Annie "Bones"; Un-Wired

[Andy]

Stop with the fragments of quotes, either post the whole paragraph with a source or quit posting quotes to prove points.

The link was sourced from Shamans post. I copied it directly from the page Shaman cited. I can't help it that the cite in question only posted that much from Ann Coulters book. Since I don't own the book, I went with what they gave me.

I agree that sex ed instructors should not be moralizing, no matter what they say about morals someone is going to be mad about it. Morals should be left to the parents and the churces. Sex ed should stick to the scientific facts even if the moralizers don't like them.

You just supported Ann Coulter's statement, which was my point. Moving on.

Okay, here's the quote from your post:
"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.

Right, and everything there, from top to bottom, were not my words. They came from the link I sourced. If you clicked it, you would see every word was part of the story I cited.

But YOU are the one who posted it to support your position, therefore one would expect that you agree with it--else why would you post it?

It merely proved the point that sex education supporters were teaching students about fisting. Does that not prove that point? The rest is unimportant to me because, the topic of this thread is Ann Coulters quote.

This proves that Ann Coulter was right. Sex education teaching, does teach fisting to students.

You are citing one inaccuracy from the news story that isn't related to the point at hand. But since you brought it up, I'll further prove it wasn't actually inaccurate.
(note: EVERYTHING in this quote, is from the newspaper article)

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.

On March 25, a statewide conference, called "Teach-Out," was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Among the goals were to build more Gay/Straight Alliances in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades.

Since it was homosexual oriented, it's a safe bet that the fisting described was likely homosexual in nature. Again, the point to be made was simply that fisting was taught to students. That's all I intended to prove, and did so.

You are the one here who is announcing what is and isn't moral, you've decided that certain things that some people do are not moral and should not be taught to children. What you haven't done is give us any reference, are fisting techniques being taught to kindergarten kids? Or are high school students being told about the variety of things that people do and warned about the dangers? I don't know what context the teachings are in, do you?

Just a messenger.

I gave you the links, what more reference do you want? All you had to do was click them, to see what was said. None of that is relevant to the question at hand. Were, or were not, the students being taught fisting? The answer is yes. That's all I intended to prove, which is what Anne Coulter said.

No, I don't know if Kindergartners are being taught specifically fisting. Never said they were, nor did Ann Coulter say they were. She merely said that students would be taught such things, in the name of protecting Kindergartners. This is true.

The SB0099 bill, included Comprehensive Sexual Education for Kindergarten. Supporters say it's to prevent the spread of AIDs. So what would you have me conclude? If you have another logical take, by all means.

Let sex ed teachers stick to the scientific facts: people fist each other, it's dangerous; people take birth control pills, there are dangers associated with them too; people have unprotected sex, venereal disease is easily transmitted this way; oral sex will also transmit VD. Give the children the truth--age appropriate truth. For instance very young children need to be taught about people touching them inappropriately and that they need to tell if it ever happens.

That's nice. What part of what you just said, disproves the quote by Ann Coulter concerning how supporters of sex education refuse to accept morals, teach fisting and other sexual acts to students, and do so in the name of protecting kindergartners?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That's nice. What part of what you just said, disproves the quote by Ann Coulter concerning how supporters of sex education refuse to accept morals, teach fisting and other sexual acts to students, and do so in the name of protecting kindergartners?

You just did the same thing she did, you went from the statement that "sex ed teachers think that morals should be taught by parents and churches" to

"sex ed teachers refuse to accept morals"

I hate to break this to you, but those two statements are not the same thing at all.

I have yet to see a curriculum to see the context in which sex ed subjects are taught. You have not seen this curriculum either. Until we do, and find out who is teaching what exactly and to whom, then we are just arguing to no point. I speak at University and high school classes on the subject of transsexuality. If you were to take individual statements I make in answer to questions, tell people I was talking to kindergartners (or even just imply that) then you could get people all upset. I refuse to take the small out of context statements and pass judgment on what's going on. I've listened to Ann Coulter on occasion and I think she's a barking nitwit. Your hysteria over a vanishingly small amount of information makes me wonder about you. You do realize, don't you, that all this may have been made up? I would have to see a lot more documentation on what's being taught before I would fly off the handle.

Are you really interested in sex ed teachers instructing children on morality? I would have thought that leaving it to the parents and churches would be ideal in your view.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not really. I've heard her speak once, and read a few of her columns.

Oh.....that explains a LOT!

You're simply lookin' to spar (with me), and....you've got a limited point-of-reference.

You probably thought Sarah; Queen O' The Dead-O-Heads was qualified, too.

Hell.....the "neighbors" were (obviously) better judges-of-depth.

​

 

[Andy]

You just did the same thing she did, you went from the statement that "sex ed teachers think that morals should be taught by parents and churches" to

"sex ed teachers refuse to accept morals"

I hate to break this to you, but those two statements are not the same thing at all.

Then show me a sex ed teacher, that teaches sexual morals? I mean, I'll buy that, but then, show me an example of that point? Again, I don't see it.

I have yet to see a curriculum to see the context in which sex ed subjects are taught. You have not seen this curriculum either. Until we do, and find out who is teaching what exactly and to whom, then we are just arguing to no point. I speak at University and high school classes on the subject of transsexuality. If you were to take individual statements I make in answer to questions, tell people I was talking to kindergartners (or even just imply that) then you could get people all upset. I refuse to take the small out of context statements and pass judgment on what's going on. I've listened to Ann Coulter on occasion and I think she's a barking nitwit. Your hysteria over a vanishingly small amount of information makes me wonder about you. You do realize, don't you, that all this may have been made up? I would have to see a lot more documentation on what's being taught before I would fly off the handle.

This explains your bias. Nevertheless, the story was printed in a major news paper in Massachusetts. It even has the title "Fistgate". Further, the parents who went public about what was taught at the sex education courses, were sued to keep quiet. So obviously there was stuff the people putting on the courses, didn't want everyone to know about.

Again, you seem to have completely missed the whole point of this thread, which doesn't surprise me given your little homo crusade. The point of this thread is not about the whether you agree with Ann Coulters book. The question is only on one single aspect. Was her statements accurate?

Do sex education supporters accept moral grounds? No, that's for church and parents. Do they teach fisting to students? Yes, they clearly did. Do they support these things on the basis of protecting Kindergartners? Yes.

Beyond that, you are wasting your time here.

Are you really interested in sex ed teachers instructing children on morality? I would have thought that leaving it to the parents and churches would be ideal in your view.

If we want to talk about this, that's great, and I'll do so in the other thread. This is about the accuracy of Ann Coulters remarks.

If you really want my personal take... I'd never send my children to a public school where immoral people can preach at them. I'm home schooling, or private schooling.

 

[Andy]

Oh.....that explains a LOT!

You're simply lookin' to spar (with me), and....you've got a limited point-of-reference.

You probably thought Sarah; Queen O' The Dead-O-Heads was qualified, too.

Hell.....the "neighbors" were (obviously) better judges-of-depth.

​

You got it Shaman I love pointing out the false statements you make. Like I said, It's fun for me!

Again, I don't need anything more than what you sources claim if false, and the ability to prove it true. This I have done. Once again, you are wrong, and we are right!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Then show me a sex ed teacher, that teaches sexual morals? I mean, I'll buy that, but then, show me an example of that point? Again, I don't see it.

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
"sex ed teachers refuse to accept morals"
"sex ed teachers think that morals should be taught by parents and churches"

So, Andy, the two above statements mean the same thing"?

Sex ed teachers job is to teach sex ed. Whose morals should they teach? Yours, the Catholic Churches, Episcopalians, Muslims--you tell me, you and Ann are so upset about sex ed teachers telling YOU that YOU have the right and obligation to teach your kids morals--whose should they teach.

