• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

GPS_Flex said:
No, elementary schools should not teach tolerance. They should have strict rules that are strictly enforced.

Elementary aged children do not need to be taught why the rules are there, they just need to know what the rules are and what the consequences are for breaking them.
Click to expand...

So, tolerance is not a rule?

A Golden Rule?
 
hazlnut said:
Fail.

You've read nothing I said about the more subtle forms of homophobia, causes, actions etc.

You're attempt to marginalize me with a 'Law' you yourself don't understand is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

Feel free to educate me hazlnut. Explain how calling someone a homophobe is different than comparing them to Hitler or calling them a Nazi.
 
lpast said:
It was intended as a spoof. The homophobe and hateful gets tossed around everytime someone disagree with a homosexual want.
Click to expand...

A very homophobic and somewhat ignorant statement.

I support tolerance, and teaching tolerance, not hate.

This law, despite the idiot Tenn crapkickers spin that done wrote it, is about intolerance towards homosexuals. It is about homophobia.

"Let not the word 'Gay' be spoken apon them who might like to touch penises in little boys room, lest they be indoctrinated into the wicked life style of anal sex..."
 
hazlnut said:
A very homophobic and somewhat ignorant statement.

I support tolerance, and teaching tolerance, not hate.

This law, despite the idiot Tenn crapkickers spin that done wrote it, is about intolerance towards homosexuals. It is about homophobia.

"Let not the word 'Gay' be spoken apon them who might like to touch penises in little boys room, lest they be indoctrinated into the wicked life style of anal sex..."
Click to expand...

I didn’t see that part in the bill. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is amusing though.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Feel free to educate me hazlnut. Explain how calling someone a homophobe is different than comparing them to Hitler or calling them a Nazi.
Click to expand...

In response to my request for clarification, hazlnut started a brand new thread in my honor. He sent me a private message entitled “My Answer to your question” and it contained the following link: EDITED

You have to respect an argument as compelling as this whether you agree with it or not, no? (now I’m being sarcastic)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you mean by socializing them, as socialization is a by product no matter what the curriculum is
Click to expand...

you may want to take that up with Captain Courtesy.

However, as homosexuality exists, to talk about the world as it is is not out of the realm of education.
Click to expand...

that is a non-sequiter. Simply because people choose to interact in a certain way is not in and of itself justification for inclusion of a discussion about it in a K-8 curriculum.

If we have a student who has two mommies, or two daddies, and we do have that, suggesting that we discuss that openly and in a way that fosters understanding is education. Ignroing it is the opposite of education.
Click to expand...

no, it is the lack of education. the opposite of education would require the destruction of knowledge. and I'm fine with that - there are lots things that the schools shouldn't be teaching, and certainly at the more impressionable k-8 level. religion, sexuality, politics, these are all examples of items that permeate our world that should be absent from an elementary school classroom.

Frankly, a closed minded, hateful, few who foster things like this law is far more harmful than allowing free discourse, even among younger people
Click to expand...

indeed. that's why we need to have NAMBLA day in school. where young children can discuss and explore the goods and the bads that can come from having a "special friend".

and the only possible reason parents would have a problem with this is if they are close-minded and hateful; and therefore their opinions don't count in this "representative society".

It won't be the same kind of disciurse, rathe rudamentary to be sure, you know, Jane has tqo mom's, should we tease her?
Click to expand...

there doesn't need to be the first half of that. it comes down to "should we abuse jane for any reason" answer: no, and if you are caught doing so, you are disciplined.
 
lpast said:
Nope your using the inaccurate term Rhetoric to an opinion that teaching homosexuality has no academic benefit it just wastes valuable school time and has kids NOT learning the information they really need to make the choices in their life.
Its not only homosexuality its all the extraneous non academic nonsense They have crammed into the few hours a day kids actually have time to learn. Homosexuality has no business in the classroom its not a subject and its discriminatory against any other groups that dont suck up precious educational resources and get the same attention. Homosexuals are not unique in being different
Click to expand...

When you use the word "indoctrination" you are using anti-gay rhetoric... whether you are anti-gay or not.

And I disagree. Information about human sexuality is not only academic, but certainly helpful for students making life choices, such as having sex, pregnancy, contraception, etc...
 
lpast said:
Thats as false a rhetorical statement as any ive ever read on this forum...this proves that supporters of anything homosexual are absolutely unreasonable and unbending in their tyranical demands of I want what I want and I want it right now and you have to accept it. Your arguments are weak and full of barbs to try to defer from the actualy discussion. You make accusatory statements without merit, like this one "Seems like only folks like you make it a moral issue" seems like folks like you cant differentiate between a moral issue and an opinion that homosexuality has no academic value in schools and does not enhance the goal of academic achievement therefore it is in fact indoctrinating children to a specific special interest
Click to expand...

More nonsense. When you use anti-gay rhetoric like indoctriation, your argument become irrelevant. But please... prove indoctrination. First, you might want to try to define the word.

Oh, and my accusatory statements have complete merit. You have done zero to disprove them.
 
Wake said:
Point is moot. Kindergartners through 8th grade shouldn't be taught sex. I'm in favor of the bill, and I think all non-academic matter should stay out of school.
Click to expand...

Wake said:
We do not need tax-payer funded indoctrination. Would you want academic public schools teaching against homosexuality?
Click to expand...

These two posts indicate clearly a lack of understanding of this entire issue, and AGAIN, anti-gay rhetoric, whether one is actually anti-gay or not.

Firstly, no one is teaching "sex" in school. This is an absurd statement. What is being taught is the existence of variation. There are several different races, there are several different religions, and there are several different sexual orientations. No one is teaching "sex" or "teaching homosexuality". Both of those assertions are idiotic.

Secondly, no one is teaching "for" homosexuality. As I said, what is being taught is variation. Again, claiming that being for homosexuality is what is being taught is idiotic.

And lastly, I don't think ANY of you know what the word indoctrination means. Define and then prove how it is happening.
 
GPS_Flex said:
No, elementary schools should not teach tolerance. They should have strict rules that are strictly enforced.

Elementary aged children do not need to be taught why the rules are there, they just need to know what the rules are and what the consequences are for breaking them.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with this. Children should always know the reason that a rule exists. We teach that to our children and fortunately, our daughters' teachers do the same. They will not only respect the rule more but will understand WHY they have to follow it. Also, adults should be good role models by doing what they tell their children (when appropriate). Children are far more likely to engage in behavior they SEE their parents engaging in rather than that their parents tell them to do.

Children can understand far more than you give them credit for. Having said that, sex needs to stay out of elementary schools. U.S. schools already fail at teaching the basics. Focus on the basics and reforming the educational system to put an end to social promotion and get this politically correct crap out of schools. Tracking needs to be brought back in and if kids don't do their homework, they get 'zeros' not make-up assignments because they played basketball until 10pm and didn't do their homework... pathetic...
 
ludahai said:
I strongly disagree with this. Children should always know the reason that a rule exists. We teach that to our children and fortunately, our daughters' teachers do the same. They will not only respect the rule more but will understand WHY they have to follow it. Also, adults should be good role models by doing what they tell their children (when appropriate). Children are far more likely to engage in behavior they SEE their parents engaging in rather than that their parents tell them to do.

Children can understand far more than you give them credit for. Having said that, sex needs to stay out of elementary schools. U.S. schools already fail at teaching the basics. Focus on the basics and reforming the educational system to put an end to social promotion and get this politically correct crap out of schools. Tracking needs to be brought back in and if kids don't do their homework, they get 'zeros' not make-up assignments because they played basketball until 10pm and didn't do their homework... pathetic...
Click to expand...

If you, as a parent, set a rule and take the time to explain the reason for that rule, my hat is off to you. I do the same with my children. I was speaking in the context of our public schools teaching such values to our K-6 children however.

This is not something that should be a part of the public education curriculum in my humble opinion. If my Johnny kicks a girl in the shin on the playground, I expect the school to discipline him, inform me of his behavior and then leave the bulk of the explanation for why it is wrong to kick girls up to me. If the teacher or a school employee gives an explanation for why it is wrong to kick girls after Johnny has broken the rules, I won’t trip on it and there should be no legal recourse for parents who would trip on it unless something really egregious occurs.

However, if a public school decides to spend an hour teaching that it is wrong for boys to kick girls, I do have a problem with that. When we resign to the idea that the government should teach our children basic morality, we have forfeited the right to teach our children the values that we, as parents, deem appropriate and/or inappropriate. It is equivalent to state sponsored religion in my opinion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
When you use the word "indoctrination" you are using anti-gay rhetoric... whether you are anti-gay or not.
Click to expand...

