• 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

Comparing being gay to the KKK or polygamy (which is basically a form of female slavery when practised by certain religions) is absurd and offensive.

I think that was the point. He wasn't trying to make a legitimate point, but be as offensive as possible.
 
Seriously, all it is gonna take is one gay kid in Tennessee killing him or herself, and every one of the politicians who supported the bill will no longer have a political career.

The bill says that homosexuality will NOT be an official part of the curriculum.. Stopping here, not sure if anyone actually read the bill yet? It says nothing about not being able to talk about homosexuality in Tenn schools, only that it will not be a focus for education, like it appears to be in some other states..



Tim-
 
The bill says that homosexuality will NOT be an official part of the curriculum.. Stopping here, not sure if anyone actually read the bill yet? It says nothing about not being able to talk about homosexuality in Tenn schools, only that it will not be a focus for education, like it appears to be in some other states..



Tim-

As I read it, a teacher can face penalties for simply mentioning that homosexuality exist in a public school, even if it is outside of official curriculum.
 
It's an irrelevant top to be discussed below 5th grade. Humans begin dating generally around 12 and 13. They probably didn't need to restrict it from middle school.
 
It's an irrelevant top to be discussed below 5th grade. Humans begin dating generally around 12 and 13. They probably didn't need to restrict it from middle school.

Young children, even as young as Kindergarten and 1st grade, begin to interact and imitate relationships that they see adults involved in. Attractions begin before 12 or 13, even when I was in elementary school (which was about 20-25 years ago) this was true. I remember having my first "crushes" in 3rd grade. I gave each boy I thought was "cute" a note with their valentine card. Many girls in 4th and 5th grade were already talking about who they wanted to be their boyfriend. It wasn't about sex, but more about doing something that made you seem older. By middle school, many kids are already in boyfriend/girlfriend relationships (not really about sex, but there might be some kissing).
 
well, remember, Haymarket was a public school teacher, and a union rep for public school teachers. so he would also be the guy implementing this kind of thing.

not that "consistently fair and nonpartisan" aren't the adjectives that immediately spring to mind when I think of haymarket...

Would you say those words spring to mind concerning you? :coffeepap
 
People... focus. In general, researchers agree that sexual orientation... ANY sexual orientation is most likely caused by one or some combination of the following factors: genetics, biology, biochemistry/hormones, social environment. Ultimately, there is no proof that sexual orientation is innate or chosen.

Combination is the word. May like seeing things as either or as well when in fact is more like a spectrum. The closer you are to the middle, no matter teh combination that got you there, the more "choice" you likely have. The further you are the extremes, the less "choice" you have.
 
Would you say those words spring to mind concerning you? :coffeepap

I would say I am not partisan, but rather an ideologue. I can recognize when my side errs and call them on it. But either way the point is moot, my intention is to teach at the collegiate level, not K-8.
 
Last edited:
I would say I am not partisan, but rather an ideologue. I can recognize when my side errs and call them on it. But either way the point is moot, my intention is to teach at the collegiate level, not K-8.

I'm not sure you can, but I would agree that you're an ideologue. What do you intend to teach?
 
I'm not sure you can, but I would agree that you're an ideologue. What do you intend to teach?

You are not an ideologue, Boo Radley?
 
I thought people were born gay...why do they need to be taught gay in school?
 
I thought people were born gay...why do they need to be taught gay in school?

No one is teaching gay. I assume that was humor. Of a sort. :coffeepap
 
Sure lets be teaching our 5 year olds about gays, and while we are at it .. lets teach them about the KKK, or polygamy* and remind them that we should be tolerant of those people at well.

This is just another thing liberals and conservatives will never agree on, children ages 5 to 13 should not be being taught such things in school, that is the parents responsibility not the schools. Liberals coming up with this idea that it's our school systems responsibility to be teach the morality of this nation is just absurd.

Only a liberal with limited thinking, could even come up with saying that our school system not telling a 5 to 13 year year olds about gays is going to be harmful to gays overall. They (liberals) with their superior intellect apparently feel that any other parents are incapable of teaching their children what is right or wrong.

In today society if a person is gay and growing up miserable, then that is his/her problem, being gay is widely acceptable, in truth probably as widely acceptable as believing in God. After all our school teachers are not to mention God either now are they?

So being gay is the same as killing people of a different race now?

The problem that you fail to recognize is that NO ONE IN TENNESSEE IS TEACHING KIDS TO BE GAY.

This is a solution that has no problem and is a much bigger problem than if this suspiciously-lifelong-single 42-year-old man had never come up with the idea. Now, instead of sexuality being not discussed, by banning it - a specific message is being passed out to young people who might feel different - and that is: YOU'RE IDENTITY IS WRONG and YOU ARE A LESSER BEING WHO SHOULDN'T EVEN BE TALKED ABOUT.

Initially, there was already silence on this issue. Thanks to this "lifelong bachelor", silence has turned into a tacit condemnation of gay people.