That's the thing about teaching science, it's based on what we know rather than what we believe. Why do you want sex ed teachers telling YOUR kids what's right and wrong?

This explains your bias. Nevertheless, the story was printed in a major news paper in Massachusetts. It even has the title "Fistgate". Further, the parents who went public about what was taught at the sex education courses, were sued to keep quiet. So obviously there was stuff the people putting on the courses, didn't want everyone to know about.

I simply won't become hysterical without seeing the whole story, that's all. If they are teaching things that I think are inappropriate then I would object--but I'm not going to go ballistic and join up with a bunch of crazies lead by Ann Coulter in a jihad for which I have yet to see the basis. Give me the facts first, not 2 sentence quotes by somebody.

Again, you seem to have completely missed the whole point of this thread, which doesn't surprise me given your little homo crusade. The point of this thread is not about the whether you agree with Ann Coulters book. The question is only on one single aspect. Was her statements accurate?

Do sex education supporters accept moral grounds? No, that's for church and parents. Do they teach fisting to students? Yes, they clearly did. Do they support these things on the basis of protecting Kindergartners? Yes.

Beyond that, you are wasting your time here.

Are the two statements above equal, do they have the same meaning to you?
Let me rephrase them: Ann refuses to accept morals and Ann thinks that morals should be taught by parents and churches

It looks to me like the two statements are worlds apart. I would appreciate Ann if she STOPPED trying to teach her morals to everyone.

You have not yet provided the complete story on fisting, I am skeptical of the whole thing. I'm sorry but I don't get any Massachusetts newspapers here on the West Coast--got a source for your story besides Ann? If people were sued, that means that there are a heap of court records--especially if the school systems were involved in some way. So far you have not provided any real information.

 

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
"sex ed teachers refuse to accept morals"
"sex ed teachers think that morals should be taught by parents and churches"

So, Andy, the two above statements mean the same thing"?

Show me where they do accept morals. Then maybe I'll agree.

Sex ed teachers job is to teach sex ed. Whose morals should they teach? Yours, the Catholic Churches, Episcopalians, Muslims--you tell me, you and Ann are so upset about sex ed teachers telling YOU that YOU have the right and obligation to teach your kids morals--whose should they teach.

That's the thing about teaching science, it's based on what we know rather than what we believe. Why do you want sex ed teachers telling YOUR kids what's right and wrong?

Where did I say I did? I only pointed out that Ann Coulters statement that they do not, is true. It is true.

Huh? I just told you that I would not send my kids to public schools, specifically so that I can teach the moral values. Do I seem upset?

I simply won't become hysterical without seeing the whole story, that's all. If they are teaching things that I think are inappropriate then I would object--but I'm not going to go ballistic and join up with a bunch of crazies lead by Ann Coulter in a jihad for which I have yet to see the basis. Give me the facts first, not 2 sentence quotes by somebody.

They were not led by Ann Coulter. In fact, the whole scandal had nothing to do with Ann Coulter. Further, Ann Coulter never (as far I can see) ever mentioned the scandal.

Nor do I expect you to be hysterical. (although sometimes you seem hysterical bouncing around from thread to thread with only one topic to crusade for).

Look Mare, you seem to me to be a decent gal, but we both have to face it... you and I will never agree. We just won't. I've seen how you ignore whatever doesn't fit your views in other threads, and you know very well that I believe in the one true G-d, and will never see morality any other way.

Are the two statements above equal, do they have the same meaning to you?
Let me rephrase them: Ann refuses to accept morals and Ann thinks that morals should be taught by parents and churches

It looks to me like the two statements are worlds apart. I would appreciate Ann if she STOPPED trying to teach her morals to everyone.

Well there is a couple of differences. The people in question, pay the salaries of those teaching their kids. To me, it is therefore a right of the people to choose and approve of the way their money is being spent, and of what is, or is not, taught.