Watch out, be careful not to call anti-gay folks homophobic, because then you're hyperbolic and acting like a Hitler Nazi... or some such nonsense.

The anti-gay people, overt or otherwise, hate that word "homophobia"...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
When you use the word "indoctrination" you are using anti-gay rhetoric... whether you are anti-gay or not.

And I disagree. Information about human sexuality is not only academic, but certainly helpful for students making life choices, such as having sex, pregnancy, contraception, etc...
Click to expand...

in third grade?
 
hazlnut said:
Watch out, be careful not to call anti-gay folks homophobic, because then you're hyperbolic and acting like a Hitler Nazi... or some such nonsense.

The anti-gay people, overt or otherwise, hate that word "homophobia"...
Click to expand...

It is an untrue statement. It ignores the fact that traditional Christians view homosexuality as a sin. They hate the sin, not the sinner. They believe all have sinned. No exceptions. That is all.

Are you truly Christian? If not, could you at least not unfairly label dislike of sin with hate of the person? That is all it is. True Christians are against adultery and prostitution. Are they misogynistic bigots? If not, why then?
 
Wake said:
It is an untrue statement. It ignores the fact that traditionally Christians have led anti-semitic campaigns. They hate Judaism, not the Jews. They believe Jews are simply wrong. No exceptions. That is all.

Are you truly Christian? If not, could you at least not unfairly associate hate for a religion with hate for an individual? That is all it is. Traditionally Christians have been against Judaism and semitic peoples. Are they racists? If not, why then?
Click to expand...

Read your statement now and see whether or not you would think that a person saying the above is playing semantics.
 
Wake said:
It is an untrue statement. It ignores the fact that traditional Christians view homosexuality as a sin.
Click to expand...

Says who?

That's total crap.

Evangelicals (Christian wanna-be's) maybe, but that's because they're incapable of thinking for themselves and allow some homophobic leader to think for them...

494632cd-fad9-4fbd-852e-f3bc3d45cb61.jpg






They hate the sin, not the sinner. They believe all have sinned. No exceptions. That is all.
Click to expand...

Sound like an Evangelical excuse for bigotry and hatred. They should not call themselves Christian.

A watered down version of the Westboro Baptist Church.
 
hazlnut said:
Watch out, be careful not to call anti-gay folks homophobic, because then you're hyperbolic and acting like a Hitler Nazi... or some such nonsense.

The anti-gay people, overt or otherwise, hate that word "homophobia"...
Click to expand...

Sorry for using such big words on you hazlnut. I didn’t realize you were so hypersensitive err…I mean touchy feely.

I thought your skin was a bit thicker than it is considering you are a one man slander machine with no regard for truth or facts.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In the appropriate context, sex ed can be taught at fairly early ages.
Click to expand...

Yes, sex ed can, and probably should, be taught at the elementary school level if it is approached from a purely scientific perspective.

Homosexuality is a social issue however and even the adults in our society today have trouble treating this issue with maturity. As a society, we just aren’t mature enough yet to have issues like this taught in public schools.

EDIT: Let me clarify by saying high school and college courses are not considered in the aforementioned statements. I’m only talking about K-8.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Yes, sex ed can, and probably should, be taught at the elementary school level if it is approached from a purely scientific perspective.
Click to expand...

I would change scientific to informational, but other than that, I agree.

Homosexuality is a social issue however and even the adults in our society today have trouble treating this issue with maturity. As a society, we just aren’t mature enough yet to have issues like this taught in public schools.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Homosexuality is only a social issue if it is placed in that context. It can be discussed informationally, similar to heterosexuality.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I would change scientific to informational, but other than that, I agree.



Disagree. Homosexuality is only a social issue if it is placed in that context. It can be discussed informationally, similar to heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but the immature adults I was referring to will make it into a social issue no matter how you teach it.

On the flip side, not all teachers will approach it from an informational position.

That said, in the best case scenario information is being conveyed to the student for what purpose? In the end, it is for social purposes so it is a social issue no matter how you teach it. If there is another reason for the time spent on such curriculum, I’m all ears.
 
cpwill said:
if you continue in your blatant falsehoods and demagogic smears, I'm afraid I will have to report you. Obviously we are discussing how you agree with me.
Click to expand...

