Teacher suspended for playing song about being gay

lpast said:

You missed another thread about washington state passing a resolution to elminate the word bride or groom from marital forms so as not to offend gays or something...that was what that was about..and its not nonsensical to me..

If you or anyone else wants to put your own spin on what I am and what I believe..im good with that..becaue it means not hing to me...I was around more gays in my life then you will ever be being straight...ive had very personal upfront situations with them for years...dont pull the im naive or im afraid because im naive garbage...because thats what it is...Im against gay marriage and I dont care if you or anyone else likes it or not...I dont hate gays...but I do hate non gay cheerleaders that I feel are mostly full of **** that like to label people and name call and discriminate against everyone else while crying foul over the smallest gay thing...gays are far less obnoxious then most of the phony gay supporters that go overboard with it to look PROGRESSIVe and open and lol whatever silly **** is for the day...they are laughable and many are purely full of ****

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a phoney gay supporter is. Every radical extreme gay activist I've known is gay or bi.

Is there a reason you care what is on Washington state's marriage form? Planning on divorcing and remarrying in Washington - and can't because it may not have a form you like?

If I knew details about your marriage, I might be against it. Do you rage at her? Obviously, you believe what others think about your marriage really matters a lot - since you think what you feel about other's marriages should matter.

I would think you would support Washington's law IF they legalize gay marriage. That way, a gay man can never be a "bride" on the form. Obviously you don't want gay men to officially be "brides." Would a form allowing each person to circle the term they prefer be acceptable to you?

Why do you care? Seriously. What's in to you? What endangers you?

The song seems inappropriate. But what song isn't these day's, I guess. I don't think she needed to get suspended, but advised that the song was inappropriate to play in class.

apdst said:

The classroom isn't a teacher's personal platform to espousr her political beliefs. The objective is to teach kids how to think, not what to think. As long as they're on my nickel, anyway.

Click to expand...

Nor is it a good platform anyway (impressing 15 year olds wasn't my idea of political persuasion, anyhow). But it can illuminate how to think about politics, if done properly.

joko104 said:

I'm not sure what a phoney gay supporter is. Every radical extreme gay activist I've known is gay or bi.

Is there a reason you care what is on Washington state's marriage form? Planning on divorcing and remarrying in Washington - and can't because it may not have a form you like?

If I knew details about your marriage, I might be against it. Do you rage at her? Obviously, you believe what others think about your marriage really matters a lot - since you think what you feel about other's marriages should matter.

I would think you would support Washington's law IF they legalize gay marriage. That way, a gay man can never be a "bride" on the form. Obviously you don't want gay men to officially be "brides." Would a form allowing each person to circle the term they prefer be acceptable to you?

Why do you care? Seriously. What's in to you? What endangers you?

Click to expand...

know what you just want to rant on and on, you just want to talk and not read what I have to say..I answer everything in this post in my other...I said what I had to say now im done...I always respect the law if it becomes national law I wont lose any sleep and i will abide by the law..
You dont have to like my not being for gay marriage..I respect that...respect my opinion in kind and dont label me and call me names...and I wont do the same to you in return...maybe you can figure that statement out and if you do that may answer ALL the questions you have redundantly asked

celticwar17 said:

The song seems inappropriate. But what song isn't these day's, I guess. I don't think she needed to get suspended, but advised that the song was inappropriate to play in class.

Click to expand...

Was anyone aware of which method the instructor used to play the song? If it was a Youtube video, where it can get tricky is what images/film clips are included with the song. That would add another context to the song, and another layer of consideration. I know the consideration was based on the lyrics, but perhaps being the person I am, I am willing to believe that if visual representation were included, that might add to the contention.

obvious Child said:

Students have never been banned from saying their own prayers. Schools have been banned from teachers leading those prayers. Learn the difference.

Click to expand...

Point out ONE incident where a student was allowed to open communication with his maker IN the classroom, OUT loud, in front of teacher and classmates.

Fiddytree said:

Was anyone aware of which method the instructor used to play the song? If it was a Youtube video, where it can get tricky is what images/film clips are included with the song. That would add another context to the song, and another layer of consideration. I know the consideration was based on the lyrics, but perhaps being the person I am, I am willing to believe that if visual representation were included, that might add to the contention.

Click to expand...

It said no video shown, just audio.

Dooble said:

Point out ONE incident where a student was allowed to open communication with his maker IN the classroom, OUT loud, in front of teacher and classmates.

Click to expand...

You're just wrong. Why don't you let it go?

The legal standard is that the school can not lead in prayer or religion. Schools are strictly prohibited from banning students from praying - and even lose federal funding unless they certify they will not ban children from engaging in prayer or other religious activities. The only restriction is they may not be done in a manner to disrupt class activities, just like anything else.

Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

Einzige said:

It was part of a conservative anti-Catholic campaign that began in the 1880s and extended into the 1920s. It included areas where there were virtually no Irish Catholics, including Wisconsin.

Bennett Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



'Bigotry' has a bad reputation. Catholics are happy to be bigoted against homosexuals and atheists; I'm happy to be bigoted against Catholics. As for the rest, I identify culturally with White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism (High Church, not the evangelical swill). And I would have supported them in the 1920s against the Catholics who raided the patronage jobs and supported the corrupt machines.

Click to expand...

Sadly the bigotry against homosexuals runs quite wide in most Christian sects. Catholics are certainly not unique.

That being said, I find Catholicism more useful instead of the democratic tendencies of other sects. I like hierarchy and order.

joko104 said:

You're just wrong. Why don't you let it go?

Click to expand...

Once again, my point is, students are not allowed to pray OUT LOUD, IN the classroom, when the teacher & other students are assembled for class.

Essentially it's, "Don't bring that trash in here".

I am right, and now I will let it go.

CaptainCourtesy said:

There is no need to research homosexuality as a pathology, since it has been demonstrated conclusively that it is not. It would be like research heterosexuality to determine whether IT is a pathology. Get some education on this issue before you speak about it, please.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is a disorder any way you slice the pie considering homosexuality violates the laws of nature - the desire to reproduce (naturally)...

From an anthropological perspective homosexuality makes no sense. Then again humans are not perfect.

I suppose we all have our brains wired the way we do in different fashions...

LiberalAvenger said:

Now, that's a very partisan statement. Can you prove it?

Click to expand...

Prove what exactly?

The teacher already said in a news report that her objective was "tolerance."

Who the hell is she to tell individuals what and what not to tolerate? who does she think she is God?

That teacher has no right teaching her morals and ethics to students - she isn't her students parent.... Teachers shouldn't be teaching hot button issues to kids that can hardly understand, and even if they do it's not her position....

rocket88 said:

It's funny how little you people read before jumping on the bandwagon. The teacher didn't play the song. A student asked to play it, and the teacher allowed it to be played after making sure it wasn't profane or violent. Please read before jumping on this poor woman.

And if she had played a song about Jesus, the conservatives and fake libertarians would be lamenting about her freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

That is absolute nonsense - that is called "damage control."

TheNextEra said:

Actually I think it is false to put the whole blame on Christians for this one. The public school system sort of caused this problem when they didn't allow Christian music to be played in school for fear it might offend the atheist parents or kids. This is just political correctness gone crazy.

Click to expand...

That pattern of running away from things considered offensive started due to christian protesting of anything non-christian like gays, atheism, jewish and muslim ideas, paganism, and even their hissy over prayer in school and god in the pledge. The continued objection and BS abuse of school boards have made them afraid to do anything so they decide to do nothing. They dug their own hole. it is like that town that removed the manger because christians pissed a hissy over an atheist message along side of it. The magnitude and annoyance of the christian response in the past to anything other than christian values has dug their hole.

TheNextEra said:

I blame the people that are continuing this nonsense of political correctness gone stupid.

Click to expand...

You can use the republican whine of PC over this, but this is CC gone wild here. Schools are afraid of anything controvercial because everything becomes a war to christians. Now, i cannot blame every christian for this as there are a number of silent non-vocal ones who simply do not confront their fellow christians about their hate, but they don't pitch fits because 2 guys hold hands either. Still the majority of christians, and their power structure, AKA the church, has made everything into a fight, and I don't blame the school for simply opting out rather than trying to mediate a crowd of religious adults acting more spoiled and bratty than any child they have to deal with.

In other words there is a solution to this. chose your battles and stop pissing and moaning over everything and creating so called wars over everything. Let the atheists have their signs. let Chanukah and Ramadan have their place. Let kids sing songs about gays. If all these things are accepted then there will be a place for christmas. But if you want christmas in exclusion of everything else this is what you get.

Mr.Nick said:

It's like these progressives are obsessed with the sexuality of children.....

Click to expand...

I've predicted it before...child porn will be mainstream in twenty years. The younger you sexualize a person, the easier it is to control them. And it's all being done in the name of free speech.

Mr.Nick said:

Prove what exactly?

The teacher already said in a news report that her objective was "tolerance."

Who the hell is she to tell individuals what and what not to tolerate? who does she think she is God?

