< ))) republicans ))) And Sex Education

I came across this story (link below) on MSNBC and decided to post it here.

In it, Congressman Louie Gohmert, a

< ))) republican )))

questions the need for sex education in schools.

He followed that idiotic comment with this gem:

There's no doubt that

< ))) republicans )))

here will have the same difficulty understanding just why Gohmert's statements are idiotic, but this time I'm not going to hold their hands and explain it to them...given that I'm not sure where those dirty little hands have been or if they even wash them.

No, I think I'll let the little ones wonder at it all, as that is apparently what they want anyway...well that and I don't want to touch their filthy little hands, of course.

As the idiotic

< ))) republican )))

in the story put it, it's:

...and he wouldn't want me to break a law of nature, as he prefers to remain an idiot.

Full story at:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/27/louie-gohmert-mankind-has-existed-fine-without-sex-ed/

 

LOL... MSNBC! hahahahah

 

Looks like someone is really happy to see

< ))) crayons )))

 

What did you learn in sex education class?

 

I think he's afraid if they start educat'in thems kids in sex, next thing they'll be educat'in em in sciency stuff and methematatics and historics and leaving out the important stuff like creationism and shoot'in and football. Aint no need for lean'in beyond second grade if ya love America! Yeehaa!

 

I would think a little context is needed here. Are we talking about 2nd graders? How deep into a "sex talk" do they want to go? Are the folks teaching the subject qualified to teach it? Given the financial strain, is sex ed being taught at the expense of other, possibly more important subjects?

 

I'm not saying more at this time, other than to say "the basics", as I've already stated that I'm not going to explain what sex education is to people here. The point being that republicans tend to shy away from the subject of sex, and that has consequences.

Were you taught anything, and if so, by whom?

 

David, I don't know how it is today. When I was in high school we had sex ed thrown into our drivers ed class. All they basically did was teach about std's and being responsible. They didn't (contrary to many out of date politician's perceptions) teach you how to have sex, or even teach abstinence as they considered those things a parent should teach their children. I think many people assume sex ed in schools is an hour of pornos and free condom hand-outs.

 

Yeah, I guess that speaks to the point I was making. We've got our resident idiot mocking Gohmert yet there was no context to his comments.

 

I can see it now, "Alright, first you find a nice secluded spot, then we jump into the back seat there, but enough of this small-talk, let's get this threesome goin'."

Anyway...

I intentionally left those points out, and see where it got them? They were confused and bewildered by it all...and that's the point: They are not educated enough to teach their children about sex.

Oh well, cat's out of the bag...

Yes, "sex-education" typically mentions the physical parts involved, but the focus is on things like std's and other basic health consequences, such as pregnancies.

< ))) republicans ))) never get the idea of condoms preventing pregnancies, as they prefer to teach "abstinence" only. This has major consequences, such as pregnancies and std's.

They also don't get that people are not taught to have sex, if anything the opposite occurs.

Five bucks says < ))) republicans ))) here are still bewildered. "How can that be!" Oy.

Sex education teaches children about the dangers of sexual intercourse, including pregnancies and std's.

Some children are foolish enough to believe that a girl can't get pregnant the first time she has sex, and some boys don't get that they are carrying a "loaded-gun"...always....because with a lot of kids they, and their parents, are idiots who don't know a damn thing about sex, which is why schools need to teach the fact that yes, if Johnny puts his penis into Jenny's vagina and ejaculates spern into said vagina, Jenny may indeed become pregnant.

That is enough to scare half the kids from engaging in sex.

Then the teacher can introduce the effects of syphilis and gonorrhea, preferably using images after images after images.

That will scare all but the most determined penises and vaginae from engaging in unprotected sex.

See, little ones?

No, I will NOT hold your hand. No means no. Go cry to your mommy and daddy you little ingrates.

 

I grew up in a farm family in a community economically based in agriculture. To be honest I don't recall myself or any of my peers learning anything from sex education we didn't already know. I am sure it probably cleared up some urban myths but I just don't remember. The reason I asked you my question is people tend to take for granted that their own life experiences and exposures are the same for everyone.

 

That's common sense, something that is actually quite uncommon.

There is a case to be made for different techniques of teaching sex education in the heavily populated cities and in less populated areas in the country, each can address it the way they want, as long as it's taught that sex can lead to pregnancies and diseases. The reason being, just assuming Johnie or Jennie "knows all about sex" is asking for trouble, but you know that.

 

So, bascially, it can be taught differently as long as...either way...it's taught the way you think it should be taught? Interesting.

 

The idea that kids understand the issues is retarded. Some do, most don't. I wouldn't want my son or daughter catching some horrible disease just because they thought it wouldn't or couldn't happen to them, but if that's what someone else wants...eh, I don't put my penis anywhere near a republican vagina (or penis, for that matter), so I'm safe...but is the general public?

In other words: republicans prefer spreading disease, rather than teach simple concepts to their kids.

Got it.

Here's your crayon:

< ))) "Why's it oozing? )))

"trip"

 

Ohhhh, you mean like anything related to Obama? You republicans don't have any problem filling in and inventing chit when it comes to Obama, yet with sex, you nuts get all flustered?

< ))) republicans )))

"trrrrrip"

 

Ahh, Louie Gohmert, what a piece of work. Mankind existed for a pretty long time without knowing about bacteria and the importance of proper hygiene, too. For that matter, mankind existed for a pretty long time without flush toilets. Whether the blockhead Gohmert likes it or not, the reality is that giving youngsters a proper education about the facts of life leads to fewer pregnancies and that such programs do not lead to a higher incidence of sexual activity or STDs. (Source)

I doubt that Gohmert wants to return the species to the Stone Age, but seeing as it's him, I shouldn't assume anything. It makes sense that he would be on a radio show hosted by the infamous pseudo-historian and liar-for-Jesus David Barton.

The hell with MSNBC. You can hear it directly from the horse's ass: Gohmert on SoundCloud

 

Who's getting flustered? I was simply wondering what the Congressman was concerned about before allowing myself to get all lathered up (like you did!).
You don't believe Gohmert had a valid point when he said parents needed to be involved? And you still don't know the context under which Gohmert was speaking, do you? Heck, for all we know, he may have been expressing his concern over the liberal's attempts to have sex ed taught in kindergarten!

 

Twist all you want...it's gets me excited....mmmmmmm

Are you gonna answer any of the thousands of questions people have asked you over the years you've been on this site? Any? Any at all? Hmmmmmm?

 

Here's how you know you're an idiot: you bash on Gohmert without knowing why

 

The republicans here are too moronic to chat with.