These are not demogogic smears. They are omnipotent truisms. Disputing them is in poor taste.

you continue to fail to understand what i am saying. you cannot provide information in any usable matter free of context, and it is next to impossible to provide information in a non-useable matter free of context. you are imparting the values that the recipient will perceive - you seem to be hung up on the fact that the listener is not forced to accept those values; but that is true of anything. we could just as easily justify racist rantings by teachers against the menace of hispanic immigrants polluting american bloodlines by claiming that the value system imparted need not be accepted by the listener. Don't worry if the student internalizes negative attitudes towards people of another race - they didn't get that from the teacher, the teacher was simply imparting information. The student merely perceived a moral value.
Click to expand...

No, I completely understand what you are saying. I am disputing it. It is entirely possible to impart information without imparting bias. Context and judgment/values are not equivelent. What you are not recognizing is how in these situations, the internal perceptions of the listener creates the values, not the presenter.

you cannot separate information from format. for crying out loud, there is a multi-billion dollar political campaign industry built around this very basic fact.
Click to expand...

Of course you can, but that multi-billion dollar political campaign industry has little to do with actually imparting information. When was the last time you viewed a political ad that presented both candidates, at the same time, in a purely informational way? Probably never, because that is not the purpose of politics.

we seem to be getting repetitious here, so if it's alright with you I'm going to roll these together, and repeat again that format and context carry weight in communication, and pretending that it doesn't will not get us optimal results.
Click to expand...

Sure.

presenting items in list format - all other factors being equal - implies equivalency. it is saying "here is a list of things - these things are all 'like', else they would not be on this list together. each of these things shares a fundamental underlying nature that gives each of them a place on this list"

and even then the list format would be the intro into any sexual education curriculum - without description lists are generally useless. So the teacher would have to go in and describe each of the individual sexual expressions, which increases the format and thus increases the error range off of "objectivity". The more discussion there is, the greater the role of value judgements.

that may not be the teachers fault - the teacher could truly be trying their best to remain impartial. but it's just how human language works
Click to expand...

And again, I disagree. It presents no moral equivelency... it presents no morality at all, since there is no implication of good/bad. The list is the list, and if each item is described further, if it is described in an informational way, again, there is no moral equivelency. One can do that with just about any list, if it is communicated informationally.

judgement flows from information and context.
Click to expand...

Sometimes... and if something is communicated informationally, only, the judgment comes from the listener.

no, my belief system on this matter is different from the presumptions found in both lists i provided.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You presented a moral position in the example you gave. Whether it is actually your position does not matter.

dude, all those 'value judgments' were comparative numerical weights. in the search for "objectivity", mathematics is about as "objective" as you get. and the "some claim" is the standard for presenting a debatable opinion without value reference - which is why you see it on the news all the time, as reporters and anchors attempt to retain their image of objectivity. It's the closest we have in linguistic format that flows to saying "this is a claim, it exists, it is out there, i do not necessarily agree or disagree with it".

but you are right. the value implications in that presentation are what you described
Click to expand...

Ummm... you just contradicted yourself.

you are just now picking up on them because they are not value implications that you agree with. you are now the fish out of water, and so you instantly pick up on the information being presented that is discordant with your perceptions. :)
Click to expand...

Not at all. I picked up on them because they existed. Wouldn't matter whether I agreed with them or not.


you are correct - both presentations included value judgements :) but you only picked up on the one that you disagreed with - now why is that?
Click to expand...

Please stop making claims that I said something I did not say. I NEVER said that both presentations included value judgments, and I have been completely clear about that. The former did not. The latter did. The issue is that you believe that there are value judgments in the former where there are not. Why do you think you have erroneously seen that?

no, you can't. information has to be put in a format in order to be communicated.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. Context and judgment are not the same.

it certainly is because in order to say anything you have to not say everything. to begin to impart information begins with the step of creating a filtering process to decide which information to impart, and which not to - a value judgement.
Click to expand...

Depends on the filtering. One can impart information without presenting a dissertation, and do so without values.You are looking at this completely black or white, and it is not. It is possible to impart information without moral judgments, and it is possible to impart that information WITH judgments. HOW one communicates affects this presentation. If the former is done, the listener can STILL add in their own judgments and alter the message.

this basic fact is responsible for much of our debate over whether and how much and in which direction the media is "biased". supporters of a particular candidate, cause, etc, always feel that the news is leaving out pertinent information; they are picking up on the fact that the filtering mechanism of the news-giver differs from that of themselves. Republicans complain because it seems like Republican Candidate gaffes are picked up on and trumpeted while Democrat gaffes are ignored - that is because republicans are seeing a value judgement in the filtering process that differs from their own and responding to the cognitive dissonance that this produces. Democrats tend not to "see" it because the filtering system of such a format blends more easily with their own, and produces no mental kick of "hey, wait a minute, they aren't giving equivalency to like things".
Click to expand...

