• 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

How is it small minded to say I will only pay for classes teaching subjects that I agree should be taught? One of the main problems with the government being involved in education is that it ignores what parents want their kids to learn in favor of what the government wants kids to learn.

No it does not because they always have the option for private school, independent tutoring, and home schooling where you can have your child taught whatever you want so long as they can do math, speak english, and know some history.
 
No it does not because they always have the option for private school, independent tutoring, and home schooling where you can have your child taught whatever you want so long as they can do math, speak english, and know some history.

That would mean parents still have to follow what the government wants their kids to learn.

Don't you think it's kind of interesting that you're arguing the government can't cut this class because of academic freedom, but at the same time say they can tell parents what to teach their kids? lol.
 
I volunteered with an HIV awareness program that was funded by state tax dollars. It goes both ways so I cannot complain.
 
That would mean parents still have to follow what the government wants their kids to learn.

Don't you think it's kind of interesting that you're arguing the government can't cut this class because of academic freedom, but at the same time say they can tell parents what to teach their kids? lol.

Are you seriously arguing that a parent should have the right to not allow their kid to learn math and english?
 
S.C. college’s production highlights political battle between lawmakers, public universities - The Washington Post

My lovely state.

The House has passed a bill that cuts $52,000 in funding to the College of Charleston for having a graphic novel about a family dealing with the suicide of a closeted gay father on the reading list for an introductory course and $17,000 to USC Upstate for having a gay and lesbian awareness week.

These politicians and those who support them seem to think if you just ignore the existence of something it'll go away. Trying to punish public universities for highlighting issues in the LGBT community is nothing short of authoritarian censorship.

Isn't such funding discriminatory?
 
Are you seriously arguing that a parent should have the right to not allow their kid to learn math and english?

Are you arguing that children have a right to a good education? Sorry, but I don't believe that makes any sense.
 
Isn't such funding discriminatory?

As in funding the program itself is discriminatory?

No the program has nothing to do with LGBT issues. The program is a fund to buy 1 book a year for the new freshman. It's a different book every year and doesn't deal with any particular issue. Its been around for years with support from the State. It just happens that this year the book was about a lesbian with a gay father
 
Are you arguing that children have a right to a good education? Sorry, but I don't believe that makes any sense.

Education up to at least middle school level is a right in this country, yes. That's why public schools exist. That's why there are truancy laws. That's why we have basic criteria for what constitutes a middle school level. You can drop out of high school when you are of a certain age to make that decision. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you are making any sense here. Do you have any legal basis for your opinion here?
 
Education up to a high school level is a right in this country, yes. That's why public schools exist. That's why there are truancy laws. That's why basic criteria for what constitutes a high school level. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you are making any sense here.

That right you just defended calls for the labor of others to be provided, which makes it unconstitutional. Exactly how does children have the right to the labor of others? Exactly how does one define a good education and exactly why wouldn't another definition that someone else came up with not have just as much merit?
 
Education up to at least middle school level is a right in this country, yes. That's why public schools exist. That's why there are truancy laws. That's why we have basic criteria for what constitutes a middle school level. You can drop out of high school when you are of a certain age to make that decision. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you are making any sense here. Do you have any legal basis for your opinion here?

If being educated is a right then logically not being educated would be a right, so therefore mandating children going to school against their will doesn't make any sense.
 
As in funding the program itself is discriminatory?

No the program has nothing to do with LGBT issues. The program is a fund to buy 1 book a year for the new freshman. It's a different book every year and doesn't deal with any particular issue. Its been around for years with support from the State. It just happens that this year the book was about a lesbian with a gay father

That is an interesting topic and rather discriminatory in its own right. Gay parents have gay children? Hmpf.
;)
 
That right you just defended calls for the labor of others to be provided, which makes it unconstitutional. Exactly how does children have the right to the labor of others? Exactly how does one define a good education and exactly why wouldn't another level of education that someone else came up with not have just as much merit?

As to how one decides what is and isn't a good education, the basic need of a person to function in a job in society or to pursue higher education is how one defines a good education. Not knowing math or english prevents both of those, wouldn't you say? High school competencies are based on those needs.

