Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

GPS_Flex said:

I know it breaks your little artistic rainbow heart to admit it but yeah, fewer children will claim to be gay if fewer people are trying to push it on them as an alternative lifestyle.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see some evidence of this claim.

GPS_Flex said:

I know it breaks your little artistic rainbow heart to admit it but yeah, fewer children will claim to be gay if fewer people are trying to push it on them as an alternative lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Who cares about who "claims" to be gay? Gay people are gay whether or not they claim to be so. Whether or not one "claims" to be gay is irrelevant to whether or not they actually are.

Are they banning the teaching of heterosexuality too?

GPS_Flex said:

I know it breaks your little artistic rainbow heart to admit it but yeah, fewer children will claim to be gay if fewer people are trying to push it on them as an alternative lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Will fewer children claim to be left-handed if we quick accepting is as an alternative lifestyle...???

hazlnut said:

Will fewer children claim to be left-handed if we quick accepting is as an alternative lifestyle...???

Click to expand...

I write with my left hand and I'm proud of it. I demand my right to marry another lefty!

winston53660 said:

I write with my left hand and I'm proud of it. I demand my right to marry another lefty!

Click to expand...

In the 50's and 60's teachers would try to get you to write with your right hand... embracing the 'normal' right-handed lifestyle.

So, now Tenn will have more government regulation and oppression. Way to go TeaBaggers!!

hazlnut said:

In the 50's and 60's teachers would try to get you to write with your right hand... embracing the 'normal' right-handed lifestyle.

So, now Tenn will have more government regulation and oppression. Way to go TeaBaggers!!

Click to expand...

That happened to me too in the late 70's

Anybody ever hear of "circumstance of birth?" Nawwwwh....obviously not. Dark age mythology is alive and well.

Another :beatdeadhorse dumbing down society ploy by homophobic power mongers.

Not that it really will make any difference...but I'm straight. Oh...and I don't recall having the pleasure of choosing to be such, but I bet a lot of people remember doing that just hours before their decent to earth where they would take over their infant host just moments before birth so that they could live out their given lifespan without life-long persecution.

All those who believe that homosexuality is contagious...please raise your hand!

Removable Mind said:

Anybody ever hear of "circumstance of birth?" Nawwwwh....obviously not. Dark age mythology is alive and well.

Another :beatdeadhorse dumbing down society ploy by homophobic power mongers.

Not that it really will make any difference...but I'm straight. Oh...and I don't recall having the pleasure of choosing to be such, but I bet a lot of people remember doing that just hours before their decent to earth where they would take over their infant host just moments before birth so that they could live out their given lifespan without life-long persecution.

All those who believe that homosexuality is contagious...please raise your hand!

Click to expand...

It's okay, we can all be TAKEI together!

This bill is the education system equivalent of DADT. There are children who realize they are gay at a young age. My friend knew he was attracted to other males when he was 12. He went to a private school and was able to talk about it with the guidance counsellor there. I don't know what it would have been like in a public school.

The law is unnecessary and shows a completely lack of priorities. If parents don't want it taught in schools they can should petition the individual schools to not teach it.

The new law is just as extreme as the ones in California that require it to be taught. This country has no sense of proportion anymore.

Temporal said:

Unbelievable. Well at least it wasn't my home state that did it. :roll:

I guess don't talk about being gay and maybe less people will turn out gay, is the idea?

Click to expand...

You know, of course, if you don't mention it, it doesn't exist.

hazlnut said:

Are they banning the teaching of heterosexuality too?

Click to expand...

:shrug: no idea - but they probably should. as CC and I have already agreed - teach the biology in biology class. the rest can stay out of school.

cpwill said:

:shrug: no idea - but they probably should. as CC and I have already agreed - teach the biology in biology class. the rest can stay out of school.

Click to expand...

So, there's place in school to discuss the world, as it is?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Yes... that we agree that I am correct.

Click to expand...

no! we are agreeing that I am correct!

No, it does not.

Click to expand...

yes, it does. How you say something is often nearly or just as important as what you say. This was beaten into me for three months straight when I was in training (my job involves briefing senior commanders) - words matter, including the ones not spoken, and your presentation will often stick more than your words do.

so, in the world of immediately available results (operations are performed based off of intel briefings - the slogan for counterinsurgency is "intel drives ops"), what we have consistently found to be the ground truth of the matter is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming here.