Politics is a really bad example. By it's very nature, the purpose of political speech is to persuade and to present judgments.

it is, in fact, human to human, impossible not to do what I am describing. :)
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

context in presentation is the result of judgement - it is the provision of a set of values that are judged to be relevant by the filtering process of the format decision maker.
Click to expand...

No, context provides background information that allows the listener to better understand the information. It is like defining a word. It can easily be done without judgment.

as you are a human being, interpretation on your part is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily interpretation in a judgmental way. One "translates" information into their own personal "language" so they understand what is being stated better.

:D I perceive your animosity is merely you acting out your jealousy of my awesomeness.
Click to expand...

Which is YOUR perception and not accurate, since the only awesomeness that I am jealous of is my own. :2razz:

no, my words did indeed provide judgement - the context that I provided made several assumptions about you the listener in both cases.
Click to expand...

Nope. In the second case, you presented your perceptions, informationally. In the first, you presented them as an attack. These are different types of communications. If I take each as an attack, the former is MY issue, the latter is not entirely. See the difference?

you still do not seem to grasp that receiving something does not make you the creator of it.
Click to expand...

Once you reinterpret something with your values, it certainly does. This is one reason we see such a discrepency in the behavior of people from the same religion.

no. you cannot separate information from format. well, unless of course you are omniscient - but given our national test scores i don't see that being much of a worry with our current crop of k-8 students.
Click to expand...

And that may be a result of the receiver, not the presenter.

I doubt we are going to agree on this issue.

I dont' see how a bureaucracy captured by the public unions it is supposed to be negotiating with is ever going to give us a more efficient and effective allocation of public resources than the market-based system that utilizes competition to brutally weed out the ineffective allocations of resources in favor of the effective ones. the reduction in social strife as each parent is able to ensure that their child is raised in the kind of social environment they prefer is merely a hefty side-bonus.
Click to expand...

There is no question that many of the policies of the unions need to be curtailed or eliminated... and this from someone who's mother was a teacher for 40+ years. However, if this were done, and if funds were allocated intelligently and efficiently, I see little reason why public education could not thrive. I like the idea of school choice, perhaps with different schools having different values systems, but I much prefer a more ecclectic approach. It produces more well-rounded individuals, able to deal with others who may have differences from they.
 
cpwill said:
you may want to take that up with Captain Courtesy.
Click to expand...


Why? He and I agree more than we disagree. However, this is not you answering me.

that is a non-sequiter. Simply because people choose to interact in a certain way is not in and of itself justification for inclusion of a discussion about it in a K-8 curriculum.
Click to expand...

Well, it's more than that. if you put the two sentences together you would see that. As it exists and is real in the leives of those who go to school, and possibiliy an area of conflict in school school, that makes it a reasonable area of disucssion.


no, it is the lack of education. the opposite of education would require the destruction of knowledge. and I'm fine with that - there are lots things that the schools shouldn't be teaching, and certainly at the more impressionable k-8 level. religion, sexuality, politics, these are all examples of items that permeate our world that should be absent from an elementary school classroom.
Click to expand...

Your definition is too limiting. And they are not absent. You may talk religion, for example, in proper context, in the proper class. Politics as well. Hell, I was in grade school when I learned about politics and was part of a team for George Wallace, not that I fully understood at the time. But that education was fundamental and important.

indeed. that's why we need to have NAMBLA day in school. where young children can discuss and explore the goods and the bads that can come from having a "special friend".

and the only possible reason parents would have a problem with this is if they are close-minded and hateful; and therefore their opinions don't count in this "representative society".
Click to expand...

And here we journery into CP stupid world. No one has suggested anythign of the kind.


there doesn't need to be the first half of that. it comes down to "should we abuse jane for any reason" answer: no, and if you are caught doing so, you are disciplined.
Click to expand...

To some degree, you're right. But context and real examples often hel and are reasonable areas of discourse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom