Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

A bill passed Friday by the Tennessee Senate would forbid public school teachers and students in grades kindergarten through eight from discussing the fact that some people are gay.

Click to expand...

Good for them! No way should this be a conversation for kids that age. Schools are teaching kids how to think, not what to think.

When I was in school, in 5th grade, they separated the boys and the girls and then taught us how a girls body works and then switched us and taught us how the boys body works. I think I remember them showing us condoms but I could be mistaken. I dont recall being taught anything in middle or high school about sex but the law around then may have changed. I also could just be forgetful. I do remember one of my friends having sex in the 7th grade. I remember not knowing anything about how boys and girls were supposed to act. I had a girl in middle school ask me if you could get pregnant by doing oral sex. The problem with not teaching anything, is you have kids learning about sex from other students and most likely it is wrong. I believe the average age of puberty now is 11. With that said, I think we should teach the basic in school, what the anatomy is of each gender, how to be safe and also present them the option to wait and try to stress that. I also think that if I was gay growing up in a school, I would feel very confused. You don't need to go into specifics. Maybe a few sentences, such as there are people that are gay. Being gay means that two boys like each other or two girls like each other. Some people are bisexual. They like both genders. Done. If there are more questions afterwards, they can be answered or if the parents in the area prefer, the default response can be "talk to your parents if you want to know more".

I think in this situation you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. Not teaching it, implies that it is "wrong" to be gay and can have a negative impact on those who are confused. On the other hand, teaching it makes parents mad who don't want their kids to know about homosexuality or wish to talk to them in private about it. Either way I think waiting until high school to teach kids about their bodies is waiting too long.

apdst said:

Good for them! No way should this be a conversation for kids that age. Schools are teaching kids how to think, not what to think.

Click to expand...

Teaching how requires discourse of things that might not be clear. Saying don't talk about it does not teach how to think. Quite the opposite actually. :coffeepap

Boo Radley said:

Teaching how requires discourse of things that might not be clear. Saying don't talk about it does not teach how to think. Quite the opposite actually. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

I never said, "don't talk about it". If these questions are broached when a student is in the 11th of 12th grade, that is one thing. But, not kindergarten. Teaching such things in kindergarten smacks of indoctrination. That's not what grade school is for.

Boo Radley said:

Teaching how requires discourse of things that might not be clear. Saying don't talk about it does not teach how to think. Quite the opposite actually. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

Not everyone thinks homosexuality isn't wrong.

Keep social issues out of academia. Do we teach our students about abortion at 4th grade? Perhaps gun control?

Add this: what if public schools taught against it at the expense of your taxes? You probably wouldn't like that.

The other option is that arguments for and against are added. Perhaps we should have a public school course about politics? Who controls such academia that will be read by young minds? I say leave it all out.

Keep out your emotional beliefs. FOCUS on your truly academic criteria.

I'm fine with the notion of talking about homosexuality in schools if done in a fairly academic way, but not until at least middle school age...6th or 7th grade types.

I understand the argument that confusion does harm to homosexual children regarding who they are and regarding how people view them. That said, the fact is that homosexuality represents a small segment of the population. I think more harm would be done, with regards to confusion, by teaching it at a younger age than not doing it. ALL kids are just beginning to figure out and understand their emotional feelings regarding attraction at that point, and even for straights it can be a confusing time. I think that teaching about it simply opens up further confusion for all of those people asking themselves "Wait, am I gay?". "Should I like boys/girls?". "Am I bisexual". "I don't feel gay, but he may be gay...does he like me or just want to be my friend?" etc. I think the "confusion" that is spoke about would simply be expanded to a larger percentage of the population rather than really fixed at that point.

By Middle School I think kids have a bit better understanding of themselves, both those who have felt odd when it comes to the "normal" view of emotions and those who have an attraction to the opposite sex. At that point I think homosexuality can be taught and talked about a bit without as large of a cause for confusion on the part of the straight individuals within the group.

