Don't Say Gay Bill :: World of Warcraft

Quote Reply

#1 Apr 24 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Stay classy, Tennessee.

Short Article wrote:

A Tennessee Senate committee has given the green light to a bill that would bar teachers from discussing homosexuality with elementary and middle school students.

The legislation, dubbed the "don't say gay" bill, states teachers cannot "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

Republican Stacey Campfield, the bill's sponsor, has argued the move is "neutral," according to the Knoxville News Sentinel.

"We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality - specifically before the eighth grade," he added.

But gay rights activists are blasting the legislation, which passed 6-3, as a form of discrimination.

It "limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom," Ben Byers of the Tennessee Equality Project told LBGTQ Nation. "It means they can't talk about gay issues or sexuality even with students who may be gay or have gay family."

The bill will now head to the full state Senate.

The latest vote was split along party lines, with Democrats opposing the legislation.

I found out about it through George Takei's twitter, who said "TN bill will prevent teachers from using the word "gay" in class. In response, I'm lending them my name: "It's okay to be Takei."

Oh well, tax dollars at work.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#2 Apr 24 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

lolgaze wrote:

"limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,"

Really?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#3 Apr 24 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

lolgaze wrote:

"limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,"

Really?

Yes, really.

My state is so going to hell....

▲ Page top

#4 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 12:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How is TN YOUR state? o.O?

Quote Reply

#5 Apr 24 2011 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent

TirithRR

Worst. Title. Ever!

17,302 posts

Almalieque wrote:

lolgaze wrote:

"limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,"

Really?

Yes.

Quote:

... a bill that would bar teachers from discussing...

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 2:48pm by TirithRR

____________________________

Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#6 Apr 24 2011 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good

TirithRR

Worst. Title. Ever!

17,302 posts

Almalieque wrote:

How is NOT talking about homosexuality in school a) preventing anything educational

It didn't mention educational. I'd like to see the full bill, because many teachers provide social help to students during the school hours. Not to the full classroom, but as guidance. I had many teachers who were more than willing to help students outside of their subjects of teaching. My Chemistry teacher was a wonderful woman who would help you with any issues you came to her with. Would this bill block educators from providing advice and talking with their students about this subject in a one on one basis?

____________________________

Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

▲ Page top

#7 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 12:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Fair enough.

Quote Reply

#8 Apr 24 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

How is TN YOUR state? o.O?

Because I live here...

Almalieque wrote:

How is NOT talking about homosexuality in school a) preventing anything educational and b) grounds for GOING to hell?

Someone already helped you with the "they didn't say educational" part of your question. As far as "going to hell," we obviously don't believe the same stuff, do we? IMO, if there is a god, he/she would've created everyone, even the NixNot's. To treat homosexuality like a disease and homosexuals like deviants would be against what god would want.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#9 Apr 24 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent

Ailitardif

Sage

2,069 posts

If it was actually neutral it would have banned all sexuality talk.

Pretending that you aren't against homosexuality when you are just makes it seem like you know you are wrong.

____________________________

http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#10 Apr 24 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good

TirithRR

Worst. Title. Ever!

17,302 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Edit: The source says specifically before the 8th grade. I'm sure your Chem instructor was at high school, am I right?

She taught classes from 7th to 12th grade. As did many of the teachers in the complex. The middle school and high school buildings were physically connected. She was just the most outstanding of the teachers I remember, there were many similar to her. Caring about the well being of the students beyond your subject of teaching is what makes a good, and memorable, teacher.

____________________________

Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

▲ Page top

#11 REDACTED, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 2:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) meh..so what?

#12 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 2:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a pretty good environment. I can say I didn't have that pleasure going to school. Then again, I never had a "problem" to discuss with any teacher.

Quote Reply

#13 Apr 24 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Almalieque wrote:

That was my argument for not mentioning religious references in schools, but actually TEACHING the Big Bang Theory, when not all scientists even agree on that theory.

Then teach that only 99.5% of scientists agree on the nature of the big bang. Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

#14 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 2:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And you wonder why I don't jump on stats..... When people like you just make up numbers to support their claim, it takes away any credibility.

Quote Reply

#15 Apr 24 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Oh, those wacky neocons. Doing their part to further erode freedom.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#16 Apr 24 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1658708287938

View User Forum

Sage

9,507 posts

Stories like this just make me happy to live in Maine.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#17 Apr 24 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

bsphil wrote:

Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.

I don't see the problem in teaching both religious and scientific theories in school, as long as they're both being taught and neither are being called correct.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#18 Apr 24 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

lolgaxe wrote:

bsphil wrote:

Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.

I don't see the problem in teaching both religious and scientific theories in school, as long as they're both being taught and neither are being called correct.

There's a time and a place for teaching religion. Science class is not one of them. For what it's worth, I'm fine with learning about religions of the world in history and English classes. They certainly have had a tremendous impact on the history of the world and absolutely deserve a place in a lesson plan in that sense.

But not science class. Religion is not science.

They should make buildings where people can learn about a certain religion, probably during the weekends so that it doesn't interfere with the traditional work/school schedule.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

#19 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 3:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. In my biology class, it didn't TEACH religion, but it did state the difference between terms such as creationism, ID, etc and that's the PERFECT time to do it.

Quote Reply

#20 Apr 24 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Almalieque wrote:

lolgaxe wrote:

bsphil wrote:

Religion, creation, and intelligent design are all not science, henceforth they do not belong in a science class. Abiogenesis is a point of debate in the scientific community, but the only valid discussion should be of scientific hypothesis - and that does not include religion in any form.

I don't see the problem in teaching both religious and scientific theories in school, as long as they're both being taught and neither are being called correct.

This..

Quote:

There's a time and a place for teaching religion. Science class is not one of them. For what it's worth, I'm fine with learning about religions of the world in history and English classes. They certainly have had a tremendous impact on the history of the world and absolutely deserve a place in a lesson plan in that sense.

But not science class. Religion is not science.

Religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. In my biology class, it didn't TEACH religion, but it did state the difference between terms such as creationism, ID, etc and that's the PERFECT time to do it.

Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools. The only religious references in a lit class should be strictly over the holy texts as literature.

Religion is not science, that pretty much necessitates it be mutually exclusive from a science class. Find me the evidence that religion is a science. You can't, though, because it isn't one.

That's ok, by the by. I'm completely fine with it not being a science, I understand that and am fine with that. Just don't pretend that it is.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#21 Apr 24 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent

Nilatai

View User Forum

Drunken English Bastard

15,268 posts

I agree with phil here. In the UK at least we have "Religious Studies/Education" class. We learn about all religion. We learn about their creation myths and we assess their beliefs. You can even go on to study it at Advanced (the level before University) if you want to. Then it expands into real Philosophy. I used to enjoy that class actually. It was interesting learning what other religions thought.

I'm all for teaching religion in school. However, I'm definitely against teaching mythology in the Science class room though. Like 'phil said, religion is not science. They should be mutually exclusive as far as teaching them in particular classes is concerned.

____________________________

My Movember page

Solrain wrote:

WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:

ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#22 Apr 24 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

No trolling here. Serious question.

Almalieque wrote:

Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools.

How so? Religion's had a huge impact on history.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#23 Apr 24 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Almalieque wrote:

Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools.

Nonsense. Religion plays an integral role in history and culture. Many aspects of history that defined the world are impossible to understand without an understanding of the religious beliefs at the time.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#24 Apr 24 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

This is a gay thread, people! Good job, Alma. /banghead

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#25 Apr 24 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

Someone already helped you with the "they didn't say educational" part of your question. As far as "going to hell," we obviously don't believe the same stuff, do we? IMO, if there is a god, he/she would've created everyone, even the NixNot's. To treat homosexuality like a disease and homosexuals like deviants would be against what god would want.

Are you implying that it is OK to treat people with diseases a different way?

/rolleyes

Almalieque wrote:

That would be a difference in opinion as many (not all) people are against of homosexuality because of religious preferences.

I'd be curious to hear what rationalization they use.

Almalieque wrote:

Also, how is not mentioning sexuality in grades before 8th grade be considered "deviant"? I would argue that many people don't want any type of sexuality references in those grades. Do you consider that as "deviance" also?

I'm not sure this makes sense. I didn't say "not mentioning sexuality in grades before 8th is considered deviant."

But to attempt to make sense of your post, because I think the gist is to ask why I think this bill is bad since it only limits a teacher up until the 8th grade, I would have to point out that we had a sex ed class in 6th or 7th grade. I had my first crush in the fourth grade, and my first boyfriend in the sixth grade. I think it would be perfectly natural for a kid who is comfortable with a teacher to ask him/her if having feelings for someone of the same sex is normal. That teacher should have the right to try to comfort the kid, or to tell the kid they don't feel comfortable talking about it, and they should talk to their parents.

Edit: quote phail.

[sm]Edited, Apr 24th 2011 6:23pm by Belkira

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#26 Apr 24 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good

TirithRR

Worst. Title. Ever!

17,302 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Teaching religion in history is borderline teaching religion as fact in public schools.

Nonsense. Religion plays an integral role in history and culture. Many aspects of history that defined the world are impossible to understand without an understanding of the religious beliefs at the time.

I took a handful of history/culture courses throughout high school and a couple required in college. All of them touched on the religious influences during the rise of western civilization. None of them were "borderline teaching religion as fact".

I think Alma is taking it to the extreme and defining "teaching religion" as church services during history class. Rather than merely acknowledging their existence, their culture, and the effects the multiple different religions had on the people and how beliefs were adapted and merged as new cultures moved in. That religion exists and influences people is a fact, and can be taught without any issues. Regardless of whether or not you believe the particular religion's teachings are 100% fact.

____________________________

Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

▲ Page top

Don't Say Gay BillFollow