Don't Say Gay BillFollow

I can see there are a few of us who are aware of our nasty addiction to smacking our heads against walls. I think we need to support each other in order to overcome this pathetic addiction. That being said, I'm here for you, bsphil.


Remember your sig!

We're all ******** who insist on correcting those who are wrong.

You can do it, think happy things!

Hi, my name is Eske. I've been clean of responding to Alma for 2 weeks now.

One step at a time, y'know. Some days are tougher than others. The other day I had the urge to correct a gaping hole in his logic, but instead I took a walk, and made a still-life of some fruit. It felt good, man...it felt good.

I don't think it's a good bill either, but it's not really correct to say that it's "removing discussion of one side of an issue". If we assume the issue is "pro-gay" versus "anti-gay", it's more correct to say that the issue is simply not discussed at all. Now if they only allowed one of either negative or positive portrayals of gay people, and banned the other, that would be removing one side of the issue.



No. They actually aren't. Not unless you have a really strange definition of "conflicting".




Sure. There are lots of behaviors which a percentage of the population engage in. We don't necessarily include them in instruction to kids 8th grade and lower. Even within the category of human sexuality, there are lots of aspects which we can argue are normal (fetishes, oral and **** sex, toys, etc). But should we include them in curriculum for k-8th graders? Or should we perhaps wait until they're a bit more mature and can accept the information more easily? Remember that the primary reason for including sex education in school is to teach kids the biology of procreation. To that we have added contraceptive and STD avoidance instruction for older students who may be or become sexually active. The social aspects of sexual behavior has kinda ridden in on those coat tails.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to leave discussions of homosexuality to later grade levels. While the law as written is somewhat ham fisted and clearly represents the result of a larger political agenda, it's also fair to say that there is an opposing political agenda which seems hell-bent on including positive education on homosexuality at as early an age as possible. I just think there ought to be some reasonable middle ground here.

I'd have the same reaction to an agenda to teach k-8th grade kids about foot fetishes too Joph. That's something that doesn't have to be taught at that grade level, so perhaps we should wait? Why is that unreasonable? Like it or not, many parents don't want their kids exposed to the more social aspects of sexuality at that age. Don't their opinions count?

Are you Karl Rove? Because you are a master spin doctor. They are banning all talk of anything that is not heterosexual. How can you not see that as anything other than anti-gay?


Fetishes, oral sex, **** sex, and sex toys are sex acts, so of course you wouldn't include them in the curriculum. We are talking about a sexual identity, not sex acts. Please tell me you can see the difference here...you are as bad as Alma with your awful comparisons.



You almost sound reasonable here, but still are basically saying that heterosexual is ok and homosexual is not. I understand that you feel this way and you are more than welcome to your own opinion, but these are laws that are designed to tell kids who are gay that they are bad.

They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity. While I'll admit that it's been a long time since I've attended sex ed class, I don't recall anyone actually teaching that heterosexuality was "good" or "normal". They simply instructed us about the biological processes of procreation, and the potential consequences of sexual activity in general (stds and whatnot). There was no discussion at all of what kids "should do" sexually. More of a "this is where babies come from, and if you do <list of things>, here's a <list of things> which may happen", sort of thing.

It's not "anti-gay". It's about not getting into the social aspects of sexuality, because then we have to discuss everything. So let's stick to the biology of the subject and leave the other parts for another later section.



So a kid wondering why he's so aroused at the sight of feet might not feel just as "left out" if his sexual identity isn't addressed as a topic in sex ed? Aren't you cherry picking things to say make up identity here? Let me remind you, we don't teach heterosexual identity either. We teach (or should teach) just the biological aspects of the subject. You're falling for a persecution complex argument that really doesn't exist.



No, they aren't. You're excluding a huge middle there. Failing to single out gay kids and tell them that they are good is not the same as telling them they are bad. IMO, at that grade level, there should be no discussion at all about good or bad. Just the biological facts are needed. Leave the social aspects to a more advanced human sexuality class. Grade and middle school kids don't need to know that stuff. As I said earlier, the problem is that once you start teaching those social aspects you end out doing exactly what you are claiming you're trying to avoid: creating a perception of good/bad based on inclusion or exclusion from the discussion. If you leave out any mention of sexual identity and discuss just the biological aspects, you avoid falling into this trap in the first place.


Your argument only has merit if sex ed classes at that level do include discussions of "normal" sexual behavior from a social perspective. And I'm not aware that they do. And if they do, then the correct direction to go with this is to remove those discussions, not to add more to the list. Because that direction is endless.

Because people who make education legislation are prudes?

Also, society at large doesn't condemn fetishes as much as it does homosexuality. I doubt very much it is as traumatic to admit you like, say, leather, than to come to terms with the fact that you are attracted to members of the same sex.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:08pm by Nilatai

Then why aren't we teaching about fetishes in k-8th grade sex ed classes right now? If the assumption that exclusion from discussion equals discrimination against said thing, then why are we discriminating against something that's so harmless? Surely, there's no reason to include homosexuality without including fetish discussion, right?

How far do you want to go down this rabbit hole?




Who are you to belittle the challenges faced by teenagers with fetishes? How can you know the hardships they face? The silent minority constantly made to feel like outcasts, afraid to speak up for fear of recrimination. How dare you be such a bigoted person!


See how easy that is? How about we just not include discussion about social aspects at all? Isn't that a better way to do this?

Oh good, you see how poor your argument is :P

I don't see how fetishes can be equated to homosexuality. One is a sexual act. The other not need involve it, and can simply be related to attraction. And if you're talking about attraction fetishes, well then hell, why not. I don't see any harm in that.

Not that I see any harm in any of it, really, but meh.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:25pm by Eske

The quote is unattributed in the article though. They also put quotes around the nickname "don't say gay", which I'm sure doesn't appear in the actual proposed law, so unlike you, I'm not going to make assumptions either way. If that is the case, then it's a poorly worded law. Of course, according to the article, it's also unnecessary since apparently TN law currently already forbids such discussions anyway.



And yet, the quote from the writer of the bill itself says that: "We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality - specifically before the eighth grade,". So it's it about discussing "sexuality" or "homosexuality"? Do you see how someone might interpret a ban on discussion of the social aspects of sexuality (which would include discussion about homosexuality) as a ban on discussion of homosexuality? After all, only when discussing those social aspects would the subject of homosexuality ever come up, right?


I'll point out that the flip side of this issue is relevant and valid: Can't we also say that gay rights groups demanding discussion about social aspects of sexuality (including homosexuality) essentially insisting that discussion of their group be added to curriculum? And doesn't that get us back into the problem of "any group can do this for any aspect of sexuality, not just gay people"? I think it does and I think that the correct response is to not discuss said aspects at all at that grade level.


Realize as well, that I'm fully not discounting the possibility that said law is just a stupid poorly written knee-jerk reaction and contains exactly the sort of targeted language which would make it discriminatory. I'm not defending this law, but pointing out that there are more aspects to this issue than just "everyone must discuss homosexuality in health class or we're discriminating against gays".




My point isn't about the label used though. My point is that a kid with a strong foot fetish would feel just as left out of a discussion about various social aspects of sexuality if they only included heterosexual and homosexual interactions as a homosexual might feel if said discussion only included heterosexual interactions. I'm asking you where the end point of this logic is. Because if there isn't one, then a slippery slope response is non-fallacious and should be considered. And I could take that slippery slope pretty darn far in this case.