Of course I realize the system is already screwed up beyond repair, and thus the best option is to simply not allow my children to be exposed to immoral teaching. I'll home school, or private school them.

Ann Coulter, on the other hand, is a private individual who sells her writing. If people did not want to hear what she said, they wouldn't buy her books and read her columns. A better question is, why do you think you have the right to demand other people stop saying what they say?

You have not yet provided the complete story on fisting, I am skeptical of the whole thing. I'm sorry but I don't get any Massachusetts newspapers here on the West Coast--got a source for your story besides Ann? If people were sued, that means that there are a heap of court records--especially if the school systems were involved in some way. So far you have not provided any real information.

I still believe I made my point. I understand if you are skeptical, but a simply google of "fistgate" yields hundreds of results. More than enough to satisfy most skepticism. I think possibly your bias to this topic might be clouding your judgment.

Again, the source for that story had nothing to do with Ann. I looked it up in a general search. I only used it to prove Ann's statements true, which it did. Ann Coulter was never the source for the story, and I never claimed it was. Only that it validated Ann Coulters statements.

I've noticed that debating with you is very difficult because of how often you interject your own assumptions into the argument. You assumed that Ann Coulter was the source for the fistgate story. You assumed the purpose of the story was to bash gays. You assumed the quotes I posted were my words, and not the words of the author of the story.

Further, you repeatedly requested sources for information that I posted with the links to the source, several times. Then you make points that I then respond to, only to reprint the exact same point over again, while ignoring what was replied before (something you did repeatedly in the thread).

Why is this so hard for you? Why can't you read simply what is there, and go based on that, instead of reading into it means and purposes not stated or indicated? It's almost like you are physically blind to anything that questions your assumed world view.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Show me where they do accept morals. Then maybe I'll agree.

Where did I say I did? I only pointed out that Ann Coulters statement that they do not, is true. It is true.

Ann Coulter said, "sex ed teachers refuse to accept morals". "Accepting morals" is the same thing as "teching morals"? Not in my book it's not. Ann said they "refuse to accept" which to me means that the teachers have no morals--they refuse to accept any morals. That's a long way from what the sex ed person actually said, "sex ed teachers think that morals should be taught by parents and churches", there is nothing in this quote about accepting morals, all it addresses is the fact that parents and churches are the proper source for moral teaching and not sex ed teachers.

Huh? I just told you that I would not send my kids to public schools, specifically so that I can teach the moral values. Do I seem upset?

Yes, you do.

They were not led by Ann Coulter. In fact, the whole scandal had nothing to do with Ann Coulter. Further, Ann Coulter never (as far I can see) ever mentioned the scandal.

Why are you quoting her then? Her fallacious statement is the topic here.

Nor do I expect you to be hysterical. (although sometimes you seem hysterical bouncing around from thread to thread with only one topic to crusade for).

I post on a number of threads, but my marriage is being threatened so I use every avenue at hand to try to address the issue.

Look Mare, you seem to me to be a decent gal, but we both have to face it... you and I will never agree. We just won't. I've seen how you ignore whatever doesn't fit your views in other threads, and you know very well that I believe in the one true G-d, and will never see morality any other way.

Your morals are not the issue here, it's the imposition of morals by one group on another group. I've said over and over again that I am supporting legal equality of consenting adults, not child abuse.

Well there is a couple of differences. The people in question, pay the salaries of those teaching their kids. To me, it is therefore a right of the people to choose and approve of the way their money is being spent, and of what is, or is not, taught.

Of course I realize the system is already screwed up beyond repair, and thus the best option is to simply not allow my children to be exposed to immoral teaching. I'll home school, or private school them.

Ann Coulter, on the other hand, is a private individual who sells her writing. If people did not want to hear what she said, they wouldn't buy her books and read her columns. A better question is, why do you think you have the right to demand other people stop saying what they say?

We are discussing whether she lied. You did not answer my very simple question: are the two statements exactly the same in meaning? I don't think that they are. You?