There was no one in Tennessee asking for elementary and middle schools to teach homosexuality. No one. Now, conservatives get to pretend that "gays are trying to get our kids" because of this bill.

Please tell me how this bill is going to create jobs, attract business, or improve the economy?
 
I'm not sure you can

then you must forget the debates we had when I was castigating the Bush Administration for the original stimulus package, or the bailouts :). When I criticized his soft-approach with Iran and North Korea. Apparently you missed me being furious with House Republican leadership for deceitfulness when the "cuts" they claimed to have gotten turned out to be nothing of the sort, and so on and so forth.

but I would agree that you're an ideologue. What do you intend to teach?

There I am torn. My Masters is in Poli Sci; but I do well there only because of my solid grounding in History. Likely I will focus on American history while picking up the Western Civ / Middle East Gen Ed courses.
 
No so much. I lean liberal, but can change my mind if the facts warrant it.

interesting. On what major issue would you say you have changed your facts to the non-liberal stance?
 
then you must forget the debates we had when I was castigating the Bush Administration for the original stimulus package, or the bailouts :). When I criticized his soft-approach with Iran and North Korea. Apparently you missed me being furious with House Republican leadership for deceitfulness when the "cuts" they claimed to have gotten turned out to be nothing of the sort, and so on and so forth.

No, I really don't remember much. But that wouldn't change anything if you did. You simply don't see Bush as strong on the ideology as you are. But overall, you ignore a lot to simply support them regardless. They spend just as much. They don't hold to many of your ideals. You excuse it as just a few rinos and such when in fact they are merely republicans who see it differently than you do.


There I am torn. My Masters is in Poli Sci; but I do well there only because of my solid grounding in History. Likely I will focus on American history while picking up the Western Civ / Middle East Gen Ed courses.

Sounds good. But I'd love to be in the room when you're accused of bringing your politics to class. ;)
 
interesting. On what major issue would you say you have changed your facts to the non-liberal stance?

Newt and republicans won me over concerning the debt for one thing. Which is why republicans disappointed me so when they got into power and spent, as McCain pointed out, like drunken saliors. I once thought we'd be fine with Bush as president. I believed he wasn't strong, but would likely hire good men to do the work. I was wrong and the facts support that. As I've told you before, I never joined a party before Bush jr. I voted for Dole and Reagan, not to mention Grassley. I've changed because the facts have warranted change, though I know longer belong to a party. If republicans could muster a valid candidate, one not as silly as Palin or as wrong as someone like Huckabee (a good man who is simply wrong), I'd consider voting republican agian. When would you consider voting democrat?
 
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?

The bill is designed to stop them from pushing their politics ("gay rights") on school kids. It's a sound law.
 
Have any of you people ever thought that maybe it isn't so much the school system as it is the attitude of the children and how they are being raised by their parents?

I am a product of public school and have very little problem reading or writing or even doing advanced math and knowing quite a bit about science and history, plus a little bit of French. My 5 siblings all seem to have very few problems with reading and writing, except for maybe the one with dyslexia, but even he is quite capable of reading and writing it just takes a little more concentration and time, and his dyslexia is certainly no fault of the school system. Schools do just fine teaching children who want to learn.

But outlawing the teaching of any subject in school just because some parents feel that it is offensive or immoral is just wrong. Common sense and local rules can be used to ensure that inappropriate material and parts of certain subjects is much better than outlawing discussion of an entire subject. And I'm pretty sure that this is not going to hold up very well under the freedom of speech part of the Constitution.
It's right there under the Education Clause. :lol:
 
The bill is designed to stop them from pushing their politics ("gay rights") on school kids. It's a sound law.

Except for the fact that there are no recorded incidents of anyone trying to push the gay agenda on kindergartners in Tennessee.

Again, a solution with no problem. It's right-wing social engineering and it's big government intruding where it isn't needed and doesn't belong.

The other "small government" bill they just passed was to tell Tennessee cities that they can't pass their own non-discrimination clauses. In other words, the state is forcing its will upon the cities and telling cities what they can and cannot do. This is from the exact same legislature that passed a symbolic bill saying the federal government can't tell them what to do with regards to healthcare.

Of course, being Republicans, they fail to see the irony in all of it.

It's just big government telling every school district and every municipality what it can and cannot do with regards to gay people, while bitching about someone telling them what to do. Hypocrites. The entire lot of 'em.
 
It's an irrelevant top to be discussed below 5th grade. Humans begin dating generally around 12 and 13. They probably didn't need to restrict it from middle school.

Kids pair up younger than that. It doesn't amount to anything other than saying, "he's my boyfriend" but it is there.

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that some people pair up differently. Hatred and prejudice have to be fought against. My 3rd grade daughter was complaining about a boy that was picking on her and I said maybe he liked her. She made an ugly face and said, "but he's black." I was horrified. I know she didn't learn that from us but she already picked it up. This is the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom