you mean the holy bible or the gay establishment’s political talking points?
        Because the last thing the gay elite (and Jock as well) want is for gay people to use their mind and think for themselves. That means you start to question the motives and the real agendas of the gay sex activists and that is a big no-no.

        1. Again with the gay agenda bullish!t. Really because I think for myself and I know alot of people who do an funnily enough we still usually agree with activists (though admittedly not always) does that make me part of the gay agenda.

        2. Utter rubbish, pepa – paranoid delusions on your part.

          1. So gay activists have no agenda what so ever? LOL
            So all of the articles on this site and others about how we should support Obama and Labour, how we should support abortion, detest christians, etc. are just “my paranoia?” LOL. It is easy to label and name call things you disagree with as “paranoia” yet there gay activists that are saying that “christians are mentally deranged” that “republicans will send us to concentration camps” etc. etc. Yet I respectfully dissent and I am the “paranoid” one? LOL. You made my day!

          2. “LOL” doesn’t make your statement any more correct, or validate the demented rubbish you spout in here ad nauseum. You clearly have issues you need to address, and this is not the place that you will receive the help you need. Get counselling.

          3. Pepa, I do not deny that gay activists have an agenda:- its to get gay equality. If one has crossed your path that has not been to your liking, then you have to see past that. If you do not want equality, that your issues, but do not patronise people like me for supporting that goal. When you produce facts, I will see you as someone that has an opinion, until then, well its been said already by many here, you may need help.

          4. Ditto @ Will

          5. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 8:19am

            “So gay activists have no agenda what so ever?”
            You clearly do!

          6. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 8:32am

            Oh dear pepa,
            I support Obama because he seems to leave the rest of the world alone, unlike any Republican.
            I don’t support Labour at the mo, nor voted for them because they left this country in a mess and I personally cannot vote for the Eds Milibore and Balls-up.
            I don’t support abortion but realise it is a womans body so up to her what she does with it.
            “Detest” is a strong word but I supposed if “detest” has to be used I have to say I feel that about ALL religions.
            Esp Christian and Muslim because I have suffered badly at each of their hands so from personal experience and I don’t mean just once or twice.
            Some Christians and Muslims must have some kind of mental illness because there can be no explanation why someone would openly call for the murder of innocent people just because of how we are born.
            As for “republicans will send us to concentration camps” I do actually get the feeling that many, while not admitting it publically Would agree with that in private.

          7. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 8:33am


            There MY OWN THOUGHTS, nobody elses.
            Yet your the only one setting any agenda of suggesting what or what we should think and feel.
            I guess thats what comes from being an Tea Party member, people!

          8. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 8:34am

            Oops Sorry ex-Tea Party Member.
            He left because of disagreements over cuts.

          9. @Pepa

            I would hope any activist of whatever type (gay or otherwise) would have an agenda – otherwise there is no point in being an activist … sheesh!

            As for the usual agenda of a gay activist – in my experience is has been about equality – much of the time I would support them, although at times there are those whose motivation I understand and empathise with but whose choice of methods or actions I find myself being unable to support.

          10. activists have an agenda:- its to get gay equality.
            Gay activists do not fight for “gay equality.” They venerate and butt-kiss to political and corporate class. Which on its face it is totally contradictory. They are about worshiping power, not making us all “equal.” Empowering celebrities is not at all in the spirit of equality as these power freaks do not view the rest of us as their “equal.” Equality comes from our humanity, not from the ruling-political-royal-celebrity class who only seek to make us all less equal and nothing but fodder to make them even more richer and powerful.

          11. @Jock,
            I support Obama because he seems to leave the rest of the world alone,
            Oh really?
            You seem to live in a cave then.LOL
            Never thought you were thatnaive Jockstrap.

          12. “They are about worshiping power, not making us all “equal.”

            I think we’d need some more proof of this, other then the scribblings of someone who just keeps telling us it is so…. sorry, call me pedantic, but I’m into old fashioned proof rather than conspiracy theories.

            What? No proof? Well, what is a man to think so?

          13. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 9:02am

            So pepa
            This coming from a country that voted in George W. Bush…. twice!!
            You only have to look at Libya to see Obama making sure the US have a back seat.
            That wouldn’t have happened under Bush, he would have been in there 3 all guns blazing.
            Thats why I hope Obama get another term.
            Gaga help us all if the Warmonger Republicans get back in.
            Oh of course, your one of them ain’t ya?!

          14. @Pepa

            You are so paranoid about gay activists …

            I have been a gay activist in the past working in LGBT groups both within my own profession and within the geographical community within which I live. At no point was I (or any of my peers) worshipping power, venerating the political or corporate class or similar and I find your suggestion that all activists behave in such a manner offensive, simplistic and having a similar level of sophistication to its analysis as that endorsed in kindergarten.

          15. @ Will,
            Wonder you even bother to comment since you even admit that you do not read what I say. I given you examples of what I am talking about… so I did provide evidence. It is funny that you expect me to believe that we are gay at birth but yet you never provide the proof. Never did. Still waiting…

          16. @ Jockstrap
            You seem to not care of what I just pointed out to you. Obama is sending more troops to Iraq and is bombing Pakistan…. and of course you are okay with that… But bush was worse? How so? Obama renewed Bush’s Patriot Act, kept Gitmo opened, and still tortures people. But eh, Jockstrap still likes Bush, I mean Obama…

          17. “I given you examples of what I am talking about”
            Where? The “spiritual factors”? Yeah, that’s evidence.

            ONE scientific study that proved “environmental factors”. Just one. Can’t be hard. Until then, you’re just an offensive fool.
            And besides, why do you need to believe its environmental? Will that make your right wing pals more comfortable with you? Will it make you feel better that you can self defecate as a freak of environment? Whatever….

          18. Oh, look! Still no scientific proof. How odd. I would have thought there would be extensive research as to why all gay men were kool-aid drinking worshippers of power/corporations/celes who also want to enforce sex-obsessed child abuse on others. There must be loads of proof, and he’s sorting through it for us….

          19. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 10:59am

            You don’t ‘alf talk a lot of sh!t pepa.

        3. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 8:19am

          And yet on this thread we have LGBT people Thinking for themselves (me included) and you trying to silence people by accusing them of being bullies because you don’t what you hear and clearly hate being challenged.
          The only person who seems to be coming across with as a Gay sex activist is you.
          You can’t stop mentioning it which makes me very suspicious about your agenda.
          Most of us hear do “question the motives” and it you that keeps hitting back with a “big no-no”.

          1. @Jock S Trap

            Whilst I would not agree with everything that you say on this thread and I suspect you won’t agree with all my comments – I have to say the questioning of Pepa’s motives is something I wholeheartedly endorse. He appears defensive and to believe that anyone who does not share his views is clearly wrong – and appears to have a lack of willingness to reflect on his own thoughts. All seem to speak to me of fundamentalism ….

          2. @ Stu,
            You can question all you want, but again want to point out your disdain about my own questioning. It looks like you feel you are the only entitled to question other people’s motives, and show disdain when I do the same thing.

          3. @ Jock,
            Most have not posed a real challenge. Calling me paranoid, and a mental patient, and “angry” and “self loathing” are not real challenges to what I say. They are just irritants meant to make me look bad, but eh. I just brush it off. Its like having a cockroach on your shoulder that you need to shrug off.

          4. “I just brush it off.”

            Isn’t that what you do with any proof given to you, any comment made, and any piece of truth given about your obvious mental state? Hardly impressive.

          5. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 9:26am

            If no-one challenges you pepa then why be here?
            Your conversation is hardly stimulating so maybe there lies the problem.

          6. @Pepa

            If you don’t want me to question your comments then you have two simple choices in a public forum like this – either don’t participate (if you don;t like others disagreeing with you) or provide some solid proof that you are correct rather than opinion … I suspect you are unable to do that …

          7. @ Will and Stu
            You guys ignore the evidence that I provide, I take my time to write these posts and explain what I think about them and how I arrive at these conclusions. YOU are the ones who fail to see that due to your bias and prejudice.

          8. @Pepa

            The thing is – you don’t provide ANY evidence – only opinion

          9. “You guys ignore the evidence that I provide”

            We ignore blogs and unscientifically verifiable sources. When you provide them, we address in kind. Then again, your modus operandi tends to be accusing people of rape and child abuse here, though….

          10. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 10:58am

            In other words we prefer to stick to the intelligent people amongst us.

    6. @Joey
      .
      Are you a Fundamentalist Christian ?

      1. Most likely, at least to me, he is a gay activist posing as a fundamentalist christian. I have done that many times in the past on gay 365 and Towleroad, and if you actually look at the words he uses they are really cliche to the extreme and hard to believe. And I find it hard to believe that a real fundamentalist would be on here, unless of course it is an article about a certain famous pastor or a hot button issue/event that deals with a specific church or dogmatic doctrine. Again this is only my opinion, but I just find this guy hard to believe.

        1. “Most likely, at least to me, he is a gay activist posing as a fundamentalist christian”

          I can only assume you are being facetious here.

        2. I actually think Pepa may be a fundamentalist Christian in a guise of a gay person … or perhaps both at the same time (which I would empathise with as that must lead to a split personality!)

          1. I would tend to lean in that direction too, Stu. He thinks like one of the religious right, which generally means unfounded acquisitions based on lack of proof, with a unhealthy view on gay people as idiot stereotypes.

          2. Anybody that questions the gay establishment = a Christian fundamentalist. Do tell us Stu, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Other than that you are just making assumptions, and thats fine. I made an assumption about the poster being that I did the same thing before. Again why do you show such bigotry and use these bullying tactics? Why am I not allowed to question people’s motives on here as you do constantly? Are you better than me? Do you feel a sense of superiority? I thought you were for “equality.” All you are doing is reinforcing my beliefs about gay activists and this whole gay rights movement mambo-jambo.

          3. BTW I think your assumption is very flawed. I mean why “Fundamentalist Christian?” Why not an Islamist? Since they tend to agree with the notion of executing gay people is fine and even do it themselves. Or how about an African? or a Ugandan? Did you hear they want to execute gays too? How about a communist? Since many communists say that that “many characteristics of the popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity.”
            I mean if you are going to call me names might as well go all the way. Why not! LOL.

          4. “Anybody that questions the gay establishment = a Christian fundamentalist.”

            You share a lot of their thinking, their rhetoric, use their terms, and have their inability to rationalise. What do you think? If the shoe fits….

          5. @Pepa

            How is voicing my opinions – and that is all they can be because I don’t know you – bullying?

            All I have done is question the factual basis of your statements, question the integrity of your comments and suggested a reason why your integrity may be in question.

            If that is bullying – it doesnt fit with the definitions I have seen in any respected dictionary or workplace.

            I note you don’t deny the fundamentalist Christian possibility – that is all it is an opinion that you may be.

          6. @ Stu
            You have called me mentally unstable, a “christian fundamentalist” etc… labeling is a sign of bullying remember? Most of us have been bullied this way in our lives.

          7. @Pepa

            Incorrect

            At no point have I called you mentally unstable – please do not lie about what I have said.

            I said i “think” you “may” be a fundamentalist christian under the guise of a gay person …

            That did not say you were – just my interpretation of how you present yourself …

            I did not apply the label to you, I merely voiced an opinion of an option to explain your incredulous opinions.

            Bullying by its nature has a habitual element to it. Making a single stand alone comment about a possibility is not bullying.

            Please do not lie about comments I have made and please do not call me a rapist (which you do elsewhere on this thread).

    7. martyn notman 21 May 2011, 2:02pm

      oh please! i dont think i heard the word gay until i was about 15, and it certainly wasnt mentioned at the northern comprehensive i went to…yet still managed to figure out i liked guys about age 11…I was born Gay, just as you were born stupid…end of…

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 2:35pm

        Same here Martyn and I came from a strict religious family.
        However it is not the same for all.
        Schools should be open to dicussion and also be there to listen if a pupil is feeling troubled but how they feel and what negative comment they hear because of it.
        Schools Should be part of that.
        I was bullied badly at school because I was Gay but couldn’t turn to anybody esp a teacher because they were silenced by the state on the subject.
        Plenty wouldn’t turn to family so it has to be important to have someone at school that care about the child and less about their own insecurities.
        The other point is with such a problem with STDs and HIV it is important to be able to talk about how they affect people and that has to include the LGBT community.
        Not talking about it is totally irresponsible and those who restrict not only have the blood of children from suicide on their hand but possibly those also also deaths because of their denial.

      2. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 2:36pm

        School is supposed to be a place to grow so why are these schools now strangling the rights of these children.

      3. Yes, most of us figure it out after puberty (the sexual feelings and arousal) so this law in my opinion is moot. It is meant to pump up a base, given the fact that the republicans have failed to address the real issues (devaluation of the dollar, federal reserve’s QE1,2 now 3, banker bailouts, the looting of the treasurery , the foreign off-shore fraudulent 1.4 quadrillion debt, the illegal wars, the UN troops inside the US, the pollution of our drinking water etc.) So lets look at it for what is really is: a magician’s right hand. Addressing it as such means more people would realize how fraudulent this law really is (as in many other laws/issues regarding gay people). Gay people have been the perfect scapegoat for the political class (both parties) and I think it is time that gay people woke up and realize that.

    8. Though it is true that one is not born gay and in due time one then “becomes” that way. However the crux of the matter is whether or not one chose to become that way. I would say no. There are proclivities that are innate in all of us. And homosexuality itself is variant in different degrees in different people. Though I tend to believe that there is manipulation by the gay establishment to exploit our sexual orientation and make us believe that promiscuity is part of it.
      And frankly, I find “joey” hard to believe (of what he says, and of who he pretends to be).

      1. “Though it is true that one is not born gay”

        Nothing as pathetic as a gay man spouting the tired and jaded bullsh1t of the religious. This is utter nonsense, well refuted by the scientific community.

        1. …not to mention every gay man, except those who have yet to come to terms with it, or have been poisoned by dogma.

          1. That is called making a case, scientifically speaking. Anything else is opinion, conjecture, or bias.

          2. Ops, wrong place for that……

        2. There is no scientific proof that all gay people are born gay or that sexual orientation is defined at conception or even the famous gay gene exists. That’s that. Until such a day when the gay gene or group of genes has been discovered that dictates sexual orientation I will remain an atheist on this belief.
          Oh and by the way I would rather not find out if there is a gay gene, because you pro-abortionists do not realize how much damage you have caused after such discovery is made.

          1. A gene? You simply the situation where simplicity is not called for. There have been many cranial studies that show a difference in brain patterns for gay people compared to straight people. This can only be brought about at birth. There are very conclusive Epigenetics studies, Pheromone studies, and Evolutionary studies in other mammals to back this up. You appeal to the “god of gaps” theory, in the absence of definitive proof, therefore it must be “environment”. This is flawed thinking and demonstrated you lack of understanding of science. Let me reciprocate that there is no proof what so ever of “environmental” factors in gay development. That exists in the minds of the stupid and the bigoted. Occam’s Razor dictates one obvious possibility to your thinking:- you want to believe this because it somehow makes you more palatable to those religious buffoons who state this, or you have some self esteem issues that are unresolved. I might be wrong, but you have very unhealthy view of gays

          2. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:40am

            Why has everything got to be down to a gene?
            I know this is the way I was born, I certainly wasn’t taught as many in religion would have us believe.
            The fact there has been no ‘gene’ found for Gay or even straight for that fact, suggests we are just born natural human beings and it is people who seem to choose who is born acceptable and who isn’t.
            The only reason people want to find the ‘gene’ is to satisfy themselves and produce technology to remove it.
            Doesn’t occur to these Nutjobs that you can’t remove the natural.
            Too many people feel the need to question why they’re here when actually they should just be living the life they have.

          3. Exactly Jock, its like we have to justify ourselves scientifically before we’re entitled to equality. The fact of the matter is, there are so many gay people, its preposterous to thinks that we ALL “decided” one day to be gay – that sort of thinking applies to a handful, not tens or hundreds of million’s. Common sense is acutely lacking in the “lifestyle” advocates.

          4. Well, see, there we are, pepa. It’s comments like that that get my back up – “you pro-abortionists”? How do you know what we all think about abortion? You’ve just made an assumption to fit in with your distrubing preconceptions about gay people. THAT’S the nub of the problem – your disagreement, your debate, your opinions are fine, but WHY do you assume things like that, along with us being promiscuous, etc etc?
            The people on PN are a mix of DIFFERENT people with a wide variety of views – political and personal.

          5. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:18am

            Indeed, there only seems to be one person who has some kind of agenda by thinking he can speak for all our opinions… pepa!

          6. This can only be brought about at birth. There are very conclusive Epigenetics studies, Pheromone studies, and Evolutionary studies in other mammals to back this up.
            These studies only correlate certain aspects to a desired conclusion. They do not “simplify” (as you accuse me of) the enigma of the cause of homosexuality to birth. It is my belief that is a variant of factors that progresses a person’s sexual orientation which then accelerates during puberty. If one is gay at birth than one must say that children are able to be be sexual and have sexual attraction to members of the same sex starting on day one. Which is ridiculous. I had ambiguous fantasies of boys from about age 9 or 10 then sexual desires right after the onset of puberty. I don’t remember having sexual attraction for boys at any earlier age. And I also believe that there is a spiritual/vibrational factor on this as well.