I still believe I made my point. I understand if you are skeptical, but a simply google of "fistgate" yields hundreds of results. More than enough to satisfy most skepticism. I think possibly your bias to this topic might be clouding your judgment.

Bias, schmias, give me facts and I'll deal with them.

Okay, with an actual name to google, I read about this. I don't think this is appropriate, I object to it. Are you suggesting that this is happening all over the country? Or what exactly are you saying? As I understand it, this was objected to and stopped. What wasn't clear is if these were self-identified gay kids or who were the kids at this thing? The articles I read were not clear on this point.

Here's an article by the Boston University School of Theology in which they have questions about how the story was reported and clarification of what actually happened. http://sthweb.bu.edu/shaw/anna-howard-shaw-center/biography?view=mediawiki&article=Fistgate

This statement bears on the issue as well, from the Conservative Petitions website, "Governor Cellucci has chosen to maintain his alliance with groups on the radical fringe of the homosexual community in Massachusetts"

I also found an article about Sarah Palin under "iron-fistgate": http://www.commonmistakesblog.com/2008/08/top-ten-sarah-palin-scandals.html

This doesn't sound right to me, but I also know that there are crazies in the homosexual community just like in all communities. I couldn't find anything on any of the Massachusetts Education or Public Heath sites about this.

So are all gay and transpeople going to declared unfit to be full citizens because of this? And the Bible too of course? Sometime you should explain to me about all the other laws in the Bible that you don't follow and how you decide which of God's laws you will obey.

Again, the source for that story had nothing to do with Ann. I looked it up in a general search. I only used it to prove Ann's statements true, which it did. Ann Coulter was never the source for the story, and I never claimed it was. Only that it validated Ann Coulters statements.

Her statement was false unless "refusing to accept morals" means the same thing as "letting parents and churches teach morals".

I've noticed that debating with you is very difficult because of how often you interject your own assumptions into the argument. You assumed that Ann Coulter was the source for the fistgate story. You assumed the purpose of the story was to bash gays. You assumed the quotes I posted were my words, and not the words of the author of the story.

I work with what you give me, and two sentence quotes with no background and supported by Ann Coulter didn't leave me much to go on. If you don't want me to make assumptions perhaps you should cite your sources right up front and stop taking anti-gay pot-shots at me with your "homosexual agenda" quips.

Further, you repeatedly requested sources for information that I posted with the links to the source, several times. Then you make points that I then respond to, only to reprint the exact same point over again, while ignoring what was replied before (something you did repeatedly in the thread).

Why is this so hard for you? Why can't you read simply what is there, and go based on that, instead of reading into it means and purposes not stated or indicated? It's almost like you are physically blind to anything that questions your assumed world view.

Partly because Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being a transsexual. Maybe 600 years of deliberate religious persecution has something to do with it. Or maybe it's just that having "Christians" vote away my Constitutional rights chafes a bit.

I don't know that I have ignored your sources as much as having looked at them and found them wanting. I noted that most of the sites with comments about fistgate were religious ones delivering diatribes, the only one I saw that was rational was the Boston University of Theology and they had questions about the documentation/validity of the story.

While disparaging me for being "blind" I think that we should recognize that you have as yet to answer my question about what Ann said vs what the sex ed teacher said, are they the same in you view? Do the statements mean the same thing?

 

[foggedinn]

Don't all Presidents get sworn in using their full legal name?

Shame on you Mare. Trying to inject reason into a political discussion!

 

[Andy]

I'm going to start this over real quick, just to see if the problem is that the topic wasn't expressly printed. I realized that I had responded to Shaman, and thus assumed he knew exactly what was written. But between you and me, you have not, and still haven't caught on to the whole point. I want to believe this isn't a willful choice, but rather just not know what is being discussed.