That teacher has no right teaching her morals and ethics to students - she isn't her students parent.... Teachers shouldn't be teaching hot button issues to kids that can hardly understand, and even if they do it's not her position....

Click to expand...

Well, if you ever wind up on a school board I would feel sorry for the teachers in your jurisdiction.

Einzige said:

Conservative correctness - RationalWiki

Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that a site called "RationalWiki" accuses anyone of "rebrand[ing] terms to include extreme political bias...while the disliked terms are rebranded in the most negative light possible". Naming oneself "rational" while engaging in overt bias (only, the other way) is one such perfect example.

Mr.Nick said:

Homosexuality is a disorder any way you slice the pie considering homosexuality violates the laws of nature - the desire to reproduce (naturally)...

From an anthropological perspective homosexuality makes no sense. Then again humans are not perfect.

I suppose we all have our brains wired the way we do in different fashions...

Click to expand...

Strange how we scientifically no longer view it as a disorder. That seems to undermine "any way you slice the pie" by at least one slice.

From an anthropological perspective homosexuality makes no sense. Then again humans are not perfect.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure cultural anthropologists have examined this quite at length in many cultures.

Mr.Nick said:

Prove what exactly?

The teacher already said in a news report that her objective was "tolerance."

Who the hell is she to tell individuals what and what not to tolerate? who does she think she is God?

Click to expand...

Apparently so did the district and the school. The interpretation on when, where, and how to extend this tolerance is a matter of debate.

That teacher has no right teaching her morals and ethics to students - she isn't her students parent.... Teachers shouldn't be teaching hot button issues to kids that can hardly understand, and even if they do it's not her position....

Click to expand...

You're hardly reticent in expressing your viewpoint that homosexuality is a disorder and unnatural regardless of any way someone wants to see it. I don't think your concerns really extend to responsible and respectful discourse in the public school system, so much as they do to extend conformity to your own viewpoint.

ChuckBerry said:

I've predicted it before...child porn will be mainstream in twenty years. The younger you sexualize a person, the easier it is to control them. And it's all being done in the name of free speech.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's particularly likely. These kinds of efforts are a far cry from child porn. Trying to get children to accept homosexuality as normal, is very different than allowing children to be exploited by child porn. I don't see any efforts, even from the most outspoken, to try and legalize child porn or lower the age of consent or anything like that.

joko104 said:

You're just wrong. Why don't you let it go?

The legal standard is that the school can not lead in prayer or religion. Schools are strictly prohibited from banning students from praying - and even lose federal funding unless they certify they will not ban children from engaging in prayer or other religious activities. The only restriction is they may not be done in a manner to disrupt class activities, just like anything else.

Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's just not so - see Post #94.

tessaesque said:

Here are the song lyrics:



I really don't see why the teacher should have been suspended for this. The song's message is amazing. Perhaps there should have been more consideration of why the offended kid was offended...seems that's where the real problem lies.

Click to expand...

The only problem I see with the lyric is that they are too political for most school settings. If it was in high school, than I don't see an issue, but middle or elementary would be the wrong setting.

rocket88 said:

South Lyon teacher suspended for playing song about being gay - Fox 2 News Headlines

Freedom of Speech issue?

One student asked to play the song. Since it wasn't violent or explicit, the teacher said it was OK. Another student took offense to the song and complained to the Principal. Teacher got suspended.

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. I was reading and watching the color purple in 8th grade.

My high school was nationally ranked, a part of it had to do with us actually learning things and not just the sugar coated version. I'm not saying that there aren't topics more appropriate for different age groups but there was nothing wrong with that song being being played for that age group.

clownboy said:

Unfortunately that's just not so - see Post #94.

Click to expand...

No, the ruling you cite is a different issue. From your own post:

The ruling came in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, a case involving the Sante Fe Independent School District in Galveston, Texas, which allowed student-initiated and student-led prayer to be broadcast over the public address system before high school football games.

That is a very different issue. Were any and all students offered access to that broadcast system to also express religion and non-religious views? Or only those students for their prayer?

Fiddytree said:

Strange how we scientifically no longer view it as a disorder. That seems to undermine "any way you slice the pie" by at least one slice.

Click to expand...

Not really strange at all unless you are completely ignorant of the hijacking of the educational establishment in all the "soft sciences" by leftist ideology, supplanting basic logic and the scientific method.

"Righties" don't want to give massive grants to a bunch of desk-bound losers who can't get real jobs nor provide anything useful to society, so academia now has become more of a leftwing mouthpiece, especially in the soft sciences. Gimmedat grant money. "Lefties" love to pay of liars if they are singing a song they enjoy, so it's a happy marriage.