          7. “It is my belief that is a variant of factors that progresses a person’s sexual orientation which then accelerates during puberty. If one is gay at birth than one must say that children are able to be be sexual and have sexual attraction to members of the same sex starting on day one.”

            Does this apply to straight children? Straight children have sex form day one, do they? If not, then his “rationale” is utterly stupid and desperate.

            “And I also believe that there is a spiritual/vibrational factor on this as well.”

            Yeah, well you can believe the garden pixies did it, it means fcuk all, Pepa. As usual you produce fanciful nonsense in lieu of proof. I cave you proof (that you clearly didn’t understand, or else you would have addressed it – clearly my superior university gained scientific understanding over your patrionising “LOL”‘s), you give me “spiritual factors”?????? Are you on drugs?

          8. There has been research which has shown results connecting homosexuality and the amount of testosterone you get in the womb etc which would indicate that you are born gay

          9. Lets look at some studies that show nature over nurture:
            (1) Bocklandt S, Horvath S, Vilain E, Hamer DH (February 2006). “Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men” ~ “…in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons”
            (2) Blanchard R, Klassen P (April 1997). “H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men” ~ “that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%.This is now “one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation.”
            (3) Savic I, Berglund H, Lindström P (May 2005). “”Brain response to putative pheromones in gay men” concluded that sexual attraction (same-sex or opposite-sex oriented), operates on a biological level

          10. And to reference Hamish’s point, on Brain Structure:-

            In 1990, Swaab and Hofman reported a difference in the size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus between homosexual and heterosexual men, and in 1992, Allen and Gorski reported a difference related to sexual orientation in the size of the anterior commissure. [Allen LS, Gorski RA (August 1992). "Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain" & Swaab DF, Hofman MA (December 1990). "An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men"]

            Another similar 2010 study stated: “The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells. In this way, our gender identity and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.”

          11. And more….

            William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with the University of Oklahoma has evaluated more than a hundred cases of children born with sexual differentiation disorders. In the 1960s and 70s, it was common in developed countries for doctors to castrate boys born with a micropenis and have them raised as girls. However, this practice has come under attack, because even though these boys were raised as girls, they nearly all report as adults that they are sexually attracted to women. This suggests that their sexual orientation was determined at birth.

            And….

            Evolutionary studies stated “while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals’ reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them.” Their results suggested that “genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population.” [Mayr, E. (1982) Harvard Press]

          12. That is called making a case, scientifically speaking. Anything else is opinion, conjecture, or bias…. now your turn. Let me see the papers that suggest “environmental” factors, and I will analyse the data – something I can do quite easily after 4 science degrees and a masters.

      2. Pepa

        So one is not born gay ….

        I beg to differ

        Please supply your evidence

        1. As I said, I am an atheist to the birth theory. If you wish to convince me of that theory it is YOU that needs to supply the evidence. (And I do mean evidence not speculative correlations)

          1. Convincing someone like you who (1) chooses to ignore the proof given in lieu of “spiritual/vibrational factos”, (2) has self esteem issues with regards gay people, and (3) a conspiracy theorist with paranoid delusions, is utterly irrelevant. The reality does not need your acceptance for it to be real, that’s you issues to deal with, nor does our understanding of the proofs provided to you need your blessing. Its actually a very common and typical schizophrenic trait to have this ego-centric world view, that you are somehow important to the proof, or we need to “impress you”. Given your understanding and disturbing paranoia, I hate to break it to you, Pepa, you just are not that important.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 9:23am

            Even with all the evidence pepa you still wouldn’t listen nor want to know.

          3. @Pepa

            Thats rich talk from you demanding evidence – not speculation – from someone who just pedals opinion, speculation and paranoia

          4. @ Will
            If you want ridicule my beliefs (because that is the nature of gay sex activists, to bully and ridicule people) fine, but here was your chance to provide the evidence… again you do not. I am suspecting that you are not a “superior” scientist that you say you are (the germans in the 1940’s thought they were too). When somebody with a pompous attitude refuses to read evidence and also provide some… well what can I say.

          5. There speaks someone about refusing to give evidence who can only speculate, rumour monger and fails to provide evidence themselves – RICH!

          6. “because that is the nature of gay sex activists”

            LOL! Yeah, we’re ALL “gay sex activists”. Only a fool or a mad man would make a stupid assumption like this. What IS a “gay sex activist” anyway? Made that one up, did we?
            Sinking deeper into that quagmire of lunacy more each second, aren’t you?

          7. @Will

            Pepa has now given a definition of gay sex activist above. He seems to accuse many of us of being this. I have challenged him to explain how this is the case as I certainly do not consider myself to fulfill the definition he has supplied. How about you?

          8. The definition is insane. Issues, Stu, and many of them. Its called projecting onto others one’s own world view. Its also why he jumped to an automatic accusation of rape to you. Its how his mind works. His comments are most revealing.

          9. @Will

            Absolutely, projecting and unaware of it which is the worrying aspect.

            Convinced by his own mindset and ignorant of the fact that he obliterates any thought of anything being different to how he conceives from his mind

          10. No to mention, Stu, the obsession with child abuse, rape and gay men. To me, what that says is he assumes this “obvious” link, becuase he sees it in himself and assume all gay men are the same. Very worrying individual.

    9. Joey If there is any truth in your comment,
      “One is not born homosexual but they become that way”,
      it’s only inasmuch as one is not born heterosexual but they become that way, these are opinions and not factual statements based on evidence.
      Why not “Don’t say straight”?
      One is not born homophobic but they become that way Joey.

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:41am

        Here! Here!

        1. Paddyswurds 23 May 2011, 11:01pm

          @JST……
          …….It’s Hear, Hear. As in Hear him/her, Hear Him/her. Please explain how you think here here is correct?

          1. @Paddyswurds

            In a living language I would see both as being correct

            Historically you are accurate

            As language has evolved Jock S Traps usage has also become accurate

          2. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 10:15am

            To be honest Paddys… Who Cares?

          3. Paddyswurds 24 May 2011, 3:08pm

            @Stu….
            …..I fail to see how “here here” makes sense, especially as the change is of no benefit ie number of letters to spell etc. It is not recognised as a “living language” change by Oxford and is deffo not accurate or correct as it is meaningless in this context. “Here here” is how one would call one’s dog or farm animal such as a horse, cow or donkey. It is plainly just bad spelling or understanding of the english language. Can you explain exactly how “here here” is equal to or a valid evolution from “hear hear” if you really think it is “correct”.
            Aren’t you just pandering to JST as a means of being contrary with me?

          4. Paddyswurds 24 May 2011, 3:17pm

            @Stu….
            …….Do you also see the use of “there” as a valid “living language” substitute for “their or they’re” which is also a common mistake nowadays just like the mixing up of “to, too and two” They just annoy me no end, as they are so prevelant and unnecessary. What happened to English in schools to allow this?
            I know it seems a small matter in the scheme of things but it often renders what people are trying to say as meaningless and or hard to understand.

          5. Paddyswurds 24 May 2011, 3:20pm

            @ JST…
            ….TBH lots of people care. What exactly do you mean when you say “here here”?
            It certainly doesn’t mean what you think it does.

          6. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 4:06pm

            Paddys…
            Nobody cares but you and personally I’ve got better things to think and talk about.
            I have my believes on the matter, they are right to me and it’s not going to change.
            Your just being petty.

          7. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 4:07pm

            Correction
            Should have read beliefs not believes.

          8. Actually as alot of people use here here opposed to hear hear I would say it has become an acceptable spelling as language is determined by its use not what oxford say’s it is E.G. Pheonix and Phoenix the oxford dictionary spells it one way and everyone else spells it differently I wonder if you know which one is the correct one.

          9. @Paddyswurds

            Believe it or not, I don’t always disagree with you and I don’t always feel need to comment on what you say … sometimes its just not interesting to me …

            So the reason I commented was because (surprisingly) I believe what I’m saying and it makes a difference to me … so if that is pandering to someone then so be it, but that is far from the reason why I engage in such comments …

            I agree there is a level of grammar and spelling that is important. However, some people are overly pedantic and fail to see the fact that most languages and living and evolving entities.

            I do accept here here as a reasonable approach – you don’t – we are both entitled to our views …

            I do think (like you) that their, there and they’re are not interchangeable … and I hope that doesn’t change in future evolution of the English language.

          10. Paddyswurds 24 May 2011, 7:40pm

            @Stu….
            ……Here is a place where i am, hear is I hear you. How are these two interchangeable. When Jock says “here here” on a thread i assume he is calling to his dog who may have strayed on to the road and typed it instead of vocalising it. Otherwise how are we to understand each other if we decide to change the language willy nilly. It is only because a language has standards that we all understand it.
            No dictionary i have access to agrees with this use of the word Here and i own bothe the Oxford Concise and Webesters encyclopedic and have access ot others and all online.
            The above is rhetorical and doesn’t require an answer as you have decided the incorrect is correct.

          11. Paddyswurds 24 May 2011, 7:49pm

            @Stu and others….
            …..http://www.gcse.com/english/here.htm

          12. Jock S. Trap 25 May 2011, 10:23am

            See now I would only call ‘Here Here’ to a dog that strayed if Here Here was that dogs name.

          13. Jock S. Trap 25 May 2011, 10:27am

            No-one but you have decided the incorrect is correct.
            I am using what I believe is correct for my own reason.
            What you think is your own personal problem.
            It’s all a bit trivial considering this thread is about children in an American state being denied the right to ask questions about themselves or anything LGBT.

          14. Paddyswurds 25 May 2011, 11:26am

            @Hamish….
            …..Phoenix is the correct spelling. The word comes from the Greek Phoinix and refers to a mythical bird. Oxford Concise, Collins, Websters and Brittanica all refer to it as Phoenix.Perhaps you could refer me to the “all” you mention that spellit otherwise. Even the much derided Wikipedia refuses to spell it Pheonix.There is no record of any note or otherwise that refers to it as pheonix.
            However there are places such as Pheonix Arizona who spell it as you do. However this does not make that the correct spelling.

            @JST….Nowhere have i deceided the incorrect is correct. Look it up if you can’t agree with me Perhaps the links i have provided will help. Preponderance of usage does not render the incorrect correct.

          15. Paddyswurds 25 May 2011, 11:29am

            errata…
            …..decided

          16. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 11:03am

            Blimey, you won’t let it drop will ya Paddys…?
            I neither agree or disagree with you.
            I don’t really see the point in this discussion esp being it ain’t gonna change anything.
            It’s so trivial and just not worthy or botherin!
            You’ve made your decision for all lets just leave it there shall we.

        2. @Paddyswurds

          Yawn – bored now – irrelevant to subject matter … Jock S Trap made himself understood — Yawn

          T

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 11:04am

            innit!

      2. Homophobia is an opinion, not a variant of human nature. Which if viewed this way we can easily over come homophobia as opinions do change. That is if you care to change it.

    10. Respected science would disagree with you – but since you do not wish to contemplate the facts, you will ignore that because it doesnt fit your mindset

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 3:14pm

        It’s always easier for people like pepa to ignore the facts.
        That way they don’t have to deal with them.

        1. Absolutely, although my comment was intended at Joey – I do agree Pepa refuses to even engage in some of the facts – whilst they pedal paranoia, speculation and sophistry

    11. Above comment intended to Joey

  3. A failure for common sense and an antithesis of the textbook purpose of education: “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life”

    1. Yes, but you also have to agree that with maturity comes more understanding. So then again one must question whether talking to elementary school kids about gay sexuality is not only wise but most importantly, effective. I think it is both unwise and ineffective.

      1. Always scaremongering, so then pepa why not “don’t say straight” too, why is it okay to talk about straight sex in school.
        It would anyway be age appropriate learning material for younger kids, the likes of ” King and King” a story of two princes who fall in love as a counterpart to “Cinderella” and no more or less sexually explicit, a kiss is the most that happens in either stroy and they marry and live happily ever after.
        Why is the book about the gay penguin couple”And Tango Makes Three” the most banned book in school libraries in US? it is not sexually explicit, but kids growing up gay may identify with it and realise they are just normal gay kids instead of a diet of nothing but heteronormative propaganda that alienates them.

        1. Absolutely right, Pavlos. ‘Sex education’ is not always about sex, it’s about relationships, a healthy body, etc, and for younger children it is age-appropriate. It really pisses me off when people express horror about sex education for 7 year olds or whatever and presume that we teach them explicit sexual facts – we do nothing of the sort.

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:21am

            Yes and very often those people who can’t think that the teaching of sex can be done Without being explict are the same ones who try to convince us they are too conservative minded to have dirty minds.

        2. Talking about sex (straight or gay) to small children that are not yours is not only creepy and weird, but down right perverted and even illegal (I can be arrested in my state for just approaching a child at park and talking to him/her about sex). Talking about sexuality in High school and college is different as students are more mature (at least most of them) and can understand the materials and subjects discussed.

          1. Its been explained to you already, but you seem to have some mental block, so I’ll say it again: education around gay people isn’t about sex, its about relationships, love, and non-discrimination. Get your brains out of your dick and start using your head.#

            reflects nicely on your low image of gay people, that we are all sex-obsessed as you.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 9:27am

            Exactly Will, I do wish someone would educate pepa.

          3. pepa! WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT SEX TO SMALL CHILDREN! Do you understand that now? Sorry to ‘shout’ but why do you keep ignoring this fact?

          4. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 12:50pm

            Exactly Iris.
            I’m thinking it doesn’t suit him to listen, that way he can keep on spouting against it.
            He won’t accept children that young do not need to know about sex.
            If he was Gay I think he would know that but his arguement goes with those of Daily Mail readers, Christian Fundamenatiists and of course Republicans with all there fear of anything Homosexual.
            Clearly uneducated and clearly has no wish to be educated either.

          5. @ Iris,
            WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT SEX TO SMALL CHILDREN!
            You scream but Stu is fine with talking about sex with children he even justified it below:
            Sometimes children want to talk about things with adults (other than their parents) who they trust such as youth workers [which Stu is himself], teachers, nurses etc. This may be due to embarrassment or out of a fear their parents will not understand or help them. An adult has a responsibility in these circumstances to be honest and to deal with the concerns that the child expresses showing a balanced and unbiased view. Failure to do this fails the child.
            Taken straight from the manuals. I’ve heard many perverts say the exact same thing when caught talking about vaginal and anal sex with other people’s children, “its for the benefit of the child” meme.

          6. “I’ve heard many perverts say the exact same thing when caught talking about vaginal and anal sex with other people’s children, “its for the benefit of the child” meme.”

            Where exactly have you heard this?

          7. He never mentioned sex he mentioned things adult that could be sexuality relationships anything once again you take a quote and somehow get a completely different meaning to what it say’s

          8. @Pepa

            No I am not a youth worker … where did you fabricate that piece of information from?

          9. @Pepa

            You’re sounding as demented as some of the child abusers that I have charged and seen convicted and imprisoned for a considerable custodial sentence

            Now I am accusing you of being mentally unstable – I havent until now – but now I think you need to urgently seek help

          10. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 2:50pm

            Hamish
            I think he is the only one who has injected any talk of sex into this debate, yet accuses all others of being perverts.
            A typical projection ploy of some religious extremists.

      2. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:47am

        Actually pepa
        This is more about not allowing a message that being LGBT is as natural as being Straight.
        You can teach about sexuality to children in a way that makes it clear that who they are is fine, natural and that they should grow asking questions if they need to.
        If that is the way they are feeling.
        If you start young telling kids they are wrong many will rebel but some will feel a sense of disgrace and fear and end up killing themselves.
        Unless religion addresses this issue nothing will change.
        Then do they really care about the lives of children?

        1. 5 y/o child: What is LGBT?
          Jock: It stands for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender…
          5y/o: What is gay?
          Jock: Is when boys like boys.
          5 y/o: Oh like how I like my friend Justin?
          Jock: Not like that. Its when you love someone who is a boy.
          5 y/o: Oh, like how I love my dad?
          *Jock starts to sweat a little*
          Jock: Well.. Uh… Not exactly… Its more than that… Its like how your dad loves your mom but instead your mom is a boy.
          5 y/o: Oh but my mom is not a boy she is a girl.
          Jock: Yeah, but just pretend that your mom is not girl she is boy.
          5 y/o: Then I have two daddies?
          Jock: Right. I mean… if your daddy is gay.
          5 y/o: So two daddies can have gay babies?
          Jock: Uh, no.
          5 y/o: But you said they love each other like daddies and mommies.
          Jock: Yes but, but… only daddies and mommies have babies.
          5 y/o: Why?
          *The tension rises*
          Jock:… Because… (By now I would have stop)… a boy can only have a baby with a girl.
          5 y/o: How?
          Jock… uh… by having sex…
          5 y/o: What is that?

