Don't Say Gay BillFollow

/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.



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.



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.



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 sex (i.e., "16 and pregnant"), not every child is having sex.

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.

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 sex 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 *****".

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.

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

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.

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!

I'm not following the DSD references. Is everybody who is not Alma a DSD sock puppet?

So you deny that proponents of Intelligent Design are largely Christian fundementalists?

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.

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?

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?



Was my sarcasm not an accurate summation of the Christian belief on homosexuals?

It prefers to be addressed as Gay William.

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.