Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

TN hates on the gays some more.Follow

#152 Apr 28 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let me ask you a question, and try to answer honestly: If the very "silly" example I brought up had come up during say the time period right around when we first invaded Iraq (so late 2002 early 2003), and a bunch of anti-war liberals argued that Bush didn't have the authority to make war, and brought this to the Supreme Court (let's ignore how for the moment), do you believe that most liberals would not have supported a ruling by the court limiting or even eliminating the presidents power as sole commander in chief?

I don't believe so, no. Nor do I believe that most self-identified conservatives would do the same in the opposite case.


Now. If the subject had come up back then, I'm just not convinced. Maybe you would have been one of those saying that they're going too far. But you're one of the more reasonable liberals on this board. I've just read too many posts on this forum which say things that literally make my draw drop at how scary dangerous they are in terms of the concept of liberty to discount this.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 4:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Apr 28 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Varusword75 wrote:

When's the last time I bragged about picking up some hot UT chic?


I remember a thread a while ago where you commented that you like to have one night stands with women. Can't be **** to look it up.

World English Dictionary wrote:
Slander: any false or defamatory words spoken about a person


Pretty sure the definition I used fits what has been said in quite a bit of your posts. Not everything you say is slanderous though, but it is rare when it doesn't happen.

Varusword75 wrote:
Here's a tip, I'm not against anyone. I am for carrying the word to all who will listen. It's between you and God whether you receive the message.

I'm curious; are you a christian? If so how do you rationalize accepting the homosexual lifestyle?


You sure seem as though you are against homosexuals by the various posts you made in this thread. I would quote them but this post would get quite large, quite fast.

I am not a Christian. I am, for lack of a concrete belief system, an agnostic Buddhist. I believe people should be free to choose who they love, within reason, and not have to worry about what happens between closed doors. By within reason I refer to 40 yr olds wanting to shag a 13 yr old and use love as a cop out. While we are on the subject of "love" I also want to point out that love != sex. While the two concepts tend to go hand in hand they are not the same thing.

Anywho... I seem to have went on a tangent there for a bit. I am ok with letting homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals and not feel as though they are a second class citizen because they happen to fall in love with someone of the same sex. Don't force them to marry someone or be something they are not. If a higher power is a "good" one, they will judge the person not on the choice of life partner but on how they behaved to their loved ones and neighbors. To elaborate more, a higher power is either going to be old testament style higher power (you blink the wrong way and you are going to hell) or new testament style (firm but loving and caring). I personally believe in the latter, not because the former would suck donkey balls, because if you go with the former then people are going to **** not because they led a just life but because they didn't walk this very narrow path that only a hand full of people were able to walk.

I have a question for you Varus, do you believe a person that leads a just life can gain access to heaven or must he walk a narrow path to get in?

Edit: Massive loss in thought process made part of my text confusing at best. Hopefully I fixed it. :l

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 8:12pm by Criminy
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#154 Apr 28 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Only if the subject of **** comes up

Nope.

ONCE AGAIN, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

Not "discusses sexual activity", discusses ORIENTATION. That would be ANY reference to a person being ANYTHING except heterosexual be it by discussing their partner/spouse, activities or life events based around their orientation, discussing laws regarding same-sex issues or anything else.

Again, it's hilarious how you completely overstated the CA law and are hell-bent on remaining as ignorant as possible about the TN law. Not surprising but still pretty funny.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 6:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Apr 28 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
I'm on the train. Until I get a chance to go into exhaustive detail on the MANY reasons that you were incorrect, gbaji:

What Joph said.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#156 Apr 28 2011 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Only if the subject of **** comes up

Nope.

ONCE AGAIN, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

Not "discusses sexual activity", discusses ORIENTATION. That would be ANY reference to a person being ANYTHING except heterosexual be it by discussing their partner/spouse, activities or life events based around their orientation, discussing laws regarding same-sex issues or anything else.


Only if the discussion was *about* their sexual orientation though, right? And only if it's "instruction or material" provided by the school. So a spontaneous discussion among students would not be prohibited, and I think you're stretching the limits in terms of even mentioning **** people and their partners, etc.


Quote:
Again, it's hilarious how you completely overstated the CA law and are hell-bent on remaining as ignorant as possible about the TN law. Not surprising but still pretty funny.


I'll point out for the 5th or so time that I'm *not* defending the TN law in complete form as written. I am defending the basic principle that you can prohibit specific topics from curriculum in schools if they are deemed too mature or controversial for a grade range. Take away the "other than heterosexuality" from the end of that law, and IMO it's perfectly acceptable. There's no need to discuss someone's sexual orientation, regardless of what it is. Kids can noodle out that if you mention two men or two women as partners or spouses, that they are **** without having to have a classroom discussion about sexual orientation. Just as they can noodle out that when we speak of "George Washington and his wife Martha", we also don't have to go out of our way to say that they are heterosexual.


I just really think you're reading far far too much into this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Apr 28 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Only if the discussion was *about* their sexual orientation though, right? And only if it's "instruction or material" provided by the school. So a spontaneous discussion among students would not be prohibited, and I think you're stretching the limits in terms of even mentioning **** people and their partners, etc.

Nope. Discusses orientation, not a discussion explicitly about their orientation. And it never says "only if provided by the school"; while two student chatting in the hallway wouldn't be forbidden, a teacher answering a student's question about why Ellen Degeneres has a wife would absolutely be. It's a very cut and dry banning and it's funny that you're stretching so hard to insist that it's not.

Quote:
I'll point out for the 5th or so time that I'm *not* defending the TN law in complete form as written.

You said the fault you had was it exempted heterosexual orientation which is why I asked the questions above.

Quote:
There's no need to discuss someone's sexual orientation, regardless of what it is. Kids can noodle out that if you mention two men or two women as partners or spouses, that they are gay

So then there's certainly no harm in mentioning it either.

Quote:
I just really think you're reading far far too much into this.

You said as you contorted yourself trying to defend it.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 8:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#158 Apr 28 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Only if the discussion was *about* their sexual orientation though, right? And only if it's "instruction or material" provided by the school. So a spontaneous discussion among students would not be prohibited, and I think you're stretching the limits in terms of even mentioning **** people and their partners, etc.

Nope. Discusses orientation, not a discussion explicitly about their orientation.


You're splitting hairs Joph. Those are the same thing. It's about discussing sexual orientation, not mentioning that someone is gay. You get that you can do one without having a discussion about sexual orientation, right? In the same way you can mention what you had for dinner last night without "discussing cooking methodologies".

Quote:
And it never says "only if provided by the school"; while two student chatting in the hallway wouldn't be forbidden, a teacher answering a student's question about why Ellen Degeneres has a wife would absolutely be.


Lol! Didn't you just do this? I'll change the bolding in case that's your problem:

ONCE AGAIN, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.


It explicitly says that it must be provided by the school. It also explicitly limits this to "instruction or material" which the school provides. A spontaneous conversation doesn't count. Instruction means that there's some formal class instruction. That's what instruction is. A teacher answering a question is not "providing instruction". A planned lecture to discuss something *is* instruction.

Quote:
It's a very cut and dry banning and it's funny that you're stretching so hard to insist that it's not.


Only for those with a very poor grasp of grammar.


Quote:
You said the fault you had was it exempted heterosexual orientation which is why I asked the questions above.


And you failed to read the actual law apparently, because you got it wrong on both counts.

Quote:
Quote:
There's no need to discuss someone's sexual orientation, regardless of what it is. Kids can noodle out that if you mention two men or two women as partners or spouses, that they are gay

So then there's certainly no harm in mentioning it either.


No, there isn't. And the law doesn't prohibit that either. It just says you can't mention it for the purpose of providing instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation. In the same way, that mentioning Washington and his wife isn't a discussion about heterosexual orientation, mentioning Ellen and her wife isn't a discussion about homosexual orientation. It only becomes so when you decide to start talking about **** or heterosexuality, what it means, what the differences are, how it affects people, etc.

I'll point out again that the obvious purpose of this law was to prevent the kind of curriculum mandates seen in the California law cropping up in Tennessee. I see nothing in that law which prohibits mention of **** people. It only prohibits directed instruction about their orientation. That's not the same thing. We don't automatically discuss what it is to be straight every time we mention a straight person, do we? Why then assume that you can't mention a **** person without a discussion about homosexuality?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#159 Apr 28 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Instruction means that there's some formal class instruction. That's what instruction is.

No. But by all means, find me a definition of it applying to TN.
Quote:
I'll point out again that the obvious purpose of this law was to prevent the kind of curriculum mandates seen in the California law cropping up in Tennessee

You had no idea what the law even said until a day ago when I rubbed your face in it so you'd finally understand. You'll excuse me for dismissing you as an authority on how it works or what its purpose is.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 9:35pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Apr 28 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,726 posts
In before this thread reaches page 20.
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#161 Apr 28 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Instruction means that there's some formal class instruction. That's what instruction is.

No. But by all means, find me a definition of it applying to TN.


When it's provided by the school, it kinda is? Still working hard to avoid recognizing that part, aren't you?


Quote:
You had no idea what the law even said until a day ago when I rubbed your face in it so you'd finally understand. You'll excuse me for dismissing you as an authority on how it works or what its purpose is.


So what's your excuse for quoting the **** thing and then two posts later proving you apparently didn't bother to read the thing you'd just quoted?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#162 Apr 28 2011 at 9:50 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When it's provided by the school, it kinda is?

Umm... no, I didn't say "make up a definition" I said to provide one.

Quote:
So what's your excuse for quoting the **** thing and then two posts later proving you apparently didn't bother to read the thing you'd just quoted?

Literacy, I guess. What's your excuse for twisting yourself up and insisting that it doesn't really mean what it says?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Mazra, Spoonless, Anonymous Guests (28)