And everything you just said proves my point. The pronoun you used was "YOU". What is perceived is MY perception and how I evaluate and judge the information.

Click to expand...

exactly. and that is precisely the same thing that anyone - including a student - will do. they will perceive a particular way in which you judge the relative weight of what you are discussing.

If all that is provided is information, what values judgments come from it are MINE

Click to expand...

you cannot provide information free of context - literally, communication does not work like that. that is (for example) why we have emoticons here - to make up for the lack of context that we use our facial expressions or tone inflection to provide in RW communications.

Of course it does. That is why it is important to present it, informationally.

Click to expand...

the trick being that information always comes in the context of it's presentation.

No, it is not. It is a list with no values presented. The "equivelency" is on YOU, the receiver.

Click to expand...

no, the equivalency is in the presentation - because that is how the "information" is presented.

As a lst. The judgments that the student places on that list are his/hers.

Click to expand...

they may choose to impose their own values over those implied by the competing lists - but that changes the fact that the lists came with their own presumptions not at all.

Sure... here you presented a value judgment, presenting a right/wrong dichotomy to the student. In the other situation, you left the value to the student themselves.

Click to expand...

wrong, all i did was provide a list, remember?

in the instances, by the process of presenting multiple forms of sexuality in connection with particular others, I was able to change the presumed moral equivalency of homosexuality from a neutral to a negative. simply in an informational here-is-the-list-style manner; about as dry as you can get.

you can't split information from presentation. not for humans. computers, perhaps, yes. but not people - we're not built that way.

Information is information. One can present it objectively or subjectively.

Click to expand...

no, one cannot. to even begin to give information is to immediately filter out all the information that isnt worth giving, which is to instantly translate a judgement value into communication.

I would think that anyone would know the difference between these two.

Click to expand...

:roll: And I would think that you were at least smart enough to get the difference between saying jokingly saying "F you " and angrily screaming "F YOU!!!"

now, see how that works? by describing your failure as a matter of intelligence, beginning with an eye-roll, and then giving a simplistic example, my presentation implied (full disclosure, i think you're one of the smarter posters on the board) dismissal on my part and a very low level of intelligence indeed on yours. The thrust is: how can you be so stupid as to not grasp such a basic alteration in interactions that even a baby can understand?

had i instead argued:

And I would have thought that to someone of the level of intelligence I have come to expect from you that the different information that is passed with raw data - what many call the "metadata" - would be obvious.

the tone is quite different. not just are the words larger, but the concepts called into question are more complex. the assumption here is that you are indeed intelligent, that you are fully capable of grasping what is going on, of dealing with in-depth subject matter, but for some reason just haven't yet with regards to this particular facet of communication.

but both pieces of information are arguing the exact same thing - that you are apparently don't get it something that you should. but the context of how I say it dramatically shifts the actual meaning of the response.

Ah... a straw man argument. Never said it wasn't a moral issue. What I have said is that it isn't ALWAYS a moral issue. Some folks seem to erroneously think it ALWAYS is.

Click to expand...

just as some folks seem to erroneously think that it doesn't have to be.

but now we're just repeating ourselves.

Actually, I think there is. A school sets a curriculum. You don't agree with it, you don't send your child to that school. Seems pretty simple to me.

Click to expand...

agreed! I have no problem with schools teaching sex ed the way that they find best if that is what the parents want as expressed by those parents choosing to send their children there. one of the many reasons why school choice is a big deal with me - not only do i think it will improve our educational system, but i strongly suspect it will reduce conflict in society by not forcing a one-size-fits-all solution upon disparate and deeply held belief systems.

Does that make me Tri-Sexual if I can use either hand?

winston53660 said:

I heard gay people play with themeselves

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

So, there's place in school to discuss the world, as it is?

Click to expand...

we have schools for educating our kids, not socializing them. that is the job of the family and the community. in particular if we are going to make it difficult for parents and children to escape a particular school system then we have no business trying to impose solutions via the curriculum and presentation of material on controversial subjects such as the one under discussion. that is a way to guarantee backlash, including the law that kickstarted this discussion.

cpwill said:

we have schools for educating our kids, not socializing them. that is the job of the family and the community.

Click to expand...

So I assume you think school dances like prom are a waste, right?

Sexual orientation doesn't need to be discussed in schools that same way sexual positions don't need to be discuss. All that should be discussed is the science of sexual organs, contraceptives, reproduction, and gestation. Everything else is individual opinion.

With that said there really doesn't need to be a fear law passed. That is a waste of tax payer money and government time.

yeah, i re-read that and realized that socializing and socializing have two separate meanings that I was going to have to delineate.

socializing in the following context - kids learn to share, to get along, to work in teams, to accept direction, to interact with each other in a way that minimizes conflict and maximizes their ability to engage in healthy adult relationships in the future - yes. that's a function of school, sports teams, churches, so on and so forth - anywhere where groups of people interact.

socialization in the following context - social tropes, competing value systems, - here whether homosexuality is an inherently inferior, equitable, or superior alternative to heterosexuality -the governing and clashing system of beliefs about society and the best forms for it to function in... no. A good rule of thumb might be (given the instant translation of many social issues into political ones) if the parties fight about it, then we shouldn't teach one of their set of assumptions - and certainly not at the ages where children are most impressionable to their teachers. High schoolers are going to go with their friends, are more independent, and have had a lengthier exposure to their family or community value system. But here we are talking about elementary students. It absolutely smacks of Dewey.

Sexual orientation...

Click to expand...

I believe the politically correct term is 'Sexual asianation'. We don't use orient in reference to people anymore. rof

cpwill said:

yeah, i re-read that and realized that socializing and socializing have two separate meanings that I was going to have to delineate.

socializing in the following context - kids learn to share, to get along, to work in teams, to accept direction, to interact with each other in a way that minimizes conflict and maximizes their ability to engage in healthy adult relationships in the future - yes. that's a function of school, sports teams, churches, so on and so forth - anywhere where groups of people interact.

socialization in the following context - social tropes, competing value systems, - here whether homosexuality is an inherently inferior, equitable, or superior alternative to heterosexuality -the governing and clashing system of beliefs about society and the best forms for it to function in... no. A good rule of thumb might be (given the instant translation of many social issues into political ones) if the parties fight about it, then we shouldn't teach one of their set of assumptions - and certainly not at the ages where children are most impressionable to their teachers. High schoolers are going to go with their friends, are more independent, and have had a lengthier exposure to their family or community value system. But here we are talking about elementary students. It absolutely smacks of Dewey.

Click to expand...

It does seem that gays are quickly approaching legal equality. Now they can serve in the military openly. In some States they are getting State recognition of there marriages. So I really see no reason to shelter children form homosexuality. As a matter of fact I think it would be a disservice to shelter them from the obvious.

then you are attempting to push the socialization (second meaning) of children in line with your preferences. I could just as easily argue that we are doing them a disservice if we don't teach children about the moral dangers of promiscuity and homosexuality - and both of us would be arguing from our assumptions.

so that becomes my question: why should either of us have the right to utilize government to force the others' children to absorb our assumptions?

cpwill said:

then you are attempting to push the socialization (second meaning) of children in line with your preferences. I could just as easily argue that we are doing them a disservice if we don't teach children about the moral dangers of promiscuity and homosexuality - and both of us would be arguing from our assumptions.

so that becomes my question: why should either of us have the right to utilize government to force the others' children to absorb our assumptions?

Click to expand...

Morality has nothing to do with it gays are gaining legal parity with heterosexuals and children are going to be faced with it in real life. Like in the military. And I have no problem with teaching about STD's and other communicable diseases. There is no morality about it.

it absolutely is a moral issue - that's why it's so contentious. Children will be faced with it in real life - which doesn't mean that it belongs in the schools. Children will also be exposed to voting in real life - perhaps we should have teachers influencing kids vote?

cpwill said:

it absolutely is a moral issue - that's why it's so contentious. Children will be faced with it in real life - which doesn't mean that it belongs in the schools. Children will also be exposed to voting in real life - perhaps we should have teachers influencing kids vote?

Click to expand...

How do you teach kids about voting with out influencing them?