          1. You can see where that scene is going to go.. by the way this conversation took place with one of my exes and his little cousin… it was a very uncomfortable situation that he had to stop, his face was all red. So I’m not going to go further of what happened, I don’t want pedophiles to start masturbating to the story. All I’ll say is that he did went all the way and talked about intercourse. (straight sex and gay sex). I wanted to jump out of the car. But people like Jock have no idea how it is to talk to children about sex, especially when they are not your own. And BTW What right do you have to teach other people’s children about sex? Why the rush? Either it is a perverted fantasy or gay activists cannot win with adults so they try to persuade children. Pathetic.

          2. Yeah, more sex obsessed nonsense form Pepa.

            Its been explained to you already, but you seem to have some mental block, so I’ll say it again: education around gay people isn’t about sex, its about relationships, love, and non-discrimination. Get your brains out of your dick and start using your head.

            Reflects nicely on your low image of gay people, that we are all sex-obsessed as you.

          3. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 9:44am

            All you have demonstrated pepa is that you should Never be around children.
            My son was brought up knowing the facts, it never came to talking about sex and why on Earth should it.
            You have a seriously warped, sick mind.
            My son grow up proud to have to two daddies and has grown up an intelligent, well adjusted, open minded young man.
            Oh and in case you want to make the usual stereotypical claim of children growing up with Gay parents he is straight and has a girlfriend.
            So you talking about me having no idea how to talk to children is as wrong as you disturbing mock up of a conversation.
            Why on Earth would you think you have to teach a 5 year old about any sex?
            Are you that perverted you sick bastard.
            Again all you have demonstrated is you own ‘embarrassment’ not the childs and you are totally inappropiate to be around children.
            Seriously I find you disturbing and would advise anybody that saw you with any child to call the authorities you sick, sick little man.

          4. Surely couldn’t you say only women can have babies and leave it at that? Maybe at a push mention a womb?

          5. So now Jockstrap realizes how perverted this can become. The fact that thinking that sex will never come into the conversation is pretty naive. And since you have a son, lets assume that, would you want a complete stranger talking to them about sex behind your back? Would you be comfortable about that? Because that is what is going on right now in America. (Again I can only speak for my country)

          6. @Pepa

            Sometimes children want to talk about things with adults (other than their parents) who they trust such as youth workers, teachers, nurses etc. This may be due to embarrassment or out of a fear their parents will not understand or help them. An adult has a responsibility in these circumstances to be honest and to deal with the concerns that the child expresses showing a balanced and unbiased view. Failure to do this fails the child.

          7. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 5:54pm

            Pepe, ahve you ever met a child?

            It’s be more like:
            Child: What is gay?
            Adult: A gay man is a man who loves other men, and a gay woman is a woman who lvoes other women.
            Child: Like Sally’s mums?
            Adult: Just like Sally’s mums.

            This is the twenty-first century, after all. This is when everything changes.

          8. @Galadriel

            Well said

            Much more likely

            Or if not witnessed in their community it could be “Oh like we saw on TV the other day”

          9. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:02am

            Here! here! Galadriel
            It seems some people just can’t get their heads out of the sewer.
            They’ve never dealt with children so thing it’s a doddle.

          10. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:03am

            Yes Stu, it shows the importance of the presence of LGBT people on TV and the like.
            It begins to show that the LGBT community is just like everyone else.

  4. Such bill is anticonstitutional because it violates right on free speech every teacher in Tennessee.

    1. Rich
      .
      So you are a Muslim based in the USA who is itnerested in Law ?

    2. I don’t think it does. If I read the bill correctly, teachers can still talk about gay issues they just cannot say the word “gay” or “homosexual.” Basically there are so many loopholes to get around it that it would be easy as pie to talk about gay sex to school kids without getting caught or even getting into trouble. This is nothing but a skeleton bill.

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:43am

        This is a bill to please the religious.
        It is yet another excuse to discriminate and then say that the bible tells them they can anyway.
        It seems religion is always used as a weapon against those they wish to discriminate against.

        1. I know I get lectured about paranoia, but I wont do that to you.
          The poltical class love to distract the masses, it is well known fact that these issues are wedge issues. Nothing more, nothing less. They do nothing but create sides and controversy and win back a base, the religious right, even though the majority of Americans think that there are more bigger and important priorities.

          1. “I know I get lectured about paranoia, but I wont do that to you.”

            You won’t get help you desperately, and quiet obviously need, either. Back to the old reliable broken record on conspiracies, I see. How refreshing.

          2. @Pepa

            You may not lecture on paranoia – but feel fit to coincidentally mention it – subtle … not!

            You are in denial if you can not see that this has everything to do with the religious right – yes, it is a political wedge for sure, but is only effective as the religious right are fervently in support of it

  5. It hasn’t passed the House yet, and the last I heard it had stalled there and was unlikely to come to a vote this year, but who knows. More worryingly, there’s another anti-gay bill in Tennessee that’s just passed both houses of the legislature. If it’s signed into law by the governor, I’d say it’s time to launch a boycott of the state and inflict some serious hurt on their tourism industry, like we did with Colorado in the 90s. That turned out to be a pretty expensive and short-lived victory for them, and it led to a big win in the Supreme Court for us.

  6. TN Teacher 21 May 2011, 3:08am

    As a teacher in Tennessee, I’m gonna say that I like this bill. I’m willing to bet that you don’t want me giving my opinions about homosexuality to kids, just as I don’t want others giving their point of view to my kids. I can’t believe the gay community is against this.

    1. As a former public school teacher in Georgia, it was always my experience that the KIDS mentioned homosexuality. So, what does the law say regarding students who bring up the topic? Will they be expelled? Is the teacher to write them up and take them to the principal’s office immediately? Will teachers lose their jobs if, at the instigation of the student, the teacher and the students have a civil discussion about it? Will teachers lose their jobs if they choose to ignore the student, but the class continues to talk or whisper about it? Effective discipline sometimes means mentioning the topic as being off-task, and then moving on…but this law doesn’t provide for ANY mention. Will teachers need to report every single student that discusses homosexuality to the office, or is student discussion permissible? If student discussion is not permissible, does the new law address this, and will it be added to the discipline code of the public school? I think the law is too vague.

      1. So, what does the law say regarding students who bring up the topic?
        That is one of the many things I find about this law, because according to TN state law a teacher will have to address this issue. Those that do not want to test this loophole can just send the student to the counselor etc. The fact that many people believe that the schools will not talk about homosexuality is quite laughable. But the problem always has been that many elementary school kids cannot understand these topics fully, they either have a comical or cynical view or just show a blank face on the issue.

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:52am

          But this law ISN’T for students.
          It’s for those adults who don’t want to feel arkward, who would rather not talk about LGBT issues because it makes THEM feel uncomfortable.
          This has nothing to do with children.
          This is only in the best interests of the Adult.
          I would say teachers but clearly those who don’t want to talk about the ‘difficult’ things are hardly teachers.
          Teachers are supposed to help children grow not oppress them from as soon as they are born in case a child ‘Embarrasses’ them by asking questions about who they are.

          1. Well now you’re going into a different branch. I don’t want to get into the American public school issue, but you are basically addressing a broader umbrella that is the giant elephant in the room: the quality of education. The ruling political class do not care about educating kids, all they care about is retaining power and doing favors for their wall street insider criminal friends. Do you honestly think that the owners of the USA want an educated well-informed mass? No. Because a weill-informed public would know how much they are being screwed by these parasitic vampires. They want a dumb down society they can dominate and rule, they give you glee, lady gaga, and other distractions while they loot the vaults.

          2. But this law ISN’T for students.
            You are confusing me now… here you say “This has nothing to do with children.” Yet further down the thread below you denounce this bill as “child abuse.” And that children will be hurt:
            This will do damage to a child growing into the world and will contribute to a rise in suicides(Jockstrap)
            If you are wondering why I don’t believe you most of the time and why your credibility is questionable to me is because you cannot get your story straight. Regardless of what I say at least I keep my story and my arguments straight and consistent.
            This is one of the main reasons why quit the gay rights movement, full of contradictions, shallow attitudes, and the massive lies that were told to me and others. Get it together jockstrap.

          3. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:10am

            pepa
            Do you even know what you are writing?
            So now you want to try character assassination.
            you even trying though are you. SO you taken random comments which I’m sure everyone else has read and tried to muster something together to prove what?
            This bill “has nothing to do with children” it is all about the embarrassment of the adult, the so called teacher.
            This bill ‘Isn’t for students” it is all about the embarrassment of the adult, the so called teacher.
            Withholding and denying the Right for a child to know who they are and how they feel “do damage to a child growing into the world and will contribute to a rise in suicides”

          4. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:11am

            Now you want to claim inconsistencies, to “get my story straight” but how thick do you have to be to not get that people will see through your latest feeble attempt and hijacking and discrediting someone else, Just because they do not agree with you.
            This is of course a classic Republican dirty tricks, smear those that disagree with you ploy but in the end you just look like the Joke you really are.
            Laughable, do try again.

          5. This is of course a classic Republican dirty tricks,
            Nope. I am just reading your comments (unlike others here who do not, just agree with each other like parrots). You first state it isn’t about children, then you say it is. It is clearly a contradiction. Which is typical with gay sex activists. And no I am not a republican (or Tory) I am independent but if you must put a label on me I would say that I would be more like UKIP in your country.

          6. @Pepa

            The bill is about the actions of adults and is in no way about the welfare of children

            Children will be harmed by it because it fails to understand the impact that the bigoted approach will have

          7. “I am independent but if you must put a label on me I would say that I would be more like UKIP in your country.”

            LOL. Well, duh. They tend to peddle nonsense theories on homosexuality too.

          8. @Pepa

            Don’t the Tea Party describe themselves as independents?

            There is nothing to stop an independent being republican leaning

            If you would ally yourself to UKIP if in the UK, then you are probably pretty republican in your views

          9. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 10:21am

            Pepa
            If you can’t understand simple arguements and instead through back as ‘contradictions’ then what the hell are you doing here?
            You clearly don’t understand so don’t be suprised if people don’t bother with you.
            You too immature, small children have a better grasp of rational debate than you.
            Pathetic.

    2. Most teachers teach facts, if you are teaching your opinion then it is probably as well you have been muzzled. That being said it is iniquitous that good teachers (in which group I do not include you) are prevented from properly doing their job and for caring for the development of all the kids in their care.

      1. Staircase2 21 May 2011, 5:44am

        Thats nonsense – teaching isnt about ‘facts’ its about teaching people to think for themselves – how is that possible unless the teachers are able to demonstrate what ‘thinking for yourself’ looks like?
        ‘Facts’ change all the time – thinking for yourself is a life skill.

        1. What is Pi today, I need to work out the circumference of this plate.

          1. It’s been rounded down to 3.

          2. Its been dropped. Pi offends god. The plate is the way it is because god made it that way, and to challenge that, means you challenge god. Pi was invented by gay-mafia-atheists.

          3. Too late !!! The plate has been raptured.

          4. I hope my neighbours Audi A5 isn’t raptured…. I have my eye on that for tomorrow when they are vaporised by jesus! :)

          5. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 12:00pm

            “Pi was invented by gay-mafia-atheists.”
            Surely thats wrong, I think you mean Quiche.
            :)

          6. Yes, Jock, but god made that Quiche using animals that were magically placed on earth 6,000 ago. By eating the Quiche you accept these terms and conditions :)
            Better eat that Quiche quick, before jesus comes and vaporises you too in the rapture…. we have but hours to change our sinful lifestyle choice :)

          7. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:54am

            Are yes a ‘Hocus Pocus’ Quiche, my favourite.

          8. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:56am

            Trouble is with the Rapture I thing God was looking for intelligent life and seeing those many, many religious Nutjobs thought he’d better look else where.

          9. @ Jock S Trap

            But only quiche with a soggy base

          10. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 3:09pm

            Surely nobody likes a soggy bottom Stu??!!

          11. @Jock
            “Surely nobody likes a soggy bottom Stu??!!
            Yet you yelled and scream at me earlier for having my mind in the gutter or on my genitals. I see. So here Jockstrap can make sexualized jokes and yet I bring up a serious concern about sex education and I get called a “perv.”
            Another contradiction, that makes 2.

          12. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 10:23am

            To be honest pepa, your boring me now.
            Bye Bye!

        2. In reality, “facts” can mean whatever the “fact holder” says it means. And this is not exclusive to the elementary school teachers, but all the way up the university level.

          1. Then you know very little about science indeed, pepa.

          2. LOL
            I love your sense of humor Will.
            BTW, how is that scientific “factual” proof coming along proving sexual orientation is genetic and dictated at conception?
            I may not be a scientist, yes, but before I make statements like “christians are mentally ill” and that “there is a gay gene” I would have my proof at least waiting in the wings before making such statements. It seems to me that you lack basic understanding of science. Science is to understand the world as it is, not as what we want it to be.

          3. Well, LOL all you like. I am a scientist, and quite frankly, I find you reasoning laughable and absurd. when you come to the table with proof of you lunatic theories and self dedicating dislike of gay people, then we can talk. Until then, you just another angry man with nothing of substance other then silly and puerile conspiracies.

          4. “I may not be a scientist, yes,”

            And, yes, THAT is very evident. But thanks for clarifying. Now know I’m talking to someone who hasn’t a clue of that they are saying. Hardly surprising, I know….

          5. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 9:59am

            It’s all about the teachers and nothing but the teachers.
            Stuff the children.

          6. So I am a factholder and I say that I know that grass is orange – everyone who sees it as green is failing to believe or interpret things correctly. I am the factholder and I am saying the fact. If we follow your argument pepa then that means grass is orange.

            Total utter rubbish along with the rest of the piffle you say on here

          7. Now know I’m talking to someone who hasn’t a clue of that they are saying. Hardly surprising, I know….
            I know you value your supremacy, but how does this statement make you right all the time? Seems to me this is more about your arrogance than anything else. I am still waiting for the proof that gay people are gay at birth. Still waiting…

          8. Supremacy, where it is clearly warranted. I find it difficult to debate with your troubled mind, Pepa.

            My job is not to educate you!!!! Why would you think that???? I took the time to educate myself, now your turn. I do not need to prove what I already understand to someone like you who does NOT understand, even when shown. The arrogance of YOU to assume that is my task is typically ego-centric and schizophrenic of you. You are an idiot, that is the tragic truth. YOU go and learn and then come back to see if you can match ME. You have given no proof, other than ridiculous “spiritual factors” theories. I’m trying not to laugh at that, and your “keen scientific mind”. Please, you’re pathetic.

          9. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:14am

            I agree Will.
            Now knowing he will stoop to nothing to try and get someone to agree with him, it’s very difficult to take him seriously.

          10. @Will
            “I do not need to prove what I already understand
            Yes, that’s what I been saying all along Professor Will. You have not shown me anything. If you see some of my comments, Professor Will, some of them contain links to articles, and other sources of information. You have not provided anything concrete. Sorry Professor Will. I know you have a notion of superiority to other humans and yes you are god. I am sorry that I question your superiority I know I am not your “equal” even though we must all fight for equality! LOL.

          11. “You have not shown me anything.”

            I have shown you where to find the information, scientifically. The onus is on you to educate yourself. You chose not to “believe” it – a trait typical of those who do not understand science. And quite irrelevant. You opinions and rants not withstanding, YOU need to back up your religious borrowed statement about homosexuality, And I’m pretty sure the reason you go for puerile statement like this, is you have none.

          12. Well, I’ve given you the science, Pepa. I have show how you are wrong in the comments on this thread, with references so you can read them yourself. Now its your turn. Show me the studies – put up or shut up.

          13. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 11:07am

            He’s not interested in the science Will.

    3. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 8:47am

      This has everything to do with your feelings, you opinions.
      You’ve already given it by banning such conversations.
      Yet again though, this has Nothing to with the child and everything to do with your own bigotted opinions.
      Your are deliberately denying a child IT’S right to know how they feel about themselves.
      As a teacher you are responsible for helping children grow not oppress them hoping anything ‘awkward’ will go away.
      Well you’ve pleased yourself, oppressed the child, possibly damaged a child but you cannot stop how a child is born.
      However, you must be please because I get the feeling you lot would prefer a child dead than then talk about who they are.
      This is nothing more than child abuse from the very people supposedly there to protect.
      None of you have considered by denying the right to speak this subject you are also committing torture because you silence promoted the notion who they are is wrong.

      1. Your are deliberately denying a child IT’S right to know how they feel about themselves.
        I find it hard to believe that Jock would sympathize with children who want to express themselves when he finds it repulsive when adults do so on this thread (when they don’t validate his beliefs or rhetoric).

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 3:11pm

          pepa
          That doesn’t really make any sense now does it.

          1. Fine, lets try it this way: I find it hard to believe that you are concerned about children being that you say above:
            But this law ISN’T for students.
            Then later claiming it is. As you say it is “child abuse.”
            Here’s a thought: What about those kids that DO NOT want to hear about gay stuff? Do their feelings matter as well? If not then why pose as a concerned citizen who declares the following statement:
            Your are deliberately denying a child IT’S right to know how they feel about themselves.
            According to this logic kids who disapprove of gay sex would also have a right to get to know more about how they feel and be able to express their repulsion of gay sex.
            What Jockstrap proposes is an idea that is not well thought out nor fully practical. I again ask: Is talking to kids about gay sex in the classroom effective? No. Unless you are willing to open up a whole can of worms, don’t start crying if things don’t come out as you expect.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:24am

            Pepa
            You are one Sick little man.
            Yes, Yes pepa I get it, to you if a child has feelings that are in anyway LGBT, they’d better kill themselves and stop putting a teacher in any awkward situation.
            What’s a innocent child’s death over an adult’s embarrassment.
            I can almost hear the sighs of relief.
            You attitude has just made me feel physically sick.
            It’s no wonder humanity it finding it hard to progress.
            Here’s hoping the ones doing the wishing for an innocent childs death rather than have an awkward conversation take there own advice, rid this world of it’s Evil.
            What makes you feel you have the right to deny Anybody the way they feel about themselves.
            In my experience is is never the child that discriminates it’s from their parents, the adults.
            Children are curious, they want to learn and only hateful, bigotted adult cruelly stop this to suit themselves.
            Enough is Enough.
            You are one Sick, Sick bastard and I am done with you.

          3. Pepa here’s some plain facts you can’t argue against. It has been proven that when education on homosexuality has been introduced homophobia has dropped in occasions, and the exact opposite happens when education is withdrawn. When homophobia is rife in schools suicide rates of LGBT students have increased there have been research and studies on this. so through this we can see that this bill will indirectly effect the lives of LGBT youths and cause an increase in teenage suicides.

          4. @ Jockstrap
            Clearly you did not expect me to go this way. That is why you dither on about protecting children (only those who are gay). It seems that you do not care for children who are NOT gay. (Which are the overwhelming majority of them) This is why I have a problem believing that you actually care about children, all of them.

          5. @ Hamish
            Wrong, I can pretty much show you that you are wrong.
            And by the way I think talking about gay sex or gay love or gay people or whatever has worsen the situation for many gay youth in some situations being that when the subject is brought up bullies tend to pick on gay students more. I remember after a class in High school I was bullied all day after the topic of homosexuality was brought up. (“Haha you are gay” etc etc)

          6. @Pepa

            Although I can’t speak on behalf of Jock S Trap, I suspect he equally supports protecting children who are gay, bi or straight (particularly given his son is straight!)

            However, this bill (about which this thread is concerned) is all about not being about to talk about gay issues so you are disingenuous to suggest that people only want to protect gay children – the issue here is that the bill will harm gay children

          7. @Pepa

            With regard your comment to Hamish – you know what, Pepa, your experience is not everyones (thankfully!) … and some people when they are youth have experienced adults who will discuss gay issues with them in a sensible and balanced way – and have also had peers who do not ridicule and are supportive – strange thats what we are trying to achieve in society – supportive, caring, developing places where children can grow and express themselves – banning talk of sexuality hardly develops a culture enabling the child to be supported nor express themselves honestly

          8. @Pepa there has also been correlations shown between the general welfare of societies and hate crimes against minorities (not just gays) but you have failed to show any evidence showing the correlations between education and homophobia you have mentioned that homophobia is on the rise and somehow come round to the idea that that is caused by more education when education relating to homosexuality hasn’t really been on the rise so your correlations don’t match.

          9. @ Hammish
            I’m not the one making correlations or assumptions YOU are:
            It has been proven that when education on homosexuality has been introduced homophobia has dropped in occasions,
            Okay SHOW ME.
            I have shown you (with the link provided which has statistics on the matter) that hate crimes against gays have RISEN not lowered (regardless of any assumed correlations or stated reasons the point is they have risen.)
            Why do you and Will have a hard time accepting the evidence? Even evidence cited by a gay liberal site? Is your hatred that much?… or is it your ego? Or is it both?

          10. Okay, Pepa:

            In-Person Versus Internet Training: A Comparison of Student Attitudes Toward Homosexuality`- Lorraine J. Guth, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Bedford-Somerset Mental Health and Mental Retardation Agency

            http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp/vol40/iss1/art9/

            Now YOU prove where it doesn’t
            Puerile insults againts those who clearly know more then you and misdirections seem to be your forte, I doubt you have a shred of verifiable proof to show to back up your lunatic kool-aid theories.

          11. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 10:27am

            Last time idiot pepa
            “It seems that you do not care for children who are NOT gay.”
            You have just proved to us all you do Not read comments, if you did you would know that my son is straight so kinda throws out your ever more desparate agenda.
            Get real muppet!

        2. pepa, if you’re referring to yourself, yet again let me say the problem is NOT you having a different opinion or disagreeing, it’s your weird idea that we’re all leftie/promiscuous/gullible/pro-abortion/pro-euthanasia etc etc, and the fact that even when you’re politely corrected as pavlos did on the Christian Dr thread, you either can’t or won’t take in what anyone says, and continue to promulgate false ‘facts’. You seem to come here with pre-conceptions and are unable to put them aside.
          You criticise Jock, but YOU are the one tossing aside things that don’t confirm your bias.

          1. “You criticise Jock, but YOU are the one tossing aside things that don’t confirm your bias.
            Oh I see. When do I call people mentally retarded? Or mentally ill? Or other names? How about a lunatic?
            No, the problem here is that when confronted with different information some in here do not want to hear it because of their preconcieved notions and biases. I have presented my opinions and why I believe them quite nicely and to best of my ability. The four of you (Will, Jock, Stu and Iris) have made it clear that you have disdain for what I say no matter how valid the information is… this is more about me and attacking me:
            You criticise Jock, but YOU are the one
            Yes I get it. You don’t like me… there. I get it. Can we move on now?

          2. “When do I call people mentally retarded? Or mentally ill? Or other names? How about a lunatic?”

            But this is not an insult to you, its fairly obvious to everyo0ne here that you need help. Are you seriously saying you do not know that already??? Surely at least ONE person in your day to day life as stated this glaring fact to you?

            “The four of you (Will, Jock, Stu and Iris) have made it clear that you have disdain for what I say no matter how valid the information is”

            Thai is nothing but puerile appealing to emotions. We have stripped your very wafer thin argument and your pathetic views and stereotyping of gay people, and you see an issue with that? Get a stronger argument.

          3. NO, pepa! It’s NOT about your opinions. It’s about your preconceptions and your refusal to take in what anyone else says, particularly when they correct you about a fact or an assumption you made. It makes it impossible to have a discussion with you.

          4. @Pepa

            Please tell me when I called anyone a name …. – go on, go back and check – other than asking if you might be a fundamentalist (hardly name calling) you will find no evidence of that …

            The problem is you confront with different opinion with no evidence – we throw reasons in not to accept what you say and you are unable to bring factual evidence to the table to debate – that is how debate works, and it works in both directions (yet you seem determined to limit what evidence you are prepared to accept, and not what you will give) …

            I have a disdain for you as you do not engage in proper debate and are unwilling to examine your opinions when challenged – and see debate as an attack – no its a challenge …

          5. pepa: “Yes I get it. You don’t like me…”
            No, pepa, you’re incorrect. I don’t dislike you at all.

          6. @ Will
            But this is not an insult to you
            Of course not. It just shows your level of maturity. Says more about you than it does about me.

          7. @ Stu
            You are free to post those links to peer review articles anytime. Being that most of them are inconclusive about gay people being born that way. Maybe thats why you do not want to post them at all.
            Also feel free to post APA articles, peer reviews that NOT talking about gay sex to a child will hurt the child emotionally and psychologically. Please do so on this section, thats IF you have any evidence to show as you claim.
            Meanwhile the right wing has gone one step ahead of you. They have done more research than the liberals. Not to pick sides but this is something that should concern you? No?
            Regarding the name calling, you just admitted that you did label me once (a fundamentalist), then there was the comment about my mental stability among others.

          8. “Says more about you than it does about me.”

            Indeed it does. And I’m glad of it given your sickening comments below on rape and child abuse. I’ll take not being like you as a complement in the highest order, thank you.

          9. @Pepa

            No, you lie about what I said yet again – I said I THOUGHT you MIGHT be a fundamentalist …. if thats bullying get yourself a thicker skin mister …. and at NO POINT have I questioned your mental stability … so please do not lie about me and I will repeat again to underline the sort of person you are, please do not refer to me as a rapist …

            As for providing evidence – I have read it and accepted it for what it is … I don’t need to provide it just because you ask me to … but I can do … and there is plenty of it …

            I have provided some articles earlier in this thread so please do not try to belittle me with arrogant sophistry suggesting I don’t have evidence – that is merely disguising your lack of evidence or the lack of any credibility to your argument (an argument shattered when you called me a rapist purely on the grounds I worked in child protection)

          10. @ Stu
            “I said I THOUGHT you MIGHT be a fundamentalist …. if thats bullying get yourself a thicker skin mister …
            Its not about my skin, its about your attitudes, the calling me names etc. The thing is that you gay sex activists think that you are all so tolerant, but yet turn out to be bullies yourselves when one does not agree with you. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

          11. if thats bullying get yourself a thicker skin mister
            I could just imaging you telling this to a bullied gay teen. I mean whats stopping you if you say this to another gay person online?
            This is why I don’t believe that your advocacy over gay children is genuine.

          12. “I could just imaging you telling this to a bullied gay teen”

            You also imagine all gay people as sex obsessed, and strangers on an internet form as child rapists. So, really, do you think anyone normal like us will listen to a lunatic like you? Maybe a freeway intersection to shout at cars, next time, it seems more your “domain”…..

          13. @Pepa

            I shall say to you again, about your name calling – explain why you perceive me as a gay sex activist – I know I do not meet the criteria of the definition you set

            Explain

            Evidence it

            and for name calling, try rapist, child molester for size – labels you threw at me. So don’t try and suggest you are innocent here. I have been very measured in the language I have used towards you and been tolerant of your inadequacies being unable to maintain a coherant and sensible argument backed by evidence – I am beginning to wonder if I should consult my friend in Georgia who is a US attorney to see if there is any grounds in pursuing you for slander

          14. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 3:02pm

            Stu
            May I suggest that you view it from the point of someone who is a control freak.
            It’s classic behaviour when fearing lose of control they either hit out or slander in the hope of taking back control.
            I would suggest you, Will, Iris and others are viewed as a threat to his opinions but not as debate but as control.
            It’s very immature because all reason and chance of rational debate goes out of the window.

    4. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 8:48am

      With religion forced on pupils too, it’s clear adults have their agenda but they do nothing for the childs best interests.

      1. The most honest statement you made Jock. So then would you follow your own advice and back off with your agenda and stay away from elementary children?

      2. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 10:15am

        Why?
        This isn’t about the future of the adult, the teachers, this is about the future of the Child.
        It is up to adult to be there to help a child into the future, not oppress it.
        Adults are supposed to accept children ask questions.
        We are only there to advice Not dictate.
        Your comment makes no sense, I raised my child to be open minded and accepting and talk about issues he wanted to.

        1. “This isn’t about the future of the adult, the teachers, this is about the future of the Child.
          Wrong:
          “But this law ISN’T for students”(Jockstrap)
          Oops. O_o

          1. Exactly this law isn’t for students its for the adults when the law should be “about the future of the Child”

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 11:22am

            Thank you again Hamish!
            :)

          3. Its a shame that the US doesnt have the positive Every Child Matters programme that we have in the UK (doesnt resolve every issue as we have debated ont hese threads before) but it does make sure that the needs of the child are far above political or religious rhetoric and the welfare of the child is paramount – ultimatrely ensuring that if a professional acting with integrity in the interests of the child steps out of legal line with good intentions in the childs interests that the child welfare takes primacy

          4. @ Hamish
            So you want kids to be banned from talking about gay sex?
            Stu and Jockstrap say that this law will “cause mental anguish” (Stu) and that it is “Child abuse” (The Jockstrap). But yet The Jockstrap said that “It wasn’t about children.”
            You are just changing the scope of what was said. Nice try though.

          5. @Pepa

            Firstly, Jock S Trap and I are two separate people so linking our comments and trying to suggest that a comment I make disagrees with one Jock S Trap makes is pointless …

            Secondly, the reality is that you are finding a gap where there isn’t one. The law is about the adults but its the effect on the children that will lead to distress and anguish for children – there is no conflict in holding these views – you try to find conflict where there is none.

          6. @Pepa no I have mearly reworded what JockStrap had said as you obviously were unable to understand basic points as has been shown n your other comments on this thread

          7. Hamish, its clear that pepa is just an attentions seeking fool who is trying desperately to plug his insane blog with debase insults to the rest of us, who in his warped view, are all “gay sex advocate or activist” – basically sex obsessed child abusers. Its laughable, and belies exactly what pepa thinks of all gay people. I would not be surprised if that man was actually a religious nut masquerading as “one of us” to demean gay people. His comments are not normal, in any stretch of reality.

          8. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 10:42am

            I think it’s clear Will, Hamish, Iris, Stu etc that pepa has some kind of agenda.
            His blatant ignoring of comments to the point of re-wording them to score some kind of points.
            Surely has to be time to stop taking him seriously.

          9. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 10:50am

            Will
            Indeed.
            What I am worried about is he sounds like a typical Christian Fundamentist.
            The ones who endlessly project onto others and accuse them of the actions HE himself is doing.
            The kind that thinks he can justify his actions by accusing anybody else esp in a community like ours?
            Maybe it’s me but looking through his comments, he just seems Too overly obsessed with sex and esp the subject of sex and children.
            It kinda makes me feel a bit sick.
            I mean he’s a bit like those homophobic American Preachers who spew against us one minute them suddenly is caught with some rent boy and turns out it’s been going on for ages.
            I’m getting an uneasy rather disturbed feeling about this.

    5. “just as I don’t want others giving their point of view to my kids”

      Marvellous example of how people like you should be allows near a school. Teachers teach facts, not opinions. The job of edcuation is to allow other to make their own opinions. You must be so proud of your career. I wouldn’t be.

      1. Teachers teach facts, not opinions.
        It is pretty naive to think that teachers never inject their agenda into what they teach. Therefore if you do not want teachers to teach opinions that means you do not want teachers to say anything positive about gay sexuality.

        1. “It is pretty naive to think that teachers never inject their agenda into what they teach”

          Actually its pretty stupid of you to suggest there is not a curriculum. And for good reason.

          1. Nope not saying that. There is a curriculum. Only difference is that I find it hard to believe that teachers NEVER inject their biases on said curriculum. That is what I said, please re-read.

          2. Sorry, you comments are so full of nonsense hate for “gay conspiracies” I tend to overlook the grains of truth that might lie within them. Mea Culpa.

          3. @ Will,
            It is evident that you ignore what I say and go directly to the attack. That is clear. Your hatred is clear.
            Maybe to ease your tension and calm your nerves I would suggest to ignore my comments all together in the future since you are not interested in them and only refute to your childish attacks.

          4. “Your hatred is clear.”

            We’ve been over this. You’re just not listening. Please stop the play-ground tantrums and self ingratiation, its tragic.

          5. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:31am

            WIll,
            yeah I ain’t bothering anymore, he’s clearly too immature to cope with debate and way to paranoid and one of the sickest people I’ve ever come across.
            He does need help or I worry about this safety.

          6. I hear you Jock, its like trying to get through to a coma victim. He is incapable of listening, incapable of backing up his claims, and incapable of discourse without going back to the SAME place:- i.e. the mafia-gay-atheist terrorist-activists (or what ever we are supposed to be), and how WE are all nuts as we pray to corporations or some other b0llox. The rape comment below at Stu was appalling, really shocking that his mind came up with that, and to back up his claim of what ever nonsense he was spouting with an accusation of rape. Disturbed.

          7. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 2:44pm

            Yeah that for me was the final straw.
            It’s clear he cannot have a rational debate without several levels of insecurities so I for one can’t be bothered.
            I only debate with grown ups like yaself and most on here.
            Not those sick bastards who can’t handle it.

          8. The final straw for me too, Jock. That comment to Stu was gobsmacking and, in my opinion, the sign of someone with serious problems.

          9. Thanks Will, Jock S Trap and Iris for your supportive comments

          10. @ Stu
            So you agree with the Jockstrap company that I am “mentally sick” Yet on other threads you claim that you don’t think of me this way.
            Clearly you agree with them about labeling me as a “mental patient”
            Which says a lot about your immaturity.

          11. Imbalanced, emotionally or otherwise, is probably a better choice of words.

          12. @Pepa

            My immediate comment prior to yours suggesting I was immature was

            “Thanks Will, Jock S Trap and Iris for your supportive comments”

            No where here does that refer to your mental status, in fact it doesn’t refer to YOU … so then presuming whether or not I agree with Jock S Traps views on your mental stability from that comment is presumptious and juvenile and lacks insight

            However, your bizarre wandering comments and an inabiility to accept any comment made by others that questions your views with anything other than a twisting of the words they use or flagrant offensive language (calling someone a rapist etc!) strongly leads me to believe you need help – emotionally, psychiatrically or otherwise …

        2. No idea what teachers are like in the US, pepa, but I assure you that teachers in the UK remain very much neutral and do NOT inject their own opinion into lessons. They are specifically not allowed to do that and we are well-used to adopting that neutral persona in everything.

          1. Well I’m not sure about that. I can only attest to what I witness myself and my experiences with American teachers. I’m not making generalizations of British teachers, for i never stepped foot in a UK school. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong (unless you can provide concrete proof that every teacher in the UK has never injected their own view points and agendas). This is however about the American public education system, which I do have experience in (as a TA, and administrator in California and Texas).

          2. Then maybe some US teachers need different training, pepa. Neutrality is considred important in the UK. And yes I appreciate that this story is about the US, but to me, it reflects badly on teachers in Tennessee if they can’t keep their personal views out of lessons.
            But to me it seems that the worry of the man who’d seeking to have this ban is that children might learn that gay people are actually OK, as more and more people drop their previous bias.

        3. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:24am

          Actually teachers are there to teach via the text book not opinions.
          Opinions are not what they are getting paid to do.
          In any case opinion is debate and as healthy as it is that is entitly a different class lesson.

          1. Not based on reality. Sorry Jock. But the textbooks are only supplemental, the teachers are the supposed source of knowledge. The only textbook that is concrete is math, you can’t argue with math. But even in textbooks you have distortions and the author’s ( most likely another educator BTW) agenda injected throughout.

          2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 11:08am

            I’m hoping your never around children pepa.

    6. You could use a little equality and human rights education yourself TNTeacher.

      1. I suggest you follow Will’s advice:
        “Teachers teach facts, not opinions.”
        And to read the words of Jock as he finally admits:
        “it’s clear adults have their agenda but they do nothing for the childs best interests.”

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:26am

          OK pepa, so when does the correct interest of the child NOT the adult come into it?
          You clearly don’t have children to know I guess.

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:27am

            The adult is there for the child not the other way around.
            It is not our place as adults to stifle a childs growth.
            To do so amounts in my mind again to child abuse.

          2. Please explain how teaching small children about sex and giving them condoms is in their best interest. Because I have problem understanding how that can be beneficial to a human being that cannot be sexual at all, unless such child is being molested.

    7. Hm, you make a good point. Thats IF the bill actually intends on doing what you think is going to do. I think it doesn’t.

    8. PumpkinPie 22 May 2011, 6:46am

      The ideal solution is for children of all race, sex, gender, sexuality, health, etc., to be treated as equal human beings worthy of respect and protection, and for poisonous bigots like you to be banned from teaching.

      As always, in the unlikely case of anyone not understanding how deeply unpleasant you are, all they have to do is replace your references to sexuality with references to race. There. Not so reasonable-sounding now, are you?

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:28am

        Here!Here!

      2. You, Mr PumpkinPie, are absolutely correct! Congrats!!!

      3. One of the most sensible comments I have heard in a long time … Well said, PumpkinPie

    9. You, TN Teacher, are a shameful prick for any gay community in the world, that’s for sure!

  7. Is this a revised version of “Section 28.” Bringing back the past won’t solve the problems of the future.

    1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:28am

      No, it causes different problems instead.

      1. TN probably havent experienced such draconian laws so they are not revisiting the past – but they should learn from the mistakes the UK made with section 28

  8. This is ridiculous!!! Seriously?!?!?!? to the tn teacher…you should totally be against this..this could do more damage than good for kids… kids need to sometimes speak about their fears and thoughts about their sexuality with teachers when they feel they cannot speak to anyone at home… I was blessed to never have that problem years ago in school, but times have changed these days….. ignorance is among us all!!!!! UGHHHHH!! disgusting… such bull$@#$

    1. He is a bastard, Natasha…. I am sure!

  9. Staircase2 21 May 2011, 5:44am

    The bloody idiots!

    1. I have to agree with you, even I dislike you….

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:07am

        Weird Much?

  10. I have this to say to Tennessee Senator Stacey Campfield (and those that voted for it): You must have really thought this one through, didn’t you? You must be proud that now the message about AIDS can only be taught as it applies to heterosexual sex. The kids can no longer be warned that AIDS can be spread/contracted by two men having sex because your law will make it illegal to do so. In your own words, “you got your way.”

    1. That’s not what the law says.

  11. Does anybody see Google ads “Say no to same-sex marriage in New York” in this website?

    1. Yes, as I have explained in numours posts, Google is about Google and the corporate elite. They don’t care about gay rights. Its all about dominating people, including gay people. Google places these ads on this website so that Pinknews can make money. Yes they gay mafia makes money out of anti-gay ads. And some people have a problem using the word mafia, well get over it, that is what I feel about it, and seeing the gay elite engage in espionage, economic extortion, and other RICO violating and mafia type tactics the descriptor I place on it fits quite well.

      1. Gay “Mafia”: TICK
        “Gay Elite”: TICK
        Paranoid conspiracies: TICK
        Lack of any proof: TICK

        Yes, it meets the criteria of a standard pepa posting.

        1. Lacks any insight on the matter: TICK
          Uncommitted response to my comment: TICK
          Hates me: TICK
          Yes it meets the criteria of a standard Will posting.

          1. Oh a few more ticks for you to consider:
            thinks that there is a “gay gene” TICK
            thinks that all christians a mentally ill: TICK
            thinks that gay people are sub-human and second class citizens:TICK
            thinks that bigger government is better for gay people: TICK
            thinks that all christians engage in child abuse: TICK
            thinks that 25% of the population is gay: TICK
            thinks that conservatives will place gay people in concentration camps in America: TICK
            Yup, these are typical PARANOID and outright outrages claims by the gay liberal establishment and their kool-aid drinkers. I have more if you like…

          2. That last comment is just flagrant hysteria, Pepa, and you know it. The only one here that has an issue with gay people being “sub-human” is you with your jaded stereotypes. I assure you, neither I nor others here have such a low opinion of ourselves. No one here is talking about the insular and ego-centric view of US politics with the “bigger government” remark. This is the internet (a UK site), not everyone here is from the US, I remind you. Hence you silly comment about your government’s ills are irrelevant, and the comment “gay liberal establishment and their kool-aid drinkers” is utterly meaningless to any of us, and hardly offensive. But a nice demonstration Pepa, of where you mind seem to go back to again and again. You clearly have your own personal issues to deal with in relation to US politics and your own self worth. Mildly amusing/interesting to us, but I’m afraid we’re not as obsessed with the “literal conspiracy” as you. Liberal is not a dirty work in Europe. Far from it.

          3. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 10:18am

            pepa
            did you want a side order of crazy with that hysteria?
            My Gaga, you don’t ‘alf talk some BS!

          4. @Will

            You are entirely correct that Pepa’s last comment is flagrant and outright hysteria. But that is what Pepa feeds on, cause hysteria and set about perculating more conflict. Unfortunately, Pepa is not as sophisticated as they like to think and their game is obvious.

          5. Agreed Stu, and anything we say back by way of proof against his stereotyping us all as gaga-obsessed un-educated air heads, just feeds into his persecution complex. Its the “you either with me or my enemy” simplistic argument.

          6. @ Will,
            The only one here that has an issue with gay people being “sub-human” is you with your jaded stereotypes.
            Oy vey… If I had a nickel for every time a gay activist uses the “second class citizen” meme I would have been a billionaire by now. But if you really must know your gay “advocates” even convinced Jesse Jackson that gays are second class citizens. You even have gays quiting jury duty with the excuse of being a sub-human second class citizen. Again you have problem with me speaking against the gay establishment and not drinking their second class citizen kool-aid. I bet you 1,000 pounds that have posted on this site claiming that you and other gays are indeed second-class citizens. The gay mafia loves this, as they use this meme to assert their power.

          7. “The gay mafia loves this, as they use this meme to assert their power.”

            I can’t be bothered replying to this b0llox, it demeans me if I do. I’ll just say, you’re a freakin’ basket case.

          8. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:34am

            I think we can all agree, pepa has well and truely lost it.

          9. Lacks any insight on the matter: TICK
            – I wonder how you reached that conclusion – do you know Will’s level of insight?

            Uncommitted response to my comment: TICK – oh so this is all about YOU, Pepa, rather than the subject matter … as for uncommitted – the amount of time expended by WIll and others on here in trying to rationalise with you is hardly uncommitted

            Hates me: TICK – I couldnt comment – frustrated with your unwillingness to engage in fair debate, personally yes – Hate – no I don’t hate you – I wuld have to know you and care about what you thought of me for that to occur – or for you to have impact on me …

            Try again, Pepa …

          10. Agreed Stu. The egocentricity of him to think his comments actually raise a feeling of “hate” in us for him, a faceless and impersonal entity on a forum, is truly remarkable. Given his comments to you below, disgust is a term he should be dealing with. And if the majority his show such disdain for his rape comment, then the blame for that is squarely centred on pepa’s shoulders. No doubt we’ll see a boo-hoo response in line with his persecution complex, as we’re all raping child abusing gay activists mafia members in league with satan-inspired corporations, to whom we pray to while we drink Kool-Aid (what ever the hell that is)…. and he thinks this doesn’t sound “mad”. Indeed. I wonder if his psychologist agrees?

          11. @ Will
            The egocentricity of him
            LOL. And this is coming from somebody that says he is “superior” to everybody else. Jeezes. I really broke out laughing when I read your post Will. LOL. It almost brought me to tears.

          12. “I really broke out laughing when I read your post Will.”

            Really? How odd. It wasn’t a funny comment. Oh, well, it seems quite clearly to me and the rest of us that accusing people of rape and child abuse is also funny to you, isn’t it?

          13. @pepa

            It broke tears to my eyes … I take it this comment was to whitewash the critique of your comments – because the critique was factual – so you bring in a smokescreen instead

          14. @pepa
            Thinks there is a gay gene – maybe the opinion is varied on genetics but there certainly is a birth aspect to orientation
            Gay people are sub-human and second class citizens – no they are human beings the same as any straight or bi person, unfortunately many areas of the world including the US do not quite get this
            thinks bigger govt is better for gay people – er NO
            thinks all christians engage in child abuse – NO thats ridiculous
            thinks 25% of the population is gay – NO not that high, difficult to get an accurate figure globally as many people are not out worldwide but my estimate would be 8-12%
            thinks that conservatives will place gay people in concentration camps in America – they might like to but the federal constitution would never allow it

            So since we agree some of these are lies – perhaps you can explain the relevance to this thread?????

            Ramblings of Pepa that bear no relevance is all I can currently see

          15. Stu, we’re all still waiting on his proof that its “environmental”. There should be ample recent scientific studies for him to choose from, if he’s so certain. I mean, it would be nuts to make such a wild assumption without proof, wouldn’t it?

        2. Oh and by the way, its not my fault that you cannot see the corporate take over of the gay community. Since you have been programmed to attack anybody with non-liberal stance you fail to see how deeply mislead you have been. But I understand how difficult it is to break the brainwashing. Oh well, feel free to continue to be the slave of the elite.

          1. “Oh well, feel free to continue to be the slave of the elite.”

            And there we go again…. tin foil hats time. Seriously, you need help.

          2. pepa, we are not all gullible and your assumption that we are is offensive and laughable. We can and do criticise what I think you would classify as the corporate takeover of gay rights on many occasions when we think we see it.
            I can only think you’ve met some not very nice gay people who’ve coloured your opinions about all gay people. You think you ‘know’ us all and imagine us as some homogenous mass. YOU ARE WRONG.

          3. @Pepa

            No there is some corporate takeover of the LGBT communities just like there is of every community worldwide. However, there are still independent voices, organisations, businesses and individuals

          4. There are some gay people in your country criticizing the corporate take-over even exposing how the corporate elite brainwash gay people and what has become of it:
            It seems to say that the LGBT community is very shallow indeed, that its attention can only be attracted by appealing to its basest instincts.
            Australian gays have also come out and spoken against this take over. J.R. Nicholson also has nice expose of how bad corporatism has become and how anti-gay it has become.

          5. I see from the links you post you don’t actually read the stories as most of them are complaining about corporatism which is in all walks of capitalist life so not just to the LGBT community. And to say that we all like Lady Gaga is as offensive as saying all black men like Dr Dre.

        3. What are you, 5? I do not “hate you”, I despise your ignorance. Something easily corrected in those when they want to. Get off the boo-hoo comment and start putting something mentally stable into your comments, and then we’ll see how it goes, yeah?

          1. Again, your hatred stinks all the way to this side of the Atlantic. But of course bullies would never admit to their bullying, we all know that. I have my own opinions. Can’t you just accept the fact that people have their own opinions? Or are we all supposed to agree with Will in order to viewed as “stable.” Your tactic is to paint me as a loon without even reading my comments as YOU even admit above:
            Sorry, you comments are so full of nonsense hate for “gay conspiracies” I tend to overlook the grains of truth that might lie within them.” (Will)
            Enough said. You do not want to hear what I got to say, even as you admit yourself, that there might be a hint of truth. You are biased, plain and simple.

          2. “Again, your hatred stinks all the way to this side of the Atlantic.”

            Covered this. Broken Record. Yawn.

          3. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 11:25am

            I dunno Will,
            You know the saying if you say it enough you’ll begin to believe it?
            Well I’d heard him say everyone hates him so many times that I think I’m beginning to believe I actually do!

          4. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 11:27am

            Sorry Will should have said as well,
            I’d like to know, with his head clearly in the sewer and his thoughts completely only in explicit sex
            What makes him think his hatred of others is perfect for teaching children?

          5. @Pepa

            Whilst I agree that many (not all) bullies would not admit to bullying (some would be very proud of it) …. I see no evidence of bullying you on this thread …

            If disagreeing with you and seeking evidence of your propositions is bullying then your level of paranoia is worse than I thought …

            What I would also say is that those who are paranoid can never see that there is no evidence for their paranoia – they are convinced of what they believe being factual despite there being significant evidence to the contrary and no evidence in support … sound familiar?

          6. @ The Jockstrap
            LOL
            “I’d like to know, with his head clearly in the sewer and his thoughts completely only in explicit sex
            And this is coming from a man that calls himself a “Jockstrap” and joked earlier about “soggy bottoms.”
            LOL. Yeah right.

          7. There is a marked difference between someone who makes a mildly facetious crass joke and someone who obsessively refers to someone they have never met before as a child abuser and rapist, and goes on to say all gay men are sex obsessed, using terms they made up to promote a second rate blog of insane comments.
            Does this sound normal to you? Which do you think is more “sex obsessed”, hmmm?
            .
            BTW, you seriously need to lessen up on the “LOL’s”, thy make you look maniacal…. well, only slightly more then your “sane” kool-aid comments do….

  12. Peter & Michael 21 May 2011, 7:18am

    This bill will lead to more suicide of kids being subject to pressure into withdrawing from society, thrown out of their homes by parents, no one to turn to for help. If a child asks a teacher to help them, the teacher turns the other way as he/she is bound by law not to discuss homosexuality. Shocking!!

  13. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 8:30am

    This is child abuse for religion sake.
    Absolutely appalling.
    This will do damage to a child growing into the world and will contribute to a rise in suicides and for what?
    To make those in religion feel better?
    Less embarrassed?
    Now can some person tell me how that doesn’t make Religious people the Evil ones on this planet?

    1. “This is child abuse for religion sake”
      Yet I am the one with the crazy comments on here? legal definition of child abuse:
      “Physical abuse is generally defined as “any nonaccidental physical injury to the child” and can include striking, kicking, burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child…Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child’s health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm…Sexual exploitation includes allowing the child to engage in prostitution or in the production of child pornography…injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child as evidenced by an observable or substantial change in behavior, emotional response, or cognition…”

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 10:21am

        Forcing a child to accept a human life is wrong based on who they are is nothing more than child abuse.
        Those people should be as far away from children as possible.
        If you can’t accept that this is Mental Child Abuse you have problems, you’re the only one thick enough to think I am talking about physical abuse.

        1. If you think this is child abuse (which is a far fetch emotional plea)… if we can therefore lower the bar then you must accept that terrorizing children with real life “terror” drills and pointing real life guns at them is also child abuse, wouldn’t it? Or how about when a school forces students to eat sub-par cafeteria food and ban children from bringing their own lunches from home causing many children to starve as some do not like cafeteria food? According to the definition I cited above, this would fall under child abuse as children are bing manipulated through starvation and denying them a basic human need. Somebody that is wholly genuinely concerned about child abuse would also condemn these actions.

      2. Pepa… the legal definition of “child abuse” is sucks… Just take a look on the millions of facts that great majority of world’s parents objectively incapable to provide to their children the “needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision”. How in the world, the millions of poor parents can provide such expensive services if they are poor, live in poverty? That’s very idiotic legal definition of “child abuse”.

      3. @Pepa

        As a former child protection officer both in the police and for a UK charity I would clearly see that this legislation could lead to the harm of some children by causing mental anguish, psychological harm and bullying. If you fail to see that then you are more ignorant than I already thought that you were.

        1. As a former child protection officer
          Am I supposed to impress? Because I am not. In fact I am repulsed and disgusted by people like you. As some of you have been caught raping children yourselves, and dare I say, more than once… and again… and how about some child porn?
          It is funny how these CPS types and goons lecture us about child abuse yet their buddies engage in it themselves and keep quiet about it. Shameful. Its beginning to look a lot like a dog’s dinner. Sick.

          1. “As some of you have been caught raping children yourselves, and dare I say, more than once… and again… and how about some child porn?”

            Wow. That is one hell fo an outburst, even for you Pepa. What wonderful “proof” you provide us here. You moan that no one accepts your ranting as a valid “opinions”, and you come out with this 5-year-old attack on someone’s profession by calling them a potential rapist????

            You, sir are not just a buffoon, you are a very, very sick one. Quite frankly, you disgust me.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:38am

            Never have I been more convinced that this person has Serious mental health issues.

          3. pepa, that comment to Stu was despicable. You’re American? Well, should I put in a hyperlink to Manson or the like and then say something like ‘you Americans disgust me’? No, I would never do that – it’s stupid and offensive.
            I can only think you said that to Stu because you were annoyed that he perhaps knew more than you, but that doesn’t excuse your vile implication.
            I’m actually wondering whether you’re two people. You made a reasonable comment to me above about teachers in the US, and then you suddenly go mad and write something like this.

          4. @Pepa

            That is the most fatuous and ridiculous argument I have ever heard.

            Yes some police officers, some social workers, some teachers, some teach assistants, some administrators, some politicians, some lawyers, some doctors, some nurses – some people of every socio economic group and every professional background and none have been child molesters – that does not mean every police officer, social worker, teacher, teaching assistant, administfrator etc is a child molester – otherwise I should also feel sick because you are also a human being and could also be a molester.

            Please do not lecture me on child protection – having dealt with some of the most insidious examples I know more than enough professionally about the reality and facts. I say that not to impress you – I couldnt care a less whether or not you are impressed. I say it to emphasise my disgust and offense at the suggestion that I may be an abuser … Never, never in a million years

          5. Stu, you should not have to respond to that vile comment. To insinuate, no sorry actually accuse you of rape, is utterly offensive to your profession and you integrity. It is us who are disgusted with his comments, his disgust should be firmly directed at himself. What a vile animal.

          6. @Will

            I don’t feel the need to justify myself to Pepa despite his vile accusations (which if I were American I would be considering consulting my attorney for libel action – hmmm pink news should be able to provide an ISP …. lol)

          7. However when a few christians say homophobic things there all labeled “homophobic”
            But here is the thing. CPS has been caught molesting children more than not, in fact CPS child abuse is greater than in the general population.
            Also they have been taken children from loving homes.

          8. “Yes some police officers, some social workers, some teachers, some teach assistants, some administrators, some politicians, some lawyers, some doctors, some nurses
            Yes but because you have a bias as a CPS worker you tend ignore the facts. Your “field” is so perverse with misconduct and abuse than other fields (real ones) that even doing a simple google search you are overwhelmed by all the shenanigans that is going on in CPS, from molesting kids, ID theft, abuse of power, etc. etc.

          9. Ergo, all are rapists and child abuser. Well thought our argument. Disgusting.

          10. @Pepa

            Firstly, I can not speak of the statistics of US child protection workers committing offences against children

            As a former UK child protection officer (incidently CPS means something entirely different in the UK) – I can state that whilst there have been occasional rare cases of child protection professionals having abused, they are rare – and treated with seriousness including independent review by external bodies and those convicted gain harsher penalties due to aggravation of breach of trust.

            Your supposition that I then have raped and abused I find repulsive, offensive and the worst and vilest type of bullying I have ever seen on pink news. I do not want your comments struck off or you removed because I want everyone to see your evil ways for the way you are – and I have asked Pink News not to remove your posts despite the fact I find them distressing and offensive.

          11. @Pepa

            For your information the occupation I dealt with most commonly as being responsible for abuse on children was either bus driver or teaching assistant.

            However, I would not then jump to the conclusion that you appear to that all bus drivers or teaching assistants are child abusers.

            If you do google searches on bus drivers you will not find many reports linking them to paedophilia – that doesnt mean it happens just isnt often news worthy compared to a police officer, doctor, barrister etc

          12. @ Stu
            There is no reason that I should be censored from this site, though you have thought about it.
            I do not use foul language, I do not make sexual jokes, I do not bully others into submission or call people names, like “mental patient” etc.
            I have taken all the insults hurled at me with a grain of salt.
            If you feel insulted by what I say, well I am sorry if you feel that way, but that’s how I feel about CPS workers, based on news articles, and research done, here in the US at least, CPS abuse children more than the general public. I’ve dealt with many CPS ego-maniacs who tried to take away my nephews because they were playing with a hammer at my sister’s house. I don’t just say things just for the heck of it, I say them because there is truth to them. If you chose to accept it or not, that is up to you. But I have clearly made up my mind. Child safety over rules any “hurt feelings” you might have (you should know this as you say you worked as child protection officer).

          13. @Pepa

            Why am I offended by you and why could I ask PN to remove you …

            a) You accused me of being a rapist
            b) You accused me of being a child molester
            c) You lied about what I said
            d) You repeated those lies
            e) You inferred that all child protection workers are child abusers

            and thats without searching through the thread – they were the ones that immedaitely came to me

            So don’t sit there like little innocent Pepa – hard done by – your the one spreading malicious inflammatory and offensive comments

          14. Notice Stu, how he never replies to these comments? Never once apologises for his outlandish and vile comments towards you on rape and child abuse? It’s all boo-hoo him and attention seeking – like a child.

        2. @Pepa

          Please re-read this entire thread on at least three occasions I personally say that all christians are not homophobic or that some are gay friendly – so again you misrepresent me – no wonder you can’t present evidence for your views when you misrepresent what is on the same thread you are talking about.

          1. Yes you are back-peddling, you even agreed to this below:
            Gaywebhosting:
            I say Ban all religion lessons in schools. It is pure fiction and a complete waste of time.
            Stu:
            Excellent comment , agree so much.
            You pose as a tolerant person that knows that not all Christians are homophobic and you tolerate them. Yet right here in this thread you wish to BAN religious studies.
            You are being hypocritical at many levels. You want gay sex to be taught to 5 year olds but at the same time ban religious beliefs (which YOU say is not all homophobic) from school. It is clear you have a hatred for people with certain beliefs. That is outright bigotry.

          2. “That is outright bigotry.”

            Pot. Kettle.

          3. @Pepa

            With respect, get your facts right – that is not my posting

            Again you misrepresent me – you know, no matter how many times you do it, it doesnt make it right or make it true

            Stop lying

          4. @ Stu
            “That is not my posting.”
            Yes it was:
            Excellent comment , agree so much.
            Just to make sure, this is the comment I was referring to…
            You were basically agreeing with gaywebhosting’s position in banning all religious studies.

          5. That’s it Pepa, focus on anything but the proof that’s been asked of you to back up your wild accusations. Its all about you and the boo-hoo’ing, isn’t it?

          6. @Pepa

            Clearly you can’t read either –

            The posting you accuse of me making was made by Jock S Trap on 21 May 2011 at 11:58 am

            My comment following from it voiced my hesitation and concern that banning relgious lessons was as wrong as banning talking about homosexuality

            Please if you are going to argue get your facts right – oh sorry, you seem incapable of doing that ….

        3. @Will

          I think he thought that when he accused me of being a rapist that I would either leave in disgust or seek to have him struck off Pink News. Well, personally I know the facts – and I have never committed an act of that nature (although sex obsessed Pepa seems to know me better!). I also think its more productive to let Pepa continue to show the lack of any assemblance of rationality in his arguments …

          He claims he can evidence all he says is true – let him prove it – he seems to know a lot about me – all the facts he has given so far are blatantly untrue …

          1. “and I have never committed an act of that nature”

            No one would, or should ever accuse anyone of that without hard facts. Its why we have courts of law. We all all aware Stu these comments are the ramblings of a man with many issues, so you never have to explain yourself to anyone here. Your profession is one you should be more then proud of, and for any one to dare bring your integrity into disrepute by calling you a “rapist” is a shallow act of desperation.

      4. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 6:06pm

        I’d say that it constitutes a potential “injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child”. So tick for one of the definitions, and you only need one.

        1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:09am

          Indeed!

    2. So in the name of combating child abuse would the Jockstrap and Company condemn the CPS raping children and distributing child pornography (as I explained in my response to Stu the Child “Protection” Officer; and would you as well condemn the TSA’s groping of children’s genitals at the airport against their will?
      Watch as the gay CPS apologists on this thread defend government sanctioned child abuse and say that it is necessary, because little kids can work for al-qeida plant bombs in their little underwear .. That is why I cannot believe that they are genuinely concerned about child abuse or the emotional well being of children.

      1. “Watch as the gay CPS apologists on this thread defend government sanctioned child abuse and say that it is necessary, because little kids can work for al-qeida plant bombs in their little underwear”

        Oh. My. God. And there he goes….. right off the edge. Are you afraid of medical science too, Pepa, and physiologists? Because you seriously need both, you are one disturbed individual if you even thought this, let alone write it!!!

      2. and here comes the homosexuality equals pedophilia.
        What does “CPS raping children and distributing child pornography (as I explained in my response to Stu the Child “Protection” Officer; and would you as well condemn the TSA’s groping of children’s genitals at the airport against their will?
        Watch as the gay CPS apologists on this thread defend government sanctioned child abuse and say that it is necessary, because little kids can work for al-qeida plant bombs in their little underwear” have to do with this. yes I think that is also child abuse what’s your point there are more than one way to abuse children you know

      3. pepa, you’re either a troll masquerading as a gay man or you need help. That’s not a casual insult. What you write is extremely worrying.

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 1:11pm

          I think your right with Both Iris I think he’s a Troll… in need of help.

        2. @ Iris,
          What is going on with the TSA groping children’s genitals is more worrying. I mean what is silly and even laughable is that most of you are more worried about me than you are about children that are being molested by government officials.
          All of you asked for references. I provide. Then as usual I am the crazy one. LOL. Maybe you are all crazier than me… taking what a “crazy” man says seriously or even responding to “crazy” posts.
          As expected and predicted all of you failed to see the abuse and protect it. And instead turn to try to insult me. Well I am not insulted. I just feel vindicated. Gay sex activists DO NOT care about the well-being of children. Their main goal: destroy others who disagree with them.

          1. “I just feel vindicated.”

            Sure you do. Define “gay sex activist”. Go on, define it. Show me the definition.

          2. Again Will,
            If you read my post I feel vindicated because my assumptions are correct. Gay sex advocates like you do not care about children, you are about attacking others. Hence your diatribe against me.

          3. “Gay sex advocates like you do not care about children”

            You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You feelings of victimisation come from inadequacy.

          4. @Pepa

            Explain how Will, I or anyone else fulfulls your ludicrous definition of gay sex activist

          5. Indeed, Stu, that would be mildly amusing.

          6. @ Stu
            Because you all want to talk to kids who are not yours about gay sex, or at least approve of strangers talking talking to children in a sexual nature. “Fifth-graders also would learn that sexual intercourse “includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration.”

          7. @Pepa

            No, I don’t want to personally talk to kids (they would have to be others as I don’t have any of my own) about sex. Although as a health care professional (not I am no longer a child protection worker, nor have I ever been a youth worker – sheesh facts are things you struggle with), children do sometimes ask me personal questions … If they ask me a question whether that me health related, about relationships, about bullying or whatever I need to answer honestly.
            Where do you get that quote from – clearly not from me as some of those words I would NEVER use. So clearly bandying words around to try and look good again – FAIL!

        3. @Pepa

          Read the comments … at least two of us voiced concern at children having gentials fondled – at least two of us felt the need to comment on it …

          So, which abuse did I miss??

      4. @Pepa

        Its virtually pointless debating with you as you do not deal in reality – you are deluded or just do not understand and do not want to.

        Firstly I am a former child protection officer – not a current one … I am now a paramedic … please if you are going to debate at least read the facts …

        There will be circumstances where it is appropriate to intimately examine children – both for medical and welfare reasons – potentially for security reasons – there is never a justification of groping a childs genitals.

        If there is any evidence of groping of a childs genitals I would ardently encourage the person with that evidence to take it to the appropriate authorities. I would see that if this occurred in an airport then it was the work of an individual or individuals who were not following protocols and their motiviation for groping would need to be questioned.

        Pepa – you are starting to sound not just paranoid but deranged – eg suggesting I may be a rapist sheesh!

        1. Its virtually pointless debating with you as you do not deal in reality
          Like I said most of you will brush of real child abuse. As you now claim that those like me who actually point it out do not “deal in reality.”

          1. @Pepa

            I refer you to my comment above – I have challenged you on child abuse and you ignore it and continue with your comments again as though they are facts (your usual pattern of repeating something despite proof to the contrary suggesting that repeats make it fact)

            I (and most other people on here) would not brush off child abuse – and again I find your comments offensive

          2. @ Stu,
            Thats because you claim that not telling children about gay sex is child abuse.
            It is not child abuse. Unless you can prove that, I am not convinced.
            Groping their genitals has been proving to be emotionally damaging to a child, therefore it is child abuse.

          3. Funny how you claim that not talking about gay sex is abuse and to quote you “mental anguish”
            Yet again you are more concerned about me than children who have gone through severe REAL mental anguish by the TSA.

          4. @Pepa

            I had never even heard of the TSA until you mentioned them …

            So to say I am unconcerned about any abuse by them is wrong – if they have abused any children then those individuals doing so should be brought to justice.

            That said, since I dont even know who the TSA are I clearly have no evidence nor do I have authority to investigate – all I can do is as I have previously stated (please go away and re-read because you obviously ignored it) encourage anyone with evidence of child molestation (whether by TSA or others) to report it to the requisite authorities.

            Again you misrepresent me – you seem to be very good at doing that (a talent for something) … I never said not telling children about gay sex was child abuse – I said the bill created a situation which was child abuse – by not being able to answer questions, by making being gay an issue not talked about and seen with suspicion and ridiculed due to it not being normalised … that creates abuse and suicides …

          5. “Yet again you are more concerned about me than children who have gone through severe REAL mental anguish by the TSA.”

            Given you obsession with sex, and that all gay man are some bizarre sex obsessed paedophiles (healthy view there, by the way), I wouldn’t let you near a dog, let alone dictate what is good for children. But keep pushing that blog you seem so desperate to advertise, maybe somebody sane will will read it someday, and we “gay sex activists” can get on about our business of corrupting children.

          6. “Like I said most of you will brush of real child abuse. As you now claim that those like me who actually point it out do not “deal in reality.””

            Any proof of this, statistics, evidence? No. Ergo, an offensive generalisation by a fool. Thankfully most gay people are better than you pepa. I certainly am.

          7. @ Will
            More gay people are better than me?
            Egocentric much?
            LOL. The egos on this thread by The Jockstrap and Will are hard to bear. These are you “gay supremacist”
            I Like that term better… maybe I was off a little by lumping Will as a gay sex activist, as he more appropriately fits the role of a “gay supremacist
            Definition: A gay person with a god-like ego centric entitlement to feel superior to other gays and/or heterosexuals.

          8. LOL! Oh, mercy. Another made up definition for your made up blog. Its gets better by the second. Your puerile definitions are utterly irrelevant to me, or anyone else for that matter, I clearly have sense of self worth about being gay. And that seem to upset you. Interesting. Well, no matter.

            And still no proof of anything. Wow, its hard not to believe you, isn’t it Pepa, what will all the science white papers you’re producing! Maybe look up the Kool-Aid website, they’re bound to have something, I mean, if their drink is so popular with the google-worshipping classes, no?
            LOL! What a joke you are, a charade of a human!

          9. @Pepa Why does the gay bit need to be added surely supremacist and I wouldn’t say there supremecists when all there doing is pointing out the flaws and offensive generalisitions in your argument

          10. @Will

            Another interesting thing is Pepa complains about name calling yet his petty little definitions dont seem to count nor do rapist or child molester

            Then he claims that he cares about the abuse of children and when those issues are clarified with him he ignores the comments made to him

            He finds it very hard to deal in facts

          11. Most of us will brush off child abuse? Just saying something ridiculous doesn’t make it true, pepa. Seriously, you need help. And, yes, that’s a serious comment not a throwaway one.

  14. Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness

    “Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.
    More:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html

    1. Thanks Pavols, I will take a look at the link.

    2. The article doesn’t prove that bias alone “significantly interferes with the performance of major life activities, such as learning, working and communicating” (according to the definition of mental illness)
      Yet we still wonder why most people do not take gay activists seriously. Hence why you lost every battle at the ballot box. I mean you have already those who hate us and now you want to turn away people who want to be convinced but are detested by your tactics.
      Now going back to the mental illness issue, if one were to accept the theory that ALL bias is mental illness then by all mean Pavlos, you and others on this board need to see a therapist asap for your extreme bias of christians, and those who you disagree with politically. Of course this is ridiculous because you seem to mistranslate what the article is saying. It is only illness when it interferes with your normal life, just like phobias and other disorders.

      1. Jeez, give it a rest with the gay activist bashing, for the love of civility! You’re like an obsessed teenager. Let to go, or at the very lest, keep it to that blog of yours, and spare us the broken record. Its fairly clear to me that YOU have an illness that interferes with your life.

      2. Stop telling me what I am pepa, I am not biased toward Christians generally, as a secularist I think that people are entitled to believe whatever rubbish they want and to worship as they want provided it doesn’t impnge negatively upon others and provided the religious are not accorded special privileges.
        I am deeply concerned about unhealthily homophobic evangelical Christian Fundamentalism.

        1. Sadly, he won’t, Pavlos. How ever many times we correct pepa’s wrong assumptions, he just keeps going back to them again and again. I’ve tried to be polite but, hell, it’s depressing.
          pepa, why do you do it? Is it to prove some ‘They all hate me because I’m right’ theory you have? I think you’re being blinded by your own issues and previous experiences of SOME gay people.

          1. You… trying to be polite?! Hahaha… You are a joke!

          2. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 2:38pm

            Pot/Kettle.

          3. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 2:39pm

            That comment was to Rich, not you Iris (just in case you were wondering!)

          4. Rich, you have the etiquette, decorum and manners of a rabid dog, you are hardly one to pass judgement on another’s civility – qualities you are incapable of demonstrating, matched only by your low intelligence – qualities that Iris has in great abundance over you. Its offensive to human beings to even categorised you in the same class, let alone species.

          5. How ever many times we correct pepa’s wrong assumptions,
            LOL.
            And how is that exactly?
            By saying:
            Its fairly clear to me that YOU have an illness that interferes with your life.” (Will)
            Is that the best you people tolerant gay advocates can do? Is that how you prove that I am wrong? By calling a stranger a nut case? Geez no wonder we lose a lot.
            I almost chocked with laughter when I read your post Iris. I mean seriously. I know that some of you crave superiority over other gays, but come on now. You are just being delusional. Even I would not say something like, “I prove you wrong!” LOL.

          6. In response to pepa’s comment about an illness called pathological bias that intereferes with your life, perhaps more importantly pathological bias is a problem when it manifests in behaviour that interferes in other people’s lives.

          7. “You are just being delusional.”

            We have read you previous posting. Its fairly obvious that you are. I suspect you kow this already, hence you react to it so aggressively. You comments on rape (beyond disturbing) and “gay-Mafia” conspiracies are NOT normal. Really. They aren’t. You have mental health issues. This is not up for debate, Pepa, its obvious to even an untrained eye.

          8. pepa, Pavlos told you he was in a monogamous relationship and wished to marry in response to you assuming he wasn’t monogamous. YOU then proceeded to say that he couldn’t get married because being married meant ‘being exclusive’ – ie you just went right on with your misconception. That is just one example of what I mean. That and the we all vote Labour thing, we all support abortion, etc.
            Now you live in Rhode Island, yes? No, I don’t expect you do (and I don’t want you to say), but when you correct me by saying ‘actually, I DON’T live in Rhode Island’, I’ll just keep on saying you do, right? Then I’ll use that ‘fact’ to ‘prove’ you must therefore eat children ‘because I met someone from Rhode Island once and they ate children’. You’ll quite understandably correct me again, but I’ll keep on repeating the RI thing and say that the reason you won’t admit it is because you don’t like hearing the truth, etc etc.
            NOW can you see why people are getting irritated with you?

          9. And Rich – that’s rich coming from the young man who writes racist, offensive and lewd misogynistic comments and ones advocating genocide.
            When you grow up, you’ll realise how daft you’re making yourself look. Do come out and then you can get on and live your life without taking out your repression on PN commenters.

          10. @ Iris,
            “Pavlos told you he was in a monogamous relationship and wished to marry in response to you assuming he wasn’t monogamous.”
            1) Pavlos can only speak for himself, if he is in a sexually exclusive relationship that is great, but the point is that he (much like I) we are both the exception not the rule. The gay community openly embraces “open relationships” and whatnot which is the most popular lifestyle within the community.

          11. “The gay community openly embraces “open relationships” and whatnot which is the most popular lifestyle within the community.”

            A poor generalisation. And proof? None. As usual. Generalisations are the recourse of a weak mind.

          12. Never quick with the proof, are we pepa? Incapable? Unable?
            .
            Its okay, pepa, we don’t expect your wild tirades of frustration and anger to actually materialise any statistics or science. Nor more then you would expect a bigot to produce proof to verify their prejudice, or an animal to solve Fermat’s Last Theorem.

          13. @ Will,
            “Those who considered their sexual relationships
            “casual” engaged in 16-28 sexual encounters outside of the primary relationship each year.” (AIDS by Dr. Maria Xiridou, 2003, 17: 1029-1038)
            “42.9% of homosexual men in Shoreland had more than 60 sexual partners; 18.4% had between 31 and 60 partners. 61.3% of the area’s homosexual males had more than 30 partners.87.8% had more than 15″ (Edward O. Laumann, University of Chicago, 2004 “A Study In Homosexual Relationships“)
            “There are an estimated 40,000 new HIV infections yearly with 70%
            of these being among men. Of those men who are infected, 60% are infected through homosexual sex; 25% through IV drug abuse; and 15% through
            heterosexual sex. (Centers For Disease Control, 2003)

          14. Lerts look at that shall we.

            (1) Your CDC reference. HIV trends are not indicative of the levels of monogamous relationships in gay people.
            (2) I cannot find any reference in the journals to the Laumann study. Please show the link.
            (3) The Dr. Maria Xiridou study is not indicative of gay relationships “Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months” In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded. This is proof of nothing, Pepa.

            Please be more thorough in what you provide and read the stupid, rather than just cut and pasting. None of what you provided me scientifically proves gay man are more unfaithful.

          15. Now a proper comparison:

            45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 – Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)

            San Francisco State University – The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

            I see little difference between the fidelity rates of gay couples and straight couples. You confuse MSM category with gay men. They are not the same, man MSM’s are married or identify as straight, its why your statistics are flawed, you use HIV figures to prove infidelity.

            You shroud read Correlates of Gay and Lesbian Couples’ Relationship Satisfaction and Relationship Dissolution[John M. Gottman, Robert W. Levenson] to uplift your view on gay relationships.

          16. “This is proof of nothing, Pepa. Please be more thorough in what you provide and read the stupid, rather than just cut and pasting.”

            Should read: “This is proof of nothing, Pepa. Please be more thorough in what you provide and read the study, rather than just cut and pasting.”

            And just top add, the only “scientific” study I am aware of (please correct me) that says gay marriages are less faithful and shorter then their heterosexual equivalent, is “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples” by the Family research Council. These people are as scientific as the tooth fairy, they’ve been know to used dubious sources before, and have a “christian agenda” – in fact, this paper is widely seen as deeply flawed, as it used out dates statistics from unverified sources, unbalanced conclusions and comparisons – in fact this is the only paper that is touted by NARTH and other such organisations, with irrational anti-gay agendas. Scientifically this paper is a load of tosh.

          17. @Pepa

            Thank you for sharing some evidence (at last). However, I have to raise an objection …

            Its commonly accepted in academic circles that when using statistics particularly relating to areas which are subject to change such as infection rates that statistics and reports concentrating on those statistics should be ideally no more than 5 years old and definitely no more than 10. Some of your stats are approaching end of shelf life – and I have stats which I will dig out after my appointment shortly which demonstrate that infection rates for HIV are growing at a much more significant rate in the heterosexual community – although the entire relevance of your data to the issue of the TN bill I struggle to fully comprehend – perhaps you can elucidate

          18. pepa, your comment “I built my house from old Coke cans and it’s just fine” – how stupid can you be?
            Yep, I know you didn’t say that, but as you seem to think it’s perfectly fine to make up what other people say, then why don’t we all do it, eh? I didn’t say “I prove you wrong” anywhere, but if your referring to my comment that you were wrong to assume we were all the same , all lefties etc, then yes, you ARE wrong. But don’t let facts get in your way. If we don’t provide the ‘right’ answers for your constructed conflict, then just fill them in for yourself, right?

      3. @Pepa

        Actually the gay activist voice in the UK is a growing force to be reckoned with and has allied support in other strands of equality. The improvement of statutory equality for LGBT people is clear evidence of this supported by the cultural sea change in acceptance and tolerance of gay people in the UK (by the majority). So far from your comment “Hence why you lost every battle at the ballot box” comment – the opposite is the case. Equally, the recent opinion polls in the US appear to demonstratively indicate support for same sex marriage. Society and culture is changing and some of that is thanks to the work of some gay activists.

        1. Well supposedly we were told that the polls were good in 2008 in California.
          Boy was that a farce.

          1. Is that the best response you can come up to comment on my detailed opinion …

            Whether one poll or not is a farce has no impact on sea changes of cultural opinion – widespread acceptance etc

  15. Luke from Canada 21 May 2011, 9:04am

    I would just love to be a teacher to be the one who gets caught going against this law a perfect to get this in front of the courts. It does not adress what to do if a kid asks. i would simply answer the question and dare the state to sue me.

    1. I feel sad that I am not a teacher…yet and that by the time I complete my degree and teacher training, TN will already have blood on its hands from the numbers of children driven to suicide because they were not allowed to discuss something that was so confusing to them and which in that state made them feel so unacceptable.

      I would love to have the chance to teach there and say to the kids “No, its ok to talk about your sexuality and its ok to feel a little confused.” I would openly defy that law if it meant that it helped some kids who were looking for support, which to me would be the most important part of the job. Not the money, not the holidays but the kids.

      1. No, Karl! Its not “ok” to talk publically about sexuality of particular child! Are you crazy?! All personal matters always must be private! Don’t mix your public school performance as a teacher with personal sex matters of children!

        1. @Rich

          It depends on how the issue is raised – if the child concerns raises the issue publically then at least in part it should be dealt with senstively but with consideration of whetherother children who were an audience to the comments the child raised need some answers – in addition to any personal support the child concerned needs individually

        2. “Are you crazy?!”

          You mean, like you? Statistically improbable, to say the least.

  16. Priorities hey!!!!!

    What about fixing the economy, fair housing for everyone, health care for all and a balanced fiscal dept-free budget – hey????!!!!!

    Oh that rights the Republicans do not give a toss about those issues, they are way too busy being obsessed with re-introducing sodomy laws, anti-gay marriage laws, referendums on constitutional amendments, abortion bans, re-introducing creationism in schools and section 28 laws.

    Typical Republicans have way too much time on their hands with religious bigots and tea-bagging public sex crazed psychopaths!!!!!!!

  17. After “economy”; – add “jobs, labor and employment, “

    1. I’m Takei, and so is my Takei boyfriend.

    2. Don’t say pathologically homophobic

      1. I’m Takei too

  18. GayWebHosting 21 May 2011, 11:39am

    I say Ban all religion lessons in schools. It is pure fiction and a complete waste of time.. Pupils would be far better off learning about REAL life and issues instead of sky-pilot tales…

    Anything less is child abuse and, yes, imposing views on the kids that they possibly do not hold themselves… How right is that?

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 11:58am

      Excellent comment , agree so much.

    2. My only hesitation is that there needs to be some historic understanding of what has brought about society and religion has an influence on this … RE isnt preaching its giving facts of what people believe and why they feel they should do things in a particular way … Often by understanding these things we can build a more inclusive and accepting tolerant society … Philosophy has some input from religious thought and helps us make sense of decision making etc …

      Ultimately – banning talk in school on religion has similarities to the ban on talking gay as in TN schools – both are wrong

      1. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 6:14pm

        I agree. The only way to solve the problems of cultural misunderstandings we currently face is to help different cultures to understand each other through better education. Religious Education isn’t about teaching children to believe in a certain religion, it’s about teaching them to understand and appreciate the difference between different religious cultures so that it’s no longer something to fear. In exactly the same way, children need to be taught that people from different countries and of different sexual orientations aren’t actually different to them in any way that matters.

        1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:13am

          Children need life skills Not religious skills.
          Religion should only be a choice for a child when They request knowing about it.
          Different sexual orientation is something born of course they should be taught to understand that but banding that together with religion, which is a chosen liyfestyle is wrong and insulting.

          1. @Jock S Trap

            I agree but in the same way philosophical knowledge and knowledge of politics both appropriate things to be taught in school so is RE where it is fact based in terms of understanding what is believed and developments in faith – not a method of promoting a religion.

  19. It’s a ridiculous situation in Tennessee.
    That said, I do like George Takei’s response:
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/05/dontsaytakei.html

  20. And there was me thinking people in Tenessee were known for their brains and tolerance.
    Im boycotting Jack Daniels.

    Bunch of slack jawed hillbillies…

    1. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 2:03pm

      Blimey, They’re gonna miss your 4 crates a week order! ;)

      1. A boycott needs more than 1 person to work, i only buy 1 bottle every 3 months but now i’ll just stick to carling and halo.

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2011, 10:45am

          Bet your ‘halo’ slips after a few of them?!!
          ;)

          1. Yep, definitely =]

  21. This is the work of vile delusional people (aka right-wing Christians).

    Not so homophobic Christians are also deluded, of course. They are just not vile. After all, all religious people are deluded. Religion is a delusional. It’s a mental illness.

    1. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 6:17pm

      Oh please shut up. The majority of the church in the UK is gay tolerant (or even gay, shocking thought I know). But do you really think that calling every religious person deluded is going to encourage the ones who aren’t yet to change their minds?

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:15am

        Whilst I do agree SamB’s comment is a bit harsh, what makes you thing Gay people are happy being tolerated?
        Why not accepted?

        1. The reality is that we will only ever be tolerated by some people – there are some bigots who will not be changed by education. Its the same of race relations – there are some bigots now that tolerate due to cultural changes in the UK and legal rights but do not accept equality. We should strive for acceptance but not expect to achieve it 100% as this is idealistic and not realistic

  22. March&Rally

    Join the “Secular Europe Campaign” in this large-scale march in central London

    Saturday 17th September 2011

  23. Martin Legan 21 May 2011, 2:13pm

    No, people of Tennessee, you cannot allow your representa­tives to use the Tennessee Senate as a “bully pulpit.” Do not allow this legislatio­n to pass.
    And do not turn your backs on your own gay flesh and blood, who will be bullied by others as a result. Can’t you understand that there will be consequenc­es for the victims and the perpetrato­rs of such bullying? Always think of what Jesus would do and say in this situation.
    You should read “The Lottery Code” http://www­.thelotter­ycode.net and find inspiratio­n for today.

  24. my school never mentioned homosexuality even in sex education. and as a closeted 12-13yo gay boy i felt massively uncomfortable with myself the only way i found out about gay people were the internet, gay porn sites and chat rooms which were very dangerous and met some very odd people on there, and by other kids who would label something gay meaning it was rubbish so as a kid all i knew was being gay was rubbish.
    i always thought that if my school sat all us down and showed us what homosexuality was and taught us the facts about it i would have come out as gay sooner, felt more accepted and not gone into a depression that nearly killed me age 15.

    1. I feel great sorry for your suffering gay childhood, Lee! I really do….

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:16am

        Yet you seen happy to make everyone suffer yourself.
        Hypocrite much Rich?

  25. Bestiality movement? Is there one? Maybe it’s just the one he’s involved with.

    1. Never heard of a bestiality movement as such … investigated it as a cop in the past, and really don’t want to think about it much more than that – thanks

  26. Parts of the USA are very confused. You go from from mathew rush (the p0rn star) to mr campfield (kkk). It’s as if america has bi polar disorder.

    1. Is there actually a bestiality movement because it gets mentioned a fair bit, like the paedophile movement by the anti gay lobby.
      And yet you never see a bestiality pride or a paedpophile pride or see them campaigning for more dogs homes or school playgrounds…

      1. @Tigra07

        Not sure about a bestiality movement but unfortunately there is a paedophilia movement (very much underground) but seeing paedophilia as an orientation …. and tacitly campaigning to view it as a normalised orientation …

        1. There was a guy a few years ago who killed himself and left a note to his parents saying how scared he was that he was attracted to children.
          Unfortunately paedophilia may well be an orientation, albeit one that does more harm than good and should ideally be cured.
          Where does that leave us though when people begin trying to cure orientations?

          1. It’s a matter of consent. Whatever legal sexual activities consenting adults choose to engage in should be no-one else’s concern while there is an obvious need to protect those who do not give consent and /or are not capable of giving meaningful consent.

  27. I predict another Scopes trial.
    The idiotic armies of the night always bring it about themselves. How do you publicise Darwinism? Ban discussion of it. Etc etc etc….

    1. You may well be right there, Riondo – in many ways I hope you are ….

  28. Facebook Twitter etc It’s OK to be Takei !

  29. I have to say I find some of the posts on here hilarious.

    I have seen it said on other posts, and I agree, If a country wants to implement a law, pass a bill then its that Countries decision and right to do so, and it is no concern of anyone else who is not in that Country, so wind your necks in.

    1. PumpkinPie 22 May 2011, 6:42am

      So, I suppose you’d be just dandy with it if America voted to reinstate slavery, then, hmm? Muppet. If you have issues with homosexuality, please grow a spine and come out and say it, instead of hiding behind this tired old “it’s the will of the people” rubbish.

      No country should ever have the right to force inequality on its citizens.

    2. No James, it is totally our business what the anti-gay industry is cooking up no matter where they are operating.
      When homophobic bullies are at work we spill the beans to everyone, it’s essential to tell the world about it and expose them.
      When dealing with dangerous bullies you must never suffer in silence as it let’s them carry on bullying and getting away with it.

    3. “If a country wants to implement a law, pass a bill then its that Countries decision and right to do so,”

      So? That doers not preclude others offering an opinion in it. Are we supposed to stay silent, is that it? Should we have left German continue its implementation of Nuremberg laws? Should we stay silent on Pol Pot’s exterminations of the an entire nation? Are we not allowed pass opinion on massacres in Srebrenica? Should we not protest and take action on illegal wars that look for invisible WMD’s? Should we not care what happens in other parts of the world? Minding our own business is precisely what allows other countries, and other people, to do as they please. Ever hear the line “”All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” ~ Edmund Burke

      1. or as Leonardo da Vinci said

        He who does not punish evil, demands it to be done

    4. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 10:23am

      Yeah thats the answer James, deny it doesn’t have anything ot do with us.
      Oh no, sorry this is a comment page.

    5. @James

      So if a country, say Uganda, wants to introduce a law that authorises widespread genocide of gay people – is that not a concern for the international community ….?

      Or if a country, say 1930s Germany, introduces a law seeking to eliminate an entire race (the Jews) – is that not a concern for the international community …?

      Or if a country, say Sudan, wants to support the killing of hundreds of thousands in Darfur – is that not a legitimate concern for the international community …?

      Or if a country, say Burkina Faso supports female genital mutilation – should the international community stand by and allow this to happen?

      In a global community – it is legitimate for people to speak out against the wrongs in other countries – even in other democracies … We accept criticism of our actions by others …

      1. @ Stu- Its not a concern of us no. If another country wants to do whatever it wants, in its land, then it is free to do so. And people should stop melding in what does not concern them, and stop being busybodies.

        1. @James

          So I take it from your comment that you would have been happy for N@zi Germany to eliminate the Jews, are happy for a Ugandan gay genocide, happy for the genocide in Darfur, happy for genital mutilation on a wide scale in Burkina Faso and other African countries, were happy for the Pol Pot massacre in Cambodia, the massacre by Idi Amin etc ….

          I for one do not agree with such immorality and believe there is a humane response from other countries …

          Unlikely as it is, if the UK government decided to castrate every red headed male to prevent further red headed people being born – should other nations not speak out against it – I would hope so …

          It is all very well speaking out saying we should leave governments to impose inhumane conditions on their own people – because it is their sovereign state – when we sit in relatively democratic and comfortable conditions ….

          Where is your sense of humanity?

          1. Paddyswurds 23 May 2011, 11:35pm

            Castrating red headed males will not eradicate red heads as one can carry the gene without being redheaded oneself. two blond or auburn or any colour of hair could be carriers of the red head gene as is evident in the Windsors and Spencers and um ….well you know who.

          2. @Paddyswurds

            I am aware it wouldnt irradicate red heads – it wouldnt stop someone evil trying though …

            Was merely an illustrative explanation

    6. Paddyswurds 22 May 2011, 11:08pm

      FYI….
      ………Tennessee is just one (insignificant) federal State of the fifty states that make up the country of the United States of America. Statse have their own independent (somewhat) legislatures and can pass laws as they see fit.
      However if the Federal government passes a law which is at odds with a law made by a state legislature then the federal law trumps the state law and the state law becomes defunct.
      Federal Government provides funding for schools and as it does, can dictate currriculim and so on as in the case of the desegeration of schools in Masachussetts in the late seventies. The schools were forced to desegregate or loose funding.
      This is what will probably happen in Tennessee if this law is passed. the Federal gov just won’t stand for blatent discrimination.

      1. Paddyswurds 23 May 2011, 1:29pm

        errata….
        …….States,** lose,** obv.

        1. Paddyswurds 23 May 2011, 1:31pm

          errata…..
          …….States **, lose **, obv.

          1. Paddyswurds 23 May 2011, 1:33pm

            Pink news, please do something about the software. This is getting annoying….
            …..States **,
            …..lose **,
            …..obv.

  30. As an individual born and raised in East TN, I can honestly say that political propoganda such as this is exactly why I no longer reside in that state. While homophobia is every where, I do feel safe where I am now. It is unfortunate that there are those of you who believe that members of the LGBT community “choose” to be the way they are. We are born gay…PERIOD. Why is this a political matter…why must the need for our civil rights be paraded across media channels? Just know this…the day will come when we will look you down and spit in your eye. (and if you are equally stupid enough to think you will get aids), I will laugh as you try to claw your eyes out!

  31. I remember back to when I was 12 and having sex with men. I didn’t know what homosexuality was….it was never discussed….ever. I found out at age 14 that apparently I was going to hell because the things the religious instruction teacher was describing as evil is what I had been doing for years. That’s the only support I had….none at all. Add that to the trans issues I was having which didn’t even have a name (it was unknown) and it’s not surprising I had many suicidal thoughts in my youth as a result. This is what enforced silence brings and it will cause untold harm to gay and trans youth.

    1. Wow, you was a pederast at age of 12 already!…. Interesting….

      1. What age did u discover you were scum rich?
        Eitvhef come out of the closer or jump off a bridge already

        1. Paddyswurds 23 May 2011, 11:39pm

          @Tigra 07….
          ….is encouraging suicide really helpful, just because you disagree with an opinion??

          1. If all religion followers jumped off a bridge tomorrow there would be no war or discrimination.
            So YES paddyswurds, maybe you should read Rich’s other homophobic comments before you defend his opinion.

          2. Paddyswurds 26 May 2011, 11:29pm

            I wasn’t defending anyones position. Just commenting on your advice to someone to commit suicide……

      2. aND THYANK 22 May 2011, 4:47pm

        A pederest? Really? I haven’t heard that term for years!
        Last time I looked the term pederest is associated with an older man having sex with a boy and is usually associated with anal sex.
        I was the 12 year old…..therefore not a pederest.
        Oh and it’s ‘you were’ not ‘you was’.
        And thank you for missing my point entirely which was about the effect of silence on children.

        1. This is from Gwen BTW…stupid focus….

      3. “Wow, you was a pederast at age of 12 already!…. Interesting….”

        Interesting only to you, as that is clearly what you desire.

      4. Oh well done Rich, so you are saying that Mo’s 9yr old wife Aisha was a pederast, by your definition anyway.

  32. So, the kid asks “Mr. Teacher, who is gay?” And teacher says “I’m forbidden to talk that word. Go to conselor.”
    I can imagine, what would the kids do after that whenever they don’t like the teacher. “Mr. Teacher, tell us about gays again”, “Teacher, are you gay?” “Teacher, what you think about gays?” …. the stupid law just ruins the authority good teacher has to have.

  33. As heterosexual reproduction apparently will be discussed and promoted in class, will teachers discuss the many sexually transmitted diseases associated with heterosexual penile-vaginal sex as well as other heterosexual practices including oral,anal and manual sex etc while outlining measures that can be taken to protect people from these std’s?

    1. Heterosexually transmitted syphilis, gonorrhea, genital herpes, chlamydia, genital warts, HIV etc.
      Drug and alcohol use before and during pregnancy, use of cocaine, amphetamines, or opiates.
      Underage pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy, unwanted pregnancies, pregnancy related deaths, neonatal mortality etc.

      1. Heterosexually transmitted diseases fall under several categories:
        Bacterial, Fungal, Viral, Parasitical, Protozoal.

        The “Don’t Say Gay” bill shows a fear and shame of discussing human sexuality factually and honestly.

  34. I was born GAY!!

    1. Alright, but you will die as Idiot….

  35. Next on Tennessee’s agenda, that damn evolution nonsense.

  36. Oh, here we are again. Refusing to discuss the issue. Just what are they worried about? Its so ridiculous, that in the 21st Century, people are being banned from discussing sexuality in an open way.

  37. I know it’s been said already…but George Takei has the right idea! He’s lent his name to the community just in case this sort of thing happens elsewhere. If you can’t say Gay, say Takei!

    Oh MY!

  38. There are too many UK schools which behave as if the Section 28 don’t say gay legislation is still in place.

    Stoke Newington School is doing some really great work to change things here, including providing advice for other schools and teachers. You can see a video about their LGBT History Month celebrations here.

  39. I’m not gonna read all of this topic, but just from the top 20 posts, I can tell we’re gonna need a LOT of weed.

    1. RELATED ARTICLE: Draft Criteria for Pathological Bias

      Criterion A
      A pervasive pattern emergent by early adolescence and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by one or more of the following:

      * Intrusive or perseverative preoccupation with persons of a social out group.

      * Aversive arousal secondary to benign intergroup contact or ideational triggers regarding out-group persons.

      * Relational disturbance in benign intergroup situations.
      (Category B to follow)

      1. RELATED ARTICLE: Draft Criteria for Pathological Bias
        Criterion B

        The presence during the past 6 months of three or more of the following:

        * Generalized fear or perceived threat of out-group persons.

        * Hostility or rage response toward out-group persons.

        * Expressed victimization by out-group persons without corroborating evidence of actual harm/victimization.

        * Aversive ideation or fearful preoccupation concerning out-group persons.

        * Expressed victimization of out-group persons with corroborating evidence of actual harm done.

        * Emotional lability marked by transient hostility secondary to benign intergroup contact.

        http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4345/is_9_32/ai_n29126060/

        1. Cont’d: Category B
          * Marked aversive preoccupation with out-group persons.

          * Panic and anxiety secondary to benign contact experiences with out-group persons.

          * Endorsement of beliefs and values promoting intergroup hostility and conflict.

          * Interpersonal provocation by out-group persons secondary to benign contact experiences.

          * Reported avoidance of or retreat from out-group persons secondary to benign contact.

          * Commission of physical aggression toward out-group persons secondary to benign contact.

          * Reported damage to property belonging to out-group persons.

          * Commission of actions to promote intergroup conflict.

          * Affiliation with groups or organizations that promote intergroup violence.

          1. RELATED ARTICLE: Draft Criteria for Pathological Bias

            Criterion C

            This condition is not the result of:

            * Schizophrenia.

            * Organic syndrome.

            * Criterion A symptoms that are present only during periods of intoxication, alcohol abuse, or substance abuse.

            http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4345/is_9_32/ai_n29126060/?tag=content;col1

  40. The only one good thing to come out of this law is the fact that gay people still need to be aware that the fight for equality is far form over. What is just as concerning is that any sort of censorship in a so called free country is bad. It is bad in as much that is it always that start of a rolling ball and can lead, not only to gay issues but other issues that are not the majority view or agenda. Personally I think this law does the people of Tennessee a disservice and also does not put the US in a good light. Where are you Obama on this? I can never understand that as a race it seem that hurt and war and oppression is still so much to the fore. Have we learnt nothing form the past. I abhor this law, not just as a gay man put as an affront to freedom of speech, a huge step backwards and the ignorance that it spews from its core.

  41. I emailed Sen. Campfield and all he had to say was that the bill isn’t anti-gay and is to protect children. Such an asshole.

    1. Protect them against who? Oh, gay and trans folk….Doh!

    2. but what about the LBGT kids? the bigots always claim it is about kids when it isn’t, they have their own evil agenda and they don’t care about anyone else

  42. A lot of stupid people in Tennessee. Isn’t there a lot of incest in Tennessee?

    1. I never considered inbreeding as an explanation but now that you mention it……:P

    2. Paddyswurds 24 May 2011, 10:41am

      Inbreeding or incest aren’t the problem in the southern states of the USA…… Fundi Christianity is the real problem and is what has kept these states so backward and ignorant. Most of these states also still have the death penalty and kill more of their own citizens than Iran or North Korea. Fundis would preach that their Abrahamic fiction isbased on pure love…..go figure.

      1. Well certainly the US especially the Southern States has a remarkably high church attendance. As you imply there doesn’t seem to be a whole lotta love coming from that.
        Personally (and it IS personal and with a degree of despair) with anti gay and anti trans legistation coming out of the wood work seemingly everywhere, transgender bashings and abuse by police , I’m just about to write the USA off as the equivalent of a third world country when it comes to human rights. It’s just how I’m feeling ATM.

  43. I wonder how long it will be before an Tennessean teacher is sacked for simply being gay and the whole thing goes all the way to the US Supreme Court, where hopefully this vile law will be gotten rid of.

  44. Paddyswurds 23 May 2011, 11:24pm

    @YAWN….
    …….425 comments of the greatest load of pretentious bullsh!t I have ever Tried to read and all from just 4 or 5 commentators. One or two now seem to think that cut and pasting sh!t from Wikipedia counts as a university education and even claims to be a scientist. Pleeeaze!! Do any of you think this is serious debate. Anyone who claims homophobia is a mental illness needs to see a professional themselves.
    Would any of you be able to find Tennessee on a map of the USA …… I seriously doubt it. Don’t any of you have lives to live???

    1. Dont read it then

      And yes I would know where Tennessee is – having been there ….

      Homophobia may not be a mental illness per se but can be either an aggravation of mental illness or aggravated by mental illness

    2. Agreed, don’t read them. There’s a little “X” box on the top right…. click it and we all have a win-win.

    3. Pepa has tried his/her best to disrupt genuine discussion here, too many people have tried to reason with this unreasonable persona and the thread has become wearisomeand overlong I agree, can’t be bothered following it either.
      Extreme homophobia hardly signals a balanced mentation, it must be the concern of psychiatry.
      I always give links to anything I cut and paste so that people can go to and read the whole article for themselves. If I was trying to pass off something as my own by cutting and pasting you might have a point but you don’t Paddyswurds.

    4. “One or two now seem to think that cut and pasting sh!t from Wikipedia counts as a university education and even claims to be a scientist.”
      .
      @Paddyswurds, there will always be some one who quotes from Wikipedia, but there are many more of us who are informed on various topics, beyond the introductory preamble of the Wikipedia. It is curious that you focus on the latter rather than the former?

      1. Ignore the fool, John, he gets like this with the puerile insults against certain people that have shown him up to be a stupid bigot in the past. Its of no consequence. Cut and pasting dictionary definitions seems to be the best this this moron can do.

        1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:18am

          WHen he’s not too busy changing names.

          1. To Steve, the persona who apparently “borrowed” his iPad…. LOL!

    5. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:18am

      Me thinks someone been at that whiskey bottle again!

  45. Mr Pepa,
    your fighting with great number of nasty gays is remarkable. Congrats!

    1. Yeah, Pepa is only marginally smarter then you Rich, and equally as imbalanced. You’d probably fancy each other.

    2. Rich, you and pepa are the cream of the crop from the anti-gay industry…you are the very best they have to offer (lol)

      1. Thanks!

    3. Rich, check out pepa’s unique blog – you may be able to contact him ;)

    4. Rich although Pepa seems to hate gay people he has admitted he is gay so apparently still going to hell according to you

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:19am

        And you believe him?

    5. Rich Rich Rich

      Such hatred in your heart

      1. Stu, creatures like you are poison for mankind.

        1. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 6:35pm

          If Stu’s a poison, can you please drink from the chalace?

          1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:20am

            Quickly!

        2. Rich

          Pot / Kettle

    6. Jock S. Trap 24 May 2011, 5:41pm

      Yawn…
      Next!

    7. Rich, when do you sit your GCSE’s in homophobic bigotry and hatred?

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 May 2011, 10:30am

        Think he may have already failed them due to his secret obession with the male genitals.

      2. He failed it on grounds of grammar!

        1. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 6:23pm

          Unlikely, you only get about 4 marks at GCSE level for your command of English.

  46. Wow…. So many homosexual degenerates talking here….

    1. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 6:25pm

      Glad to see you don’t have anything better to do either, Rich.

        1. Rich, I can see that you are loving all this attention.
          .
          Rich, ever wondered why you constantly need the attention of so many homosexuals?

          1. Rich certainly loves attention from gay men, JohnK. He professes to hate everything gay, but he just can’t keep away. He obviously gets a big kick from us.
            Come out, Rich, and then you won’t have to hide your true feelings any more.

    2. “Wow…. So many homosexual degenerates talking here…”

      And just one animal. You.

      1. Galadriel1010 26 May 2011, 10:14pm

        Nah, Pepa’s around too

        1. Good point.

    3. @Rich

      and so many bigoted hate filled degenerates too

    4. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:21am

      You love all things Gay don’t ya Rich.

    5. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 11:23am

      I bet Rich is always the first with the menu to get his hands on a chocolate starfish.

      1. Rich, so which one of these many intelligent, witty and highly educated homosexuals on pink news do you fancy then?

  47. “So if they witness a kid being bullied because of sexual orientation, how will they be able to deal with that?”

    They won’t because according to the law gay kids don’t exist. They should also invent a law that prohibits from talking about racism in schools, for example, because it’s clear that prejudice and intolerance don’t exist in Tennessee so it doesn’t need to be talked about in schools. Each day the Deep South is more similar to Iran – “no, it doesn’t exist, shut up !”.

    Hopefully it will cause a Streissand effect and homosexuality will be talked more than ever.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all