Is discussion of homosexuality in K-8 such a big problem that it needs legislation?

(02-16-2012 01:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  Is discussion of homosexuality in K-8 such a big problem that it needs legislation?

A sign of the times.

(02-16-2012 12:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Exactly. We're talking about opinion. We're talking about the government banning discussion of a perfectly harmless, law abiding lifestyle because of the opinion of a bunch of homophobes. The only conceivable purpose is to further humiliate and embarass gay people by passing a law saying they can't be talked about. There is no objective moral reason to do this.

I was with you until the bold part...

I don't think this should be a state law but a school district policy with assurances that parents can pull their kids out of health classes where this will come up.

But the bold?

I don't want the schools teaching my kids sexual values because i may not agree with them, not because I care to humiliate anyone!

The objective moral reason is that my morals say its a sin, and wrong. The teachers morals may not. I don't want morals imparted by teachers, period.

(02-16-2012 12:10 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 10:32 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Does this not impede the First Amendment freedom of speech?

Do teachers in the classroom have a first amendment right to talk about anything they want? Do you feel that way on, oh I don't know, intelligent design?

The First Amendment prohibits establishment of religion. Separation of church and state holla!

how is *not* talking about a social issue establishing a religion?

Hell forget the fact that prohibitions against homosexuality are not unique to any religions I know atheist who think homosexuality is weird and a genetic short coming.

(02-16-2012 01:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  Is discussion of homosexuality in K-8 such a big problem that it needs legislation?

The problem, Claw, is that GLAD and other groups are co-opting bullying as being a problem only gay kids face.

In upstate new york a Kid killed himself and it made some local news. A year later, at the same school a *gay* kid killed himself and it made national news.

So yes, in many schools the new push is 'we have to normalize it so gay kids can feel safe'. Forget the fact that fat, skinny, tall, short, smart, and dumb kids *all* get picked on and bullied.

They have moved the discussion from "how do we deal with the increase in bullying" to "How do we get kids to stop bullying gays". Because of this homo-centered discussion are being considered in subjects outside of sexuality.

Then you have laws like the ones in CA which push it in history and other classes and *forbid* parents from pulling their kids out of sexual behavior classes where it's discussed.

(02-15-2012 10:32 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  The proposed "Don't Say Gay" bill which will prevent teachers from discussing homosexuality in grades K-8 has passed the Tennessee House of Representatives Subcommittee. Does this not impede the First Amendment freedom of speech?

No. Next question.

(02-16-2012 09:46 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  and *forbid* parents from pulling their kids out of sexual behavior classes where it's discussed.

It's not like I would ever consider living in California, but... Wow.

(02-16-2012 09:51 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 09:46 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  and *forbid* parents from pulling their kids out of sexual behavior classes where it's discussed.

It's not like I would ever consider living in California, but... Wow.

It's the leftist mindset... They know better for your kids than you do.

So they are going to teach your kids things that you are obviously too stupid or bigoted to discuss at home.

Wait what? you wont send your kids to class those days... Send in the police!

I think that you shouldn't use gay in a derogatory way, but I certainly don't think we should legislate that you can't say gay......

Why so many, many laws? We're adults in the most enlightened, fair and equal society in the history of the uniververse, but our elected officials think that we need to have our language managed for us....

This, and other laws like it, are a last gasp measure to try and prevent the world from changing - - we've seen it before time and time again during other periods of civil progress. Some folks are too blinded by their own prejudice and fear to realize when the battle is lost. Tennessee will one day look back at this law in shame.

(02-16-2012 10:09 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  This, and other laws like it, are a last gasp measure to try and prevent the world from changing - - we've seen it before time and time again during other periods of civil progress. Some folks are too blinded by their own prejudice and fear to realize when the battle is lost. Tennessee will one day look back at this law in shame.

We've also see the banning parental input's and pushing state morals during periods of leftist ascendancy.. Break them, speak out



Yea you can have your progress.

(02-16-2012 10:09 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  This, and other laws like it, are a last gasp measure to try and prevent the world from changing - - we've seen it before time and time again during other periods of civil progress. Some folks are too blinded by their own prejudice and fear to realize when the battle is lost. Tennessee will one day look back at this law in shame.

Ahh another approbative drama queen chimes in.

Look, if gays don't want us to know what goes on in their bedrooms, why are they always forcing people to talk about it?

Parents pay the schools to teach kids the academics they need to succeed, not some nonsenical agenda by people who think the world revolves around them.

(02-16-2012 09:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Exactly. We're talking about opinion. We're talking about the government banning discussion of a perfectly harmless, law abiding lifestyle because of the opinion of a bunch of homophobes. The only conceivable purpose is to further humiliate and embarass gay people by passing a law saying they can't be talked about. There is no objective moral reason to do this.

I was with you until the bold part...

I don't think this should be a state law but a school district policy with assurances that parents can pull their kids out of health classes where this will come up.

But the bold?

I don't want the schools teaching my kids sexual values because i may not agree with them, not because I care to humiliate anyone!

The objective moral reason is that my morals say its a sin, and wrong. The teachers morals may not. I don't want morals imparted by teachers, period.

But this isn't about sexual values, because it targets only homosexuality. It's about singling out and targeting a specific subset of sexual values. A law that forbids talk about any sex might pass muster, but this clearly does not.

You can believe whatever you want. But when the state acts it needs to show a concrete interest, and in the case here I think it has to be compelling. There certainly is no compelling need for a law that bans talk of homosexuality, but not heterosexuality.

(02-16-2012 10:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 09:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I was with you until the bold part...

I don't think this should be a state law but a school district policy with assurances that parents can pull their kids out of health classes where this will come up.

But the bold?

I don't want the schools teaching my kids sexual values because i may not agree with them, not because I care to humiliate anyone!

The objective moral reason is that my morals say its a sin, and wrong. The teachers morals may not. I don't want morals imparted by teachers, period.

But this isn't about sexual values, because it targets only homosexuality. It's about singling out and targeting a specific subset of sexual values. A law that forbids talk about any sex might pass muster, but this clearly does not.

You can believe whatever you want. But when the state acts it needs to show a concrete interest, and in the case here I think it has to be compelling. There certainly is no compelling need for a law that bans talk of homosexuality, but not heterosexuality.

I did not take issue with your opposition to the law... Just your characterization of the motivation...

Why is ok to teach children not in high school(or any grade level) anything about sex? I see their point. I don't want children learning about sex until they're mature enough to understand it, and that includes both hetero and homosexual behavior. Frankly they shouldn't teach anything more than how children are conceived and leave the "sex" part out of it. That's more of a biology class than a sex ed class. Lets leave all kinds of sex out of the class room and let children go to school to learn...not define their sexuality. They can do that themselves.

(02-16-2012 09:41 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:10 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 11:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 10:32 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Does this not impede the First Amendment freedom of speech?

Do teachers in the classroom have a first amendment right to talk about anything they want? Do you feel that way on, oh I don't know, intelligent design?

The First Amendment prohibits establishment of religion. Separation of church and state holla!

how is *not* talking about a social issue establishing a religion?

Hell forget the fact that prohibitions against homosexuality are not unique to any religions I know atheist who think homosexuality is weird and a genetic short coming.

The "establishment of religion" prohibition does not only literally mean establishing a state religion. Thomas Jefferson and others talked about it building a wall between separation of church and state.

Thomas Jefferson wrote--

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Even if anti-homosexual laws are secular though, it still violates 14th Amendment substantive due process because there is no legitimate government interest in doing so. "We think it's icky" isn't a legitimate reason for government to intervene.

(02-16-2012 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Even if anti-homosexual laws are secular though, it still violates 14th Amendment substantive due process because there is no legitimate government interest in doing so.

You don't want that fight, you'll lose it.

I know your post-modern principles don't include facts, but if you go there, you won't like what you'll find.

(02-16-2012 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The "establishment of religion" prohibition does not only literally mean establishing a state religion. Thomas Jefferson and others talked about it building a wall between separation of church and state.

That's right I forgot the words promote and discuss did not exist in the 1700's clearly Establish does not mean Establish..

I also forgot that Jefferson was the sole author of the constitution.

(02-16-2012 10:36 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The "establishment of religion" prohibition does not only literally mean establishing a state religion. Thomas Jefferson and others talked about it building a wall between separation of church and state.

That's right I forgot the words promote and discuss did not exist in the 1700's clearly Establish does not mean Establish..

I also forgot that Jefferson was the sole author of the constitution.

They like to quote Jefferson because they think he was an atheist. I think he was actually agnostic.

(02-16-2012 10:44 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:36 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The "establishment of religion" prohibition does not only literally mean establishing a state religion. Thomas Jefferson and others talked about it building a wall between separation of church and state.

That's right I forgot the words promote and discuss did not exist in the 1700's clearly Establish does not mean Establish..

I also forgot that Jefferson was the sole author of the constitution.

They like to quote Jefferson because they think he was an atheist. I think he was actually agnostic.

No, he was a deist.

OTOH, Paine was an atheist, and I suspect Ethan Allen was agnostic or less.