Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Reply To Thread

Don't Say **** BillFollow

#1 Apr 24 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 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 **** 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 **** issues or sexuality even with students who may be **** or have **** 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 it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2 Apr 24 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
lolgaze wrote:
"limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,"


Really?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#3 Apr 24 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 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....
#4Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 12:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How is TN YOUR state? o.O?
#5 Apr 24 2011 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,800 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.
#6 Apr 24 2011 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,800 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.
#7Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 12:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Fair enough.
#8 Apr 24 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 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.
#9 Apr 24 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
***
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
#10 Apr 24 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,800 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.
#11The One and Only SgtFrog, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 2:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) meh..so what?
#12Almalieque, 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.
#13 Apr 24 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
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.
#14Almalieque, 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.
#15 Apr 24 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 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.

#16 Apr 24 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
Stories like this just make me happy to live in Maine.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#17 Apr 24 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,650 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 it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Apr 24 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
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.
#19Almalieque, 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.
#20 Apr 24 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
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.
#21 Apr 24 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 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
#22 Apr 24 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#23 Apr 24 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
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.
#24 Apr 24 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
This is a **** thread, people! Good job, Alma. /banghead
#25 Apr 24 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 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 **** 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 **** 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
#26 Apr 24 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,800 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.
#27 Apr 24 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Bsphil wrote:
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.


/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.

Nilitai wrote:
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.


Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.

Ugly wrote:

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


It depends what is taught and how it is taught. If you teach how religion has affected our society, that's one thing. If you teach that John The Baptist was alive and his contributions like George Washington, then you're teaching religion as facts in a public school.

Belkira wrote:

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 **** 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 **** 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.


I THINK the latter is the intent of the bill. Again, I think the bill is silly, but at the same time, as a society, we're putting too much responsibility on the education system. I'm not a parent, but I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to talk to their children about those things in the early years. As much as the media likes to promote **** (i.e., "16 and pregnant"), not every child is having sex.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#28 Apr 24 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.
It should not even be mentioned, even just in passing. Not even a word. It's not science, it does not belong there.

Almalieque wrote:
Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.
for a science class, good.
____________________________
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.
#29 Apr 24 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
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.


/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.

Nilitai wrote:
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.


Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.
Well then perhaps you should be lobbying your congressman or senator or whatever for religious studies classes to be mandatory, instead of clogging up the biology curriculum with junk science?

Seems like a happy compromise to me. Your constitution doesn't say there can be no religion in schools, all it says is that state funded institutions can not promote one religion over another. I don't see teaching religious studies like we do on this side of the pond to be adverse to that.

Someone correct me if I got the finer points of your constitution wrong here.
____________________________
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
#30 Apr 24 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I THINK the latter is the intent of the bill. Again, I think the bill is silly, but at the same time, as a society, we're putting too much responsibility on the education system. I'm not a parent, but I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to talk to their children about those things in the early years. As much as the media likes to promote **** (i.e., "16 and pregnant"), not every child is having sex.


The intent of the bill is to impose a Christian view of sexuality, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Regardless, a teacher always had the right to tell a kid they weren't comfortable discussing it and to ask their parents. Now they are forced to do so. If the kid is so uncomfortable talking to their parents that they'd rather reach out to a teacher, the last thing we should do is forcibly close that avenue of comfort for the kid.
#31Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) My opinion doesn't change. Again, I don't have any children, but at the end of the day, the child is mine. I want teachers to teach their respective subject to my child. I don't disagree with teachers being advisers and mentors, but only for certain topics that I find "appropriate" and I don't consider "sex" as something appropriate for a teacher to be discussing with my 6-12 year old child.
#32 Apr 24 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
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.


/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.

Nilitai wrote:
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.


Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.
Well then perhaps you should be lobbying your congressman or senator or whatever for religious studies classes to be mandatory, instead of clogging up the biology curriculum with junk science?

Seems like a happy compromise to me.




So instead of going over an already existing section in a textbook in a class, you propose creating an entire different class, creating more necessary resources and adjusting the entire curriculum? Uh, no. I think I'll stick with my more feasible solution.


As I suspected then. What you really have the problem with is the teaching of evolution. If presenting your religion's account was your real aim, you would have no issue with lobbying for a Religious Studies class which teaches the viewpoints of all religions as well as your own.

What you really want is to water down the teaching of Evolution with your religon's own version of the creation myth. I wonder if you'd be so receptive to ID if it was Shiva, not Yahweh, who was the god depicted.
____________________________
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
#33 Apr 24 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,800 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Regardless, a teacher always had the right to tell a kid they weren't comfortable discussing it and to ask their parents. Now they are forced to do so. If the kid is so uncomfortable talking to their parents that they'd rather reach out to a teacher, the last thing we should do is forcibly close that avenue of comfort for the kid.


My opinion doesn't change. Again, I don't have any children, but at the end of the day, the child is mine. I want teachers to teach their respective subject to my child. I don't disagree with teachers being advisers and mentors, but only for certain topics that I find "appropriate" and I don't consider "sex" as something appropriate for a teacher to be discussing with my 6-12 year old child.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 4:15am by Almalieque


This law wouldn't make it illegal for a teacher to discuss "sex" with your 6-12 year old child. Only non-heterosexual sex. Of course, depending on the situation, that discussion could be illegal through other laws, but we aren't talking about those situations.

See, you are trying to make this out to be some sort of all encompassing "Protect the children from **** discussions that the teachers shouldn't be having" law. When really it's "Protect the children from the gays because knowing about homosexuality makes them all turn queer".

That scene from The Simpsons Movie, where Ralph sees Bart skateboarding naked and says "I like men now." It doesn't really work that way.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#34 Apr 24 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
See DSD, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one mentioned religion and immediately you throw in this Christian agenda.[


Yeah, but I live in Tennessee, and I've seen legislation like this happen often, so I understand where it's coming from. Besides, was there an attack made...?

Almalieque wrote:
I could easily say that opposition is supporting the Pro-homosexuality agenda to force people to accept homosexuality. That doesn't take us anywhere.

Besides, I strongly disagree with either. I fully support the belief of being "too young to discuss sexuality".


Then maybe you should discuss that with my county, since we had our sex-ed class in the sixth grade, and the human body, since puberty usually happens in junior high.

Almalieque wrote:
My opinion doesn't change. Again, I don't have any children, but at the end of the day, the child is mine. I want teachers to teach their respective subject to my child. I don't disagree with teachers being advisers and mentors, but only for certain topics that I find "appropriate" and I don't consider "sex" as something appropriate for a teacher to be discussing with my 6-12 year old child.


I take issue with the "my kid is my property and shouldn't ever hear anything unless I deem it appropriate" mentality. If a kid has an issue and wants to talk about it with an adult because you (the parent, not necessarily you in particular, though I see you easily **** into this dichotomy) are too much of a douche to consider that your kid might be gay, then I don't see why the state should take away that avenue of discussion.
#35 Apr 24 2011 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,446 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
See DSD, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one mentioned religion and immediately you throw in this Christian agenda.[


Yeah, but I live in Tennessee, and I've seen legislation like this happen often, so I understand where it's coming from. Besides, was there an attack made...?



I havent even started in this discussion yet and already Im being blamed. I don't know if I should be insulted or impressed!
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the **** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#36 Apr 24 2011 at 10:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
DSD wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
See DSD, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one mentioned religion and immediately you throw in this Christian agenda.[


Yeah, but I live in Tennessee, and I've seen legislation like this happen often, so I understand where it's coming from. Besides, was there an attack made...?



I havent even started in this discussion yet and already Im being blamed. I don't know if I should be insulted or impressed!


Neither. It's just another one of his "down the garden path of my MIND" type deals. Ignore it. It won't go away, but it's a start...
#37 Apr 24 2011 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
A child's right to learn about themselves and the world around them should almost always supersede the parent's desire to keep them ignorant. Good parenting is about responsibilities to the child, not rights of the parent, as is consistently the judgment in legal matters far and wide. A health class that can't discuss sexuality fairly openly is a crime against the students. All it accomplishes is assuring that they get misinformation from their peers and other sources instead of reliable information from a professional.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#38 Apr 25 2011 at 2:47 AM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
I like how the bill implies that sexual activity is the only relevant topic when it comes to **** people.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#39 Apr 25 2011 at 4:01 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I like how the bill implies that sexual activity is the only relevant topic when it comes to **** people.
Of course! Don't you know that homosexuality is sexual deviance? These people can't possibly feel love for one another because Jebus said that love is between a man and a woman!!11!!1one!
____________________________
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
#40 Apr 25 2011 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Belkira wrote:


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.

The only thing I can come up with is ignorance.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#41Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 7:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Here you go DSD, more "us vs them talk". Get him! Don't hold back now.
#42 Apr 25 2011 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
**** Bill.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#43 Apr 25 2011 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I'm not following the DSD references. Is everybody who is not Alma a DSD sock puppet?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#44 Apr 25 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I'm not following the DSD references. Is everybody who is not Alma a DSD sock puppet?
DSD kicked Alma in the **** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#45 Apr 25 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
As I suspected then. What you really have the problem with is the teaching of evolution. If presenting your religion's account was your real aim, you would have no issue with lobbying for a Religious Studies class which teaches the viewpoints of all religions as well as your own.



That would make your assumption wrong. I'm against teaching religion in school. I've already stated that. I don't care that evolution is taught in school above the 8th grade. Just as with Belkira, you are creating this Christian agenda that doesn't exist.
So you deny that proponents of Intelligent Design are largely Christian fundementalists?

Almalieque wrote:
The reason why I don't favor teaching religion in school is because there are too many different religions and denominations and is impossible to get a fair representation without actually having a religious studies class, which making such a class mandatory in the U.S. public school system is not likely.
The UK manages it just fine. I'm not sure why any US legislature would be against a Religious Studies class. So long as it doesn't promote one religion over another. Merely saying "There are these people who believe X", is not promoting one religion over another. However, presenting Intelligent Design which, lets face it, is Creationism repackaged is promoting a specifically Christian mythology over all others. It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?

I think learning what different religions actually believe is good for a young person, especially those who have been indoctrinated into one particular faith. It did me a world of good to learn about other religions outside Christianity. It was also good for me to learn that there were people in the Christian faith who were not Catholics. Admittedly this is one of the things that caused me to doubt the validity of scripture and dogma in my old faith, but still, I digress.

Almalieque wrote:
The reason why I don't care if evolution is taught is because it's "science", relatively consistent and will likely not persuade a teenager believer.
I'm not sure what you mean. You're saying that Evolution is some kind of Pseudo-Science? Do you even know what it is you're arguing against? Or do you buy into what people like Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind think evolution is?

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
What you really want is to water down the teaching of Evolution with your religon's own version of the creation myth. I wonder if you'd be so receptive to ID if it was Shiva, not Yahweh, who was the god depicted.


Yea, good thing I said teaching about the terms, NOT TEACHING RELIGION. That means, you can fill the blank with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't care.
So you don't mind if we present Creationism and ID, and then go on to say why they are incorrect. So long as they're presented, right?



Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Of course! Don't you know that homosexuality is sexual deviance? These people can't possibly feel love for one another because Jebus said that love is between a man and a woman!!11!!1one!


Here you go DSD, more "us vs them talk". Get him! Don't hold back now.
Was my sarcasm not an accurate summation of the Christian belief on homosexuals?
____________________________
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
#46 Apr 25 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Lol, TN can just keep sticking it's head in the sand...it will not make the world 1950 again.

If they don't want to teach **** ed to the younger students, fine. But marriage is not sex. Families are not sex.

How does the teacher answer the kids questions about mommys and daddys and family make-up and similarities and differences?





____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#47 Apr 25 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Gay Bill.
It prefers to be addressed as **** William.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#48 Apr 25 2011 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,946 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Quote:

Yea, good thing I said teaching about the terms, NOT TEACHING RELIGION. That means, you can fill the blank with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't care.
So you don't mind if we present Creationism and ID, and then go on to say why they are incorrect. So long as they're presented, right?


I'm assuming we all know, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created because ID was being voted into public schools. The argument was, if we're letting Intelligent Design into science classes, we by rights need to involve other theories as well:
Quote:
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.


And frankly, I like the FSM's more than ID.
FSM
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#49 Apr 25 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#50 Apr 25 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.
I think it could be a good classroom lesson (for high schoolers) to compare and contrast the scientific principles that Evolution and Creationism are founded on.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#51 Apr 25 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.


This exactly.. Nothing more and nothing less.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (33)