Don't Say Gay BillFollow

They're not banning discussion about someone who happens to be gay. They're banning discussion about "being gay". Isn't that exactly the distinction you made about the CA law? When the hell in the course of k-8 education is there a need to discuss "gay issues"?




I'll repeat a statement I made about the other law. I'd need to see the actual law, and not an unattributed quote in a news article about the law. I'll fully acknowledge that it may say that, and if that's the precise language then it's a crappy law (actually, it probably is anyway). But my point here isn't to defend the TN law as written, but to discuss the broader issue of how/whether sexual orientation ought to be directly targeted as part of instructional curriculum in public schools.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 2:43pm by gbaji

Even if we take the quote literally, that only means that they can't provide instruction about the persons sexual orientation. Mentioning someone is gay, and who their partner is doesn't qualify as instruction about sexual orientation.

My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.



It's called Mathematical Sciences. The word doesn't make it a science, but it all depends on what you're doing. If you're doing Abstract math, it is very much a science. If you're doing Application, not as much.

As for Comp Sci, you probably don't have a clear understanding of what Comp Sci is. This is why I don't tell people I majored in Comp Sci, because they expect me to be able to fix their computer.

Comp Sci deals with computations, methodologies, algorithms, etc. CS allows us to take a Biological concept (for example) and determine if a goal (given by a Biologist) is computationally possible under certain conditions and if so, the results and conditions. As a computer scientist (under the computation field, which I studied) you become very familiar with what ever subject that you are assisting.

I'm studying now to get in a Masters Neuro-Science program, under Comp Sci, because that's what I researched in undergrad and I enjoyed it. I was using the same upper division math concepts that I was learning from my Math major. If that's not "hard" science, then I don't know what is.



My mistake. I have corrected myself in this post above.



That's not equal weight...There's a difference between fair and equal. Not dismissing one over the other is "fair", but the amount of information given in the class is not equal by a long shot.

Ok, since you claim it's equal. Let's change it around. I mean if x = 2, then 2 = x. Let's only mention what evolution is and then have an entire chapter on ID. Hey, why not make it two sentences on evolution and say how evolution is right and ID is wrong followed by an entire chapter of ID from an ID perspective.

Equal right?



The nation's opinion is relevant in that the school is teaching science because it's science and not what they necessarily believe in. You're making a complaint because something that you don't believe is being mentioned next to your belief. If the U.S. behaved the same way, then evolution wouldn't even be taught.



1. I've argued that already.

2. uhhhhh... if they didn't allow it, that supports my argument.

3. Yes you are, that you're in denial. There are scientists who believe in ID and you just refuse to accept it. I'm sure it's the minority, but to pretend that there aren't scientist that believe in ID is silly.



Exactly what I said. You made an argument that I was pretending that animals don't have homosexual tendencies. My argument is how does that matter? Animals also can be blind, does that change your opinion of people being blind?



It's relevant because I want you to examine your thought processes. Why would you think that the man couldn't walk. Why do you think the woman was impressive or the people's sleeping habits were weird? The answer is we've examined our bodies to the point where we have created a "norm". We look at our bodies and say, "ok, we have two feet, so we should walk up right on our feet". So when you see a woman using her feet to eat with, that impresses you. You determine sleeping habits to be "weird" based off of what you and society have created to be the norm. It doesn't bother you that the person is sleeping with their eyes open, but you do find it weird.

Soooooooooo the relevance is, how come when people make the same logical connections with homosexuality, it becomes a big deal? How come a person can't just say "Man, that's weird" without being negatively labeled? I mean, the same thinking process that you used to conclude it was impressive for a woman to eat with her feet is the same thinking process that a person uses to determine it's weird for a guy to go **** on another guy.

That's why it's relevant. I'm not comparing the scenarios as the same, but the thinking processes.

Way to miss the point. Ok, replace "believe" with "support". Your position on Evolution is due to your support in Evolution. That's a stupid comment.

No one is saying we evolved from a singularity. You're no longer talking about Evolution. Cosmology is not evolution. Stop pretending they are the same thing.


I've never heard it called Mathematical Sciences. Where I'm from Mathematics is split into it's constituents. Still, I view maths as a tool, not a science. Not in the traditional sense of science, at least. Although, Maths is the most beautiful way of using logic, in my opinion.


Okay, try not to make the mistake again, I suppose?

Except there is no evidence for ID, why should it be presented at all? I never claimed they were equal. What I quoted from you was you saying you thought they ought to have an equal footing. What I'm saying is, that's an unreasonable position to take because they are not equal. One has a theory supporting it (see bsphil's post outlining what a theory is). The other has the bible supporting it. They are not equal.

For a long while, teaching evolution was a crime in the US. Do your history research, please.

1. No you didn't.

2. They didn't allow it...

3. There are scientists who accept ID. The majority of these work for the Discovery institute. My point is that top scientists and real biologists do not, because there is no evidence for it. None at all. A gap in the understanding of evolutionary biology is not proof for creationism "Intelligent Design".

Well, that shows it is present in nature. So is a natural urge, no? It also shows it's not a choice, as other animals do not have the cognitive abilities we do. (That's an assumption, but I think a safe one). And yes, we are animals, don't try and play that card, please.



Well, the thing about feet is BS. We walk on two feet due to instinctual learning of how to walk on two feet.

Yes, if I saw someone with enough dexterity to eat with their feet, it would be impressive. They could probably even join the circus and turn it into a career!

Sleep habits have nothing to do with what society thinks. Do you think babies give a crap about what society thinks is proper sleep etiquette? Or do they get it "right" all by themselves?

My point is it doesn't matter what I think is "weird", it has very little impact on me until people start telling me I shouldn't crawl because it's unnatural. Or that I can't eat with my feet, if I have the ability to. Hell, if I want to sleep standing up I'll bloody well sleep standing up, I couldn't care less if you think it's weird. It doesn't hurt you in the slightest so why do you care?

Um, it does? Assuming we evolved from a common ancestor with other great apes, which all the evidence suggests, the biblical account of creation did not take place. We also know, from cosmology that the Earth formed after the Sun, not before it. We also know that the Earth was not formed in 6 literal 24 hour days.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I took "Creationism" to mean a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 (well, 2:1 really because people bang on about Adam and Eve, and they're from chapter 2).

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 6:48pm by Nilatai

Only if we go out of our way to highlight people as being homosexual, like say if we passed a law like in California mandating that curriculum include positive role models for specific targeted groups. Can you recall the sexual orientation of historical figures ever being mentioned directly in your grade school? Is this how our history is currently taught:



Is this how history books currently read? Because I don't recall that. Maybe things have changed since grade school, but I don't recall any specific mention of various figures sexual orientation at all. I'm sure some historical figures were gay, yet somehow we managed to discuss their accomplishments without having to delve into the details of their sex lives, just as we managed to discuss the accomplishments of heterosexuals without delving into details about their sex lives either. Shocking, isn't it?



Or you could simply not mention his sexual orientation at all. Why would it come up unless you made a point of doing so? I mean, it's entirely possible that Edison and Watson were gay lovers, and his famous statement was really in reference to the need for a quickie, but it's not really relevant either way, is it? This entire issue only matters if there's an agenda to specifically single out people's sexual orientation. How about we just not do that in k-8th grade curriculum and avoid the issue entirely?

On the sixth day God created dinosaurs and humans, so it clearly shows that the Bible is not a literal text. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution as fact.

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible now? My KJV omits them completely.

Well, not literally. 1:24 I think it was talks about when all creatures that walk the Earth were created, which would be interpreted as everything from cows to dinosaurs. Essentially the passage that spawned The Flintstones.

Ugh, making me remember Catholic School. I hate you alls.

Epic grammar fail.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 7:09pm by lolgaxe

That's what you said!!!

Wat? I said that public opinion should have no bearing on what is taught in schools? Apparently your constitution agrees with me, this is why despite the majority of the US population being religious (this is irrelevant by the way, why do you keep bringing it up?) the teaching of ID was deemed to be unconstitutional in the Kismiller Vs Dover trial.


I already explained what a "top" scientist is. Someone who belongs to an organisation such as the Royal Society. A "real" scientist is someone who does research, or teaches at University level.


Why do you keep asking this? Are you saying that just because blindness occurs in animals, that doesn't mean it's natural in humans?

Yes it does, why would humans be any different?

Wat? Why are we talking about other instincts, when did we get off of talking about sexuality?

No, I'm a primate. A great ape to be precise. So are you, actually. Baboons are known to be gay too, by the way.



Do you know why we start off crawling? Because we don't have the necessary bone or muscle density as an infant to walk. Do you know why this is? Because during gestation more time is spent developing our brains. Brains that give us our niche in the animal kingdom. Brains that we evolved that give us the ability to be sentient. Brains that people like you can use to question whether evolutions even took place at all.

No it doesn't. Do you think some people are weird because they sleep during the day and go to work at night? We're diurnal mammals. It's not natural for people to be awake at night time! Scorn the weird night people!

What the hell is your point about homosexuality any way? You're opposed to it, but you claim it has nothing to do with your religion. Now you say you don't think it's unnatural. So, what do you have against homosexuals?

Nil has to hit rock bottom before he can be saved.