As to your point about children having a right to the labor of others, what you just said is absolute moronic nonsense. Children have a right to an education and it will be provided by the State if the parents choose not to do it so that that child doesn't become an uneducated adult. Not having uneducated adults is a compelling interest of the State which is fully provided for by the Constitution. This compelling interest allows taxation of citizens in order to provide for that interest of the State, which is ultimately manifested as public schools and basic competency for education. The labor of the individuals providing that education is compensated for through taxation. No one is being compelled to be a teacher through force of law. It is a voluntary act.
 
They elected to take that class, and my point still stands. They are adults I think they can handle seeing drawn breasts.

I read that the school purchased the book for every incoming freshman. Did all the freshmen elect to take that class? I would guess not.

My response? Try purchasing the Bible for every incoming freshman, and I would bet Carjosse would have a different opinion.

My opinion would stay the same. School has no business in the forced agenda business.
 
That is an interesting topic and rather discriminatory in its own right. Gay parents have gay children? Hmpf.
;)

Elaborate please. What are you saying is discriminatory?
 
I read that the school purchased the book for every incoming freshman. Did all the freshmen elect to take that class? I would guess not.

My response? Try purchasing the Bible for every incoming freshman, and I would bet Carjosse would have a different opinion.

My opinion would stay the same. School has no business in the forced agenda business.

This would be categorically illegal because a public university, as an extension of the government, cannot be said to be promoting one religion over another through the Establishment clause found in the First Amendment. The Bible is a religious book. A graphic novel about a lesbian is not. Two very different things legally speaking.

Same reason a public high school can't teach creationism in certain ways.

Also there is no need because if you come to any college campus in the south you will have 4 free Bibles by the time you get to your first class ;)
 
Last edited:
This would be categorically illegal because a public university, as an extension of the government, cannot be said to be promoting one religion over another through the Establishment clause found in the First Amendment. The Bible is a religious book. A graphic novel about a lesbian is not. Two very different things legally speaking.

Same reason a public high school can't teach creationism in certain ways.
Ones mans religion could be another mans sex act.

I have a problem with them being allowed to push the gay agenda on our children but not allowed to teach about religion. That is the same as saying religion is evil, and faggots are good.
 
As to how one decides what is and isn't a good education, the basic need of a person to function in a job in society or to pursue higher education is how one defines a good education. Not knowing math or english prevents both of those, wouldn't you say? High school competencies are based on those needs.

That is entirely subjective. You could easily define a good education on an entirely different basis and have just as much merit to your argument.

As to your point about children having a right to the labor of others, what you just said is absolute moronic nonsense. Children have a right to an education and it will be provided by the State if the parents choose not to do it so that that child doesn't become an uneducated adult. Not having uneducated adults is a compelling interest of the State which is fully provided for by the Constitution. This compelling interest allows taxation of citizens in order to provide for that interest of the State, which is ultimately manifested as public schools and basic competency for education. The labor of the individuals providing that education is compensated for through taxation. No one is being compelled to be a teacher through force of law. It is a voluntary act.

Sorry, the compelling interest argument is not found anywhere in the Constitution.

Compulsory education is in violation of the constitution as it forces parents and children to provide their labor towards the interests of the state. Mandating parents to either send their kids to school or teach their children at all is forcing them into labor, and again, is in violation of the Constitution. No one has a right to an education provided to them by other individuals, and yes, that includes children getting an education from their parents or from a school. Furthermore, no one has a right to have an education provided to them with the use of other peoples property, and therefore, forcing people to pay taxes to be educated is not a right.
 
This would be categorically illegal because a public university, as an extension of the government, cannot be said to be promoting one religion over another through the Establishment clause found in the First Amendment. The Bible is a religious book. A graphic novel about a lesbian is not. Two very different things legally speaking.

Same reason a public high school can't teach creationism in certain ways.

Also there is no need because if you come to any college campus in the south you will have 4 free Bibles by the time you get to your first class ;)

You probably have a point concerning the Bible running afoul of the first, so I'll rephrase. What would be the reaction if any so called right wing agenda was forced on the freshmen and paid for by the state? Say, for example, a subscription to the American Rifleman. Would that work better for you?

I am against any agenda being forced on any captive audience and paid for with state money. That would include the Bible, the gay book, or any RW publication you care to name. In this case, I believe the state was correct in withholding funds.
 
you clearly have no concept of what censorship is. Spend a few years in Saudi Arabia or Iran, that will clear it right up.

actually I know what it is, and it exists in the US.
 
College should be partly about seeing a broader world than the one your helicopter parents depicted for you. If you want a sheltered education for your kids, send them to a religious school. The rest of world want to deal with, you know, reality?

I wouldn't send my kids to religious schools because we are not a religious family, which I've said on here repeatedly. You fail.
 
I got bad news for you: your kids are going to get exposed to a whooooooole lot worse than some class passing out a book on teh gayz.

Someone has reading comprehension issues, I see. (You).

I'm not anti-gay, as I've posted repeatedly on here. I said I wouldn't want my children given graphic cartoons of heterosexual couples having sex either.
 
That's all well and good and I support your ability to do that 100%. That's your right. However, I don't support an overbearing State government cutting money from a public school for developing a curriculum that includes LGBT issues or allowing LGBT rights events. As others have said, the "sex scene" in the book is an picture drawn in ink with only a little color. It's less suggestive than a commercial you see on TV. This is an award winning piece of work about identity and the effect of intolerance, not a porno mag. Hell, the State University teaches a class on 50 Shades of Grey here and no one is up in arms over that. This is political grandstanding to hype up the conservative base against the scary "liberal elite" trying to brainwash your kids into being gay and nothing more. What do you think the result of these threats to cut funding will be? I don't want my state's schools scared to let their students express themselves on their campus, display art with non-traditional things, or let their teachers discuss non-traditional topics for fear of having to fire people or raise tuition.

Teaching a class on 50 Shades of Grey isn't the same thing as adults in a university handing out this book to all incoming freshmen. Understand the difference between an elective class and a requirement that the parents had no control over. And the fact that it's about gay women is irrelevant to me. I already said that. I don't want adults peddling graphic material to my kids even of heterosexual sex.

Why do you Liberals always think people are anti-gay?
 
depends on the class and if it is a manditory class that all kids have to take at some point. if the book was just for one class then only the students taking the class would need to buy it. there is no reason to waste student money supplying a book to all students if all students didn't need it.

not all students signed up for the class or the class has only so many students in it so why waste money paying for a book that only a small amount are going to use?
couldn't have anything to do with indoctrination now could it?

the only person that made out like a bandit was the author of the book and the thousands of books the college's bought.

After reading vash's post I was going to post the same thing. So the school spent money buying the book for all incoming freshmen but it was for an elective class that all of them won't take? Now it's a waste of money. Did they buy a French language book for all incoming freshmen, even though not all of them will be taking French? How about an Earth Science book, even though all of them won't be taking Earth Science? I guarantee the answer is "no".

Knowing this fact, I find it more outrageous that they did this.
 
I am not denying that she gets to decide that. I am just saying that it is incredibly small minded. That is something that conservatives like you can't even comprehend, sadly.

I'm small minded because I don't want adults handing out graphc pictures depicting sex to my children. I adore Liberal logic.

When you have your own kids, you can raise them as you see fit. I'm sure you can find other adults to give out graphic sex cartoons to your kids, and you can thump yourself on the chest when it happens that you have a big mind. Enjoy.
 
S.C. college’s production highlights political battle between lawmakers, public universities - The Washington Post

My lovely state.

The House has passed a bill that cuts $52,000 in funding to the College of Charleston for having a graphic novel about a family dealing with the suicide of a closeted gay father on the reading list for an introductory course and $17,000 to USC Upstate for having a gay and lesbian awareness week.

These politicians and those who support them seem to think if you just ignore the existence of something it'll go away. Trying to punish public universities for highlighting issues in the LGBT community is nothing short of authoritarian censorship.
Private school, they can do what that want.
 
Back
Top Bottom