Shaman, based on the Media Matters cite, claims Ann Coulter lies. So, on that cite, I pulled one of their claimed examples that Ann lied. Here is the entire section, as printed on Media Matters page:

But in contrast to liberal preachiness about IQ, there would be no moralizing when it came to sex. Anal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, "birthing games" -- all that would be foisted on unsuspecting children in order to protect kindergarteners from the scourge of AIDS. As one heroine of the sex education movement told an approving New York Times reporter, "My job is not to teach one right value system. Parents and churches teach moral values. My job is to say, 'These are the facts,' and to help the students, as adults, decide what is right for them."

This is the entire actual quote from her book, assuming that the Media Matters cite is accurate in it's reprint.

The only question on the table in this thread is: Was this accurate or not?

I suggest that it is. I gave references and examples of how this quote is proved true. Now as for your question...

Does the statement "...there would be no moralizing when it came to sex." equal the statement "My job is not to teach one right value system.".

My answer is, yes. To me those are clearly equal. One says they won't teach morals with sex education, and the other says... they won't teach morals with sex education. To me, they are the same.

So are all gay and transpeople going to declared unfit to be full citizens because of this? And the Bible too of course? Sometime you should explain to me about all the other laws in the Bible that you don't follow and how you decide which of God's laws you will obey.

That is not the topic of this thread, nor related to the question at hand, and honestly, I don't really care about the gay issue as much as you seem to. I don't get worked up about it. And as it relates to Fistgate, if I was in Mass. and my tax money was funding it, I may care more. Since I'm not funding it, and my kids are absolutely not going to a public school... I just really... it doesn't matter that much to me.

Again, as I said before the one and only reason I even bothered to look up the topic, was to use it as evidence of validity of Ann Coulters point. Not that I care much about something that happened in another state, in public schools there that I don't fund, and will never use.

I post on a number of threads, but my marriage is being threatened so I use every avenue at hand to try to address the issue.

Ah, I see. Well I hate to break it to you, but only G-d determines marriage. You might be able to get your state to recognize your temporary marriage for the next 70 years, here now, but when you face G-d for eternity, there will not be any marriage, but his marriage.

As for this short life we have at this moment, you will never convince me to support what I know is ungodly, ever. This thread could go on for the next year, and you simply will not get me to turn away from G-d's law. Nothing personal... I obey G-d first, and man always a distant second.

Partly because Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being a transsexual. Maybe 600 years of deliberate religious persecution has something to do with it. Or maybe it's just that having "Christians" vote away my Constitutional rights chafes a bit.

See, you are bias. Again, not trying to be mean, but everyone who knows history well, knows the reason Joan of Arc dressed in mens clothes was because she was raped while in prison, and by cross dressing, she prevented further violations or her body. That's all.

Let me guess... a gay persons wrote a book on Joan being gay, and you believed it? Do tell, what's the source for this claim?

 

[BigRob]

Don't all Presidents get sworn in using their full legal name?

No. In fact most have not used their middle names. Only recently has this been done.

 

[Andy]

No. In fact most have not used their middle names. Only recently has this been done.

Not that I would question one of the most reliable sources of good info on this forum, but really??? Are you sure? I thought they always did.

GASP! You mean Obama lied when he said it was tradition?? And no one in the media bothered to check that... Another shocker.

 

[BigRob]

Not that I would question one of the most reliable sources of good info on this forum, but really??? Are you sure? I thought they always did.

GASP! You mean Obama lied when he said it was tradition?? And no one in the media bothered to check that... Another shocker.

Well, according to the Constitution, Article II states: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Notice the lack of any name at all. So, it is simply a tradition to use any name at all, so on that point, Obama could be correct.

Politico did a story on it.

Jimmy Carter famously went as “Jimmy Carter.” Ronald Wilson Reagan took the oath as simply “Ronald Reagan.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald R. Ford took the oath using their middle initials.

The last three presidents have used their middle names: George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton and George Walker Bush. So did Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, in the hasty ceremony aboard Air Force One, went nameless — prompted to say only, “I do solemnly swear.”

So, it is not a tradition to use all three names, it really is up to the person, however it seems using the name at all is the tradition that he could be referring to.

I may have jumped the gun by saying only recently they started doing this, but I knew that it was not always the case, but the last few had done it, but you get the idea regardless.

 

[Andy]

Now that I think about it, yeah I have heard that "Jimmy Carter" was actually "James Earl Carter, Jr". He didn't follow tradition much at all. It wasn't even his legal name.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Does the statement

"...there would be no moralizing when it came to sex." equal the statement

"My job is not to teach one right value system.".

My answer is, yes. To me those are clearly equal. One says they won't teach morals with sex education, and the other says... they won't teach morals with sex education. To me, they are the same.

And my answer is no. It's weird, when I ask you a question you often don't answer. Why? Starting with Ann Coulter's statement above, let's look at the second statement:
"My job is not to teach one right value system.".

1) So, it is your opinion that sex ed teachers SHOULD teach morals? As I asked before, whose morals do you wish them to teach? My guess is that if someone took it upon themselves to usurp your right to teach your children morals by teaching them in school that you would be very unhappy, but here you are demanding that very thing. Why? I would have thought that having a teacher teach what they know (sex ed) and not trying to teach someone else's morals to your kids would work well for you since you then get to teach what you think is right.

2) Stating that it is not your job to do something is not the same as saying that the job SHOULD NOT be done. Ann is saying that the sex ed teachers don't believe in morals, when in fact the teachers are saying quite correctly that they are not the ones who should be trying to teach one moral code to a class of 30 kids whose parents will be mad no matter what morality they teach.

That is not the topic of this thread, nor related to the question at hand, and honestly, I don't really care about the gay issue as much as you seem to. I don't get worked up about it. And as it relates to Fistgate, if I was in Mass. and my tax money was funding it, I may care more. Since I'm not funding it, and my kids are absolutely not going to a public school... I just really... it doesn't matter that much to me.

I agree with you, despite being a transsexual I acutally have ethics by which I live my life.

Ah, I see. Well I hate to break it to you, but only G-d determines marriage. You might be able to get your state to recognize your temporary marriage for the next 70 years, here now, but when you face G-d for eternity, there will not be any marriage, but his marriage.

I'm always amazed at statements like this one. My problem is NOT with God, my problem is with the people who want to force me by law to obey THEIR interpretations of the Bible. God knows what's in my heart, I'm good with that because I have a lot of faith in the goodness of God (or whatever you wish to call the Creative Force), I firmly believe that "God" is not only better than we imagine, but better than we CAN imagine. I think the "fear God" belief which is the basis of Christianity today is nonsense.

As for this short life we have at this moment, you will never convince me to support what I know is ungodly, ever. This thread could go on for the next year, and you simply will not get me to turn away from G-d's law. Nothing personal... I obey G-d first, and man always a distant second.

Ah yes, what you know, but what do you know? Do you really think you know what is right for everyone else? A lot of Christians have believed that so strongly that they tortured and murdered people who had the temerity to disagree. I look at the long, long history of abuse and mistakes committed by religious people in the futile attempt to make everyone live and believe as they do and I want no part of it. The sheer arrogance of announcing to the whole world that YOU are in possession of God's Will for all people and all time, in every situation in every age, is appalling to me. Passing laws to take rights from others that you enjoy for yourself seems hypocritical and the antithesis of what Jesus taught. Why can't you wait for God to judge people? Do you make points with God if you can hurt people here that aren't living the way YOU think they should be?

See, you are bias. Again, not trying to be mean, but everyone who knows history well, knows the reason Joan of Arc dressed in mens clothes was because she was raped while in prison, and by cross dressing, she prevented further violations or her body. That's all.

Let me guess... a gay persons wrote a book on Joan being gay, and you believed it? Do tell, what's the source for this claim?

The trial transcripts supplied by the Catholic Church which prosecuted her and burned her at the stake. No, the author of the book was not gay.