• 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!

SC House votes to cut funding to public university for homosexul literature

They're politicians, so they make funding decisions based on whatever criteria is important to them at the time. Do you really not know this?

I do know this, and you've made my point for me. It's ludicrous to allow politicians to dictate to university administrators how they should allocate their budgets. Who told them that having an opinion qualifies you to make those decisions?
 
I believe our elected representatives should be busier fixing Standards for their State or the Union, than micromanaging other organizations.
 
I do know this, and you've made my point for me. It's ludicrous to allow politicians to dictate to university administrators how they should allocate their budgets. Who told them that having an opinion qualifies you to make those decisions?

Okay, you keep asking silly questions, so I'm going to be polite and assume you're just having some fun.
 
In what way is it NOT small minded?

It is based on the liberty of parents to decide what will expand their kids mind and will help them towards their life goals, and what will not when it comes to their education. What one parent might see as expanding their kids mind and horizons another might find doesn't, but instead desire for their child to spend their time learning something else that they find expands their mind and horizons. The point is that it's a difference of opinion on what parents want their kids to learn and what they find is in the best interest of their children.
 
i don't think you are reading her posts. she has stated if they want to spend their money or there time whatever.
she doesn't want someone else handing it to them.

i don't think you would take to kindly if someone tried to give you kid a graphical novel depicting sex scene's. i know i wouldn't. more so when i am being charged for it.
hopefully by then i have raised my kids properly so that they know better.

Of course he isn't reading my posts.
 
I'm reading her posts, and she can't control what people "hand them." I'm not saying she can't have an opinion about it, just that compared to concrete threats a graphic novel rates at the bottom.

If I've raised my kids to college-going age and they can't react maturely to people handing them sexually graphic literature then I've done something wrong. One thing that kids of that age definitely need a strong talking to about is those damn credit card booths. Seriously, those things are a menace.

You have no problem with strangers handing your children porn. Not everyone feels as you do.
 
You have no problem with strangers handing your children porn. Not everyone feels as you do.

If they're, say, 16 and under, then yeah I'd definitely have a problem with it. If they're 18 and over, moved out of the house and in college, then I think they can handle this devastating pressure.
 
If they're, say, 16, then yeah I'd definitely have a problem with it. If they're 18 and over, moved out of the house and in college, then I think they can handle this devastating pressure.

Not while I'm paying, first of all.

I read constantly that today's college graduates complain that they can't find jobs. I also see posts on here and elsewhere that it's everyone's fault that kids' educations suck. Given that - why would ANYONE think this is what kids should be receiving from college in lieu of meaningful things, like say, our Constitution, or a history book, or an economics book. Then I read that there are such college courses as "50 Shades of Grey" and a college course about Pornography and a college course about a woman who finds out her father is gay.

I'm sure the interview for kids who take those kinds of courses would be wonderful. "Well, you got a C- in American History, and a D in American Lit, but I see you aced Pornography. You're exactly the kind of person we want. Welcome to Boeing!".

If this is the type of **** that kids are focusing on in college, it's no wonder that they can't find jobs, and no wonder that most of them think Spiro Agnew is a mousaka. And I call BS on the administrations who think graphic sex cartoons are more important than knowing what happened on Lexington Green.
 
Umm that is their job to set a state budget? this isn't rocket science.

This isn't setting a State budget. That was already set. This isn't defunding a program because its a silly idea and is wasteful. This was a bill to ADJUST the already agreed upon state budget that was specifically passed with the very public reason that the state legislator did not agree with the specific book that was selected this year in a program that's been running with no issue for years. Seeing the difference between a state setting a budget for a school and a state altering a budget because a school is exposing kids to literature that has homosexual protagonists or themes is not rocket science, as you say.
 
I highlighted 'funding decisions' and asked, "Based on what?"



A legislator who bases funding decisions on personal prejudices is stepping outside his job description. If you've decided to fund a university, write the cheque and be done with it. If you don't like what they do with the money, stop the funding. Don't presume to tell university administrators how they should do their jobs. What's next, cutting the funding that's spent on science texts that don't teach a creation myth?

Yes, exactly. I don't even want to call this situation a slippery slope.. This IS the slope. They are already on it and if the Senate passes this bill, we will be sliding down it full speed already.
 
I highlighted 'funding decisions' and asked, "Based on what?"



A legislator who bases funding decisions on personal prejudices is stepping outside his job description. If you've decided to fund a university, write the cheque and be done with it. If you don't like what they do with the money, stop the funding. Don't presume to tell university administrators how they should do their jobs. What's next, cutting the funding that's spent on science texts that don't teach a creation myth?

umm funding decisions are always based on personal prejudices.
they did stop the funding because they didn't like what they did with the money.
 
This isn't setting a State budget. That was already set. This isn't defunding a program because its a silly idea and is wasteful. This was a bill to ADJUST the already agreed upon state budget that was specifically passed with the very public reason that the state legislator did not agree with the specific book that was selected this year in a program that's been running with no issue for years. Seeing the difference between a state setting a budget for a school and a state altering a budget because a school is exposing kids to literature that has homosexual protagonists or themes is not rocket science, as you say.

the state can fund the public university however they wish. if they felt that the school spent the money incorrectly then they have a right to pull that funding back or make the school pay for it.

i consider it a waste of money and the school will be screaming for more money next year had they not bought thousands of useless books that students don't need.
if it is for a class then only the students in the class need it not the whole school.

if they would have handed it to me i would have thrown it in the trash and went on my businesses.
 
the state can fund the public university however they wish.

You keep saying that..but its not necessarily true. Cutting funding specifically to suppress the discussion of gay and lesbian topics is an infringement of the right of an institution to academic freedom which is an extension of their first amendment rights to free speech. This is an idea that has been upheld in court time and time again. Cutting funding in general is no problem had they not been so overt about their reasoning for doing so. If the State thinks buying a book for every freshman student is a waste of money, fine. If the State thinks a college should buy a book for every student (which they do since they've paid for it for years) but only has an issue when its a book that has a gay theme, that's targeting a specific topic and a specific subgroup without merit and has no basis for budgetary decisions.

Just recently, there was a new development. The senators in from the upstate area threatened to oust the board of trustees from the college because the college was hosting a satirical gay themed play. If the first incident isn't a problem, Is that not an obvious overreach to you?
 
College used to be about school.
 
College used to be about school.


Still is.

but as it always has been, school is also about money, access, and pushing the envelope.
 
Republican Sens. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, and Mike Fair, a fellow Republican from Greenville County, said in a statement last week that they voted in opposition to all candidates for reappointment to the University of South Carolina board of trustees, who were unopposed, because of recent decisions allow "left-leaning" books and performances with gay themes."

Read more here: USC Upstate chancellor: Labeling gay-themed programs indoctrination is misinformed | Education | The State

Refusing to support UNOPPOSED board members because of allowing "left-leaning" books on campus...
 
You forgot indoctrination.

The people who are calling talking about homosexual issues indoctrination now are the same type of people who called talking about African American issues indoctrination and talking about women's issues indoctrination. I can't see how people still haven't learned from the recent history of civil rights issues. The people that were calling themselves "traditional" then are now the backwards racists and misogynists of today. The result will be the same for people who refuse to acknowledge that homosexuals are people and have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you do.
 
The people who are calling talking about homosexual issues indoctrination now are the same type of people who called talking about African American issues indoctrination and talking about women's issues indoctrination. I can't see how people still haven't learned from the recent history of civil rights issues. The people that were calling themselves "traditional" then are now the backwards racists and misogynists of today. The result will be the same for people who refuse to acknowledge that homosexuals are people and have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you do.

Good Lord, stop equating the horrific plights and sufferings of African slaves with guys who like to screw other guys in matrimony.

It's demeaning to the real inequities and pains of history.
 
Good Lord, stop equating the horrific plights and sufferings of African slaves with guys who like to screw other guys in matrimony.

It's demeaning to the real inequities and pains of history.


There was a long drawn out period between when blacks were slaves and when they were fully accepted citizens and there were a lot of people saying "Quit complaining. At least you aren't slaves anymore." back then too. The relative level of injustice in a civil rights issue only affects the urgency of its rectification, not its existence.

The point is that the exact same phrases and methods that were used against african americans and women are being used to suppress the discussion of homosexual civil rights issues.
 
For conservatives, some of you guys sure don't like free speech and the free expression of ideas. Aren't you guys supposed to be freedom loving?
 
Back
Top Bottom