I think at the younger ages, as relationships are being talked about, a teacher should just put in a mention that if any of it seems odd or out of sorts for anyone that they could talk to the teacher outside of class and that its normal to feel that way. This at least gives kids an avenue to possibly feel "Somethings different" and a invitation to get some information outside of the normal curriculum.

I think outright banning any mention of it is a bit ridiculous, as at the absolute very least it should be discussed and referenced at a high school level. By that points many kids in todays society, where homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, are going to be aware of it so acting like its just not there is going to make the teaching seem less genuine and important to the kids than anything.

Wake said:

Not everyone thinks homosexuality isn't wrong.

Keep social issues out of academia. Do we teach our students about abortion at 4th grade? Perhaps gun control?

Add this: what if public schools taught against it at the expense of your taxes? You probably wouldn't like that.

The other option is that arguments for and against are added. Perhaps we should have a public school course about politics? Who controls such academia that will be read by young minds? I say leave it all out.

Keep out your emotional beliefs. FOCUS on your truly academic criteria.

Click to expand...

It's all about context. No one is teaching homosexaulity. Instead, it is more about little Johnny having two moms or two dads. Kids start thinking at a very early age. They question many things, and for the student who lives this reality, it would be an appropriate discussion in class.

And it would be a truel academic disourse. No emotion is needed. I worry about anyone being scared of what might be read on the whole. Sure, age appropriate is a proper concern. But, afraid of ideas? That's much of what ahs lead to book burnings and other such silliness. Our kids are reasonable intelligent, for the most part, and we should not fear ideas. To think, they have to see more than one idea. Yours is one. Something else is another.

Wake said:

Not everyone thinks homosexuality isn't wrong.

Keep social issues out of academia. Do we teach our students about abortion at 4th grade? Perhaps gun control?

Add this: what if public schools taught against it at the expense of your taxes? You probably wouldn't like that.

The other option is that arguments for and against are added. Perhaps we should have a public school course about politics? Who controls such academia that will be read by young minds? I say leave it all out.

Keep out your emotional beliefs. FOCUS on your truly academic criteria.

Click to expand...

I think you can teach about how some people have these emotions and feel this way without stating that it is either "wrong" or "right", but that simply it exists.

In some ways it can be compared to masturbation taught in schools. Some religions find masturbation to be sinful and wrong, other people have no issue with it. Sex Ed can teach about what it is without indicating that its okay or not okay to partake in.

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...

Funny, I don't see anything in the article that supports your conclusion. Seems to me, discussions about sexuality should be left to counselors (vs teachers) who are trained in this field.

Zyphlin said:

I think you can teach about how some people have these emotions and feel this way without stating that it is either "wrong" or "right", but that simply it exists.

In some ways it can be compared to masturbation taught in schools. Some religions find masturbation to be sinful and wrong, other people have no issue with it. Sex Ed can teach about what it is without indicating that its okay or not okay to partake in.

Click to expand...

That, and it's not like homosexuality is such a hot topic in most sex ed situations. The conservative reaction is mostly to the POSSIBILITY of it being brought up. In reality I think it is hardly mentioned. Gays are a minority in this country and most places don't openly talk about it let alone understand it. Tennessee's decision has little to do with what is actually being discussed in classrooms right now, it is more pre-emption, and a partisan response to the kind of stuff that CA is doing (where homosexuality has far more public relevance).

It bothers me when states pass laws in reaction to other states instead of looking at what might be objectively good for their own state. It's partisan politics gone awry.

American said:

Funny, I don't see anything in the article that supports your conclusion. Seems to me, discussions about sexuality should be left to counselors (vs teachers) who are trained in this field.

Click to expand...

If that's true then you must also believe that parents are not qualified to teach their own children about sexuality, since they are not counsellors either.

The basics of sex education are not difficult to grasp especially in the modern world. There is plenty of information available. Most young people can get much more information on the internet now than is available in whatever time block their sex ed class offers; and most young people know how to use the internet far more efficiently than adults do.

So... it seems that sex ed in the classroom will be confined to reproductive anatomy as it always has been; in which case, we should change the name to "reproductive anatomy class", since the topic of sexuality can't possibly be just that.

In Tennessee, conservative political correctness has won. It's no different than where liberal political correctness has won in CA. One is just responding to the other and in the end it only denies choices from the general public. :shrug:

Wake said:

Not everyone thinks homosexuality isn't wrong.

Click to expand...

That type of ignorance needs to be weeded out. It's not about religion or beliefs... It's about the FACT that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Homophobia needs to called out just like any bigotry.

Keep social issues out of academia. Do we teach our students about abortion at 4th grade? Perhaps gun control?

Click to expand...

No, but we do teach 4th graders that a person's skin color does not make them less of a person...

Add this: what if public schools taught against it at the expense of your taxes? You probably wouldn't like that.

Click to expand...

Against intolerance... I support that.

This is just like Global Warming, it's not about 'opinions" or "beliefs" anymore... STOP THE IGNORANCE.

Why is it that most people for this law believe that this is mainly about teaching sex and sexual partner choices?

Children start becoming attracted to each other at young ages, even during elementary school. Some of it may be simply imitation of adults, but that doesn't mean it isn't common. Many elementary school age children say that they have boyfriends or girlfriends. I had a boyfriend during 1st grade. We thought holding hands and kissing was icky but writing love letters to each other (they all said "I <3 U") and calling each other "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" was fine. It was harmless and sex never once crossed our minds. I know I wasn't even sure what sex was then. We also gave out valentines on Valentine's Day and sometimes you would give special valentines or notes to those you had a "crush" on, even in the very early grades. There are plenty of things that kids do that involve social interactions that are sort of watered-down versions of our romantic relationships (for the most part).

Also, there are books for young readers and beginner readers that involve same sex couples and others that involve opposite sex couples. This law essentially says that it is ok to read the book about "mommy and daddy" but a teacher can't read the book about "mommy and mommy" because that might be discussing homosexuals, even if the book is just to help the kids learn to read.

Do not talk to me of ignorance, hazlnut. You are not absolute; your belief is not absolute fact. It is ignorance to deem one's self as right. Ironic, is it not?

Wake said:

Do not talk to me of ignorance, hazlnut. You are not absolute; your belief is not absolute fact. It is ignorance to deem one's self as right. Ironic, is it not?

Click to expand...

Uh, you are a Christian. That means you hold your personal beliefs as absolute. You deem everyone wrong all the time based on your personal beliefs. Would that not make you ignorant?

roguenuke said:

Why is it that most people for this law believe that this is mainly about teaching sex and sexual partner choices?

Children start becoming attracted to each other at young ages, even during elementary school. Some of it may be simply imitation of adults, but that doesn't mean it isn't common. Many elementary school age children say that they have boyfriends or girlfriends. I had a boyfriend during 1st grade. We thought holding hands and kissing was icky but writing love letters to each other (they all said "I <3 U") and calling each other "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" was fine. It was harmless and sex never once crossed our minds. I know I wasn't even sure what sex was then. We also gave out valentines on Valentine's Day and sometimes you would give special valentines or notes to those you had a "crush" on, even in the very early grades. There are plenty of things that kids do that involve social interactions that are sort of watered-down versions of our romantic relationships (for the most part).

Also, there are books for young readers and beginner readers that involve same sex couples and others that involve opposite sex couples. This law essentially says that it is ok to read the book about "mommy and daddy" but a teacher can't read the book about "mommy and mommy" because that might be discussing homosexuals, even if the book is just to help the kids learn to read.

Click to expand...

Then let Heather's two mommies buy them to read to her at home. If the idea is to teach reading, why drag social conditioning into it?

CriticalThought said:

Uh, you are a Christian. That means you hold your personal beliefs as absolute. You deem everyone wrong all the time based on your personal beliefs. Would that not make you ignorant?

Click to expand...

No. I believe in my belief, but I myself cannot say others are wrong and I am absolutely right. I decide to follow the Word of God. Hazlnut seems utterly convinced that he cannot be wrong. He has a belief as I do, yet we cannot absolutely prove them. If I were ignorant enough to deem everyone wrong...

...how then could I say I cannot prove my belief?

This comes as a great surprise to many, but not to most football fans in the SEC. It is a well known fact that Tennessee has been a gay haven for years.

LuckyDan said:

Then let Heather's two mommies buy them to read to her at home. If the idea is to teach reading, why drag social conditioning into it?

Click to expand...

Exactly. What other demagoguery will be infused into our children's schools, fueled by our dollars? If you allow this, then you'd have to supply the other side lest you be deemed a malicious and biased hypocrite.

Risky Thicket said:

This comes as a great surprise to many, but not to most football fans in the SEC. It is a well known fact that Tennessee has been a gay haven for years.

Click to expand...

I just hope I'm still living when Al Gore comes out.

apdst said:

I never said, "don't talk about it". If these questions are broached when a student is in the 11th of 12th grade, that is one thing. But, not kindergarten. Teaching such things in kindergarten smacks of indoctrination. That's not what grade school is for.

Click to expand...

Why not, exactly? We teach kindergartners about heterosexual relationships, in a very basic way. There is such a thing as age-appropriate discussion of relationships. And that's really what this is about - relationships, not just sex.

What is so horrible about saying that sometimes people of the same sex love each other? Even to a kindergartner? They don't have crazy images of gay bondage parties running through their heads, like most people who freak out over Teh Gay do. They just see two men or women holding hands or hugging. The horror!!

What exactly are you afraid of them being "indoctrinated" into? Being gay? You really think that's how it works? They hear of gayness before the age of 30 and *poof* they're gay in a burst of glitter?

Or perhaps, "indoctrinated" into being ok with gay people? So maybe they won't grow up to beat the gay kids so bad they wind up in the hospital for a week, like they did at my high school? This was only a few years ago, by the way. In the suburb of a major city. Oh gee, what a shame. Whatever will we do if people stop thinking gay people are out to rape them at every turn?

What exactly are they being indoctrinated into?

CriticalThought said:

Uh, you are a Christian. That means you hold your personal beliefs as absolute. You deem everyone wrong all the time based on your personal beliefs. Would that not make you ignorant?

Click to expand...

I'm not a Christian and I think gays decide to be gay just like children decide they do or don't like broccoli. Am I ignorant too?

LuckyDan said:

I just hope I'm still living when Al Gore comes out.

Click to expand...

If he does I hope he comes out on Nick Saban. :wink:

GPS_Flex said:

I'm not a Christian and I think gays decide to be gay just like children decide they do or don't like broccoli. Am I ignorant too?

Click to expand...

Yes.

And at this point, it's willful ignorance. The mountain of proof that proves you wrong is overwhelming. Besides, who would choose to be gay in this culture?

MistressNomad said:

Why not, exactly? We teach kindergartners about heterosexual relationships, in a very basic way. There is such a thing as age-appropriate discussion of relationships. And that's really what this is about - relationships, not just sex.

What is so horrible about saying that sometimes people of the same sex love each other? Even to a kindergartner? They don't have crazy images of gay bondage parties running through their heads, like most people who freak out over Teh Gay do. They just see two men or women holding hands or hugging. The horror!!

What exactly are you afraid of them being "indoctrinated" into? Being gay? You really think that's how it works? They hear of gayness before the age of 30 and *poof* they're gay in a burst of glitter?

Or perhaps, "indoctrinated" into being ok with gay people? So maybe they won't grow up to beat the gay kids so bad they wind up in the hospital for a week, like they did at my high school? This was only a few years ago, by the way. In the suburb of a major city. Oh gee, what a shame. Whatever will we do if people stop thinking gay people are out to rape them at every turn?

What exactly are they being indoctrinated into?

Click to expand...

What would that statement even mean to a kindergartner? And why do you assume they would get an image of two men holding hands? Why not one of their dad and uncle, bear-hugging at Christmas?