Don't Say Gay?

[HashiriyaS14]

WTF is this?

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/DN ... -TN-Senate


As a father, I can certainly see not wanting to discuss any sort of graphic sexual information (of any orientation) in front of younger children, but this particular bill seems to take this too far, even banning the word "gay" in the classroom. While I'd prefer that everyone (save perhaps Robin Meade) keep their sexual s*** to themselves, this bill seems to create a seriously uncomfortable situation for adopted children of gay parents, and they aren't asking for that situation and shouldn't have to deal with it (IMO).

It is TN, and so I'm sure that family structure isn't as prevalent there as in some other states, but I'd also still wager there are a few thousand families like that in the state at the least. Because they're a smaller minority there than in most places though, it's easier for them to get walked on like this (or any minority), which is why, fundamentally, I feel that some school issues like this should "not" be decided on the state/local level. (others, yes. Which exactly...that's a toughie).

Thoughts?

[Cold_Zero]

What ever happened to parents raising their children, teaching them religion and sexuality. Oh that is right that would impede on their self centered lifestyle and infringe on being their kids friend. Plus you get to blame someone else when your kids do something wrong.
I'm sorry this crap doesn't belong in school, but at home. But as long as parents shrug their responsibility then we will have this crap going on. *frustrated*

[IBCoupe]

Rampant STDs and teen pregnancy happened, Bud. Parents are only the best educators when they're qualified to educate. You don't need an overabundance of brainpower in order to have a kid, and it kinda sucks for the kid when you don't and we all presume that your parents should tell you everything you need to know.

I mean, I get the push for personal responsibility on the part of the parents, but I feel like we're forgetting that there's a kid involved here that doesn't deserve to be screwed over because we feel like sticking it to bad parents.

[mattblancarte]

Meh... It's TN. The problem with that state is that the majority of voting adults are too stupid to comprehend the scientific method, and refuse to accept theories such as evolution.

Kids will find out about homosexuality one way or another, so banning the organized instruction or mention of LBGT isn't going to stifle anyone below the 8th grade.

What I find particularly ironic in this scenario is that the proponents of this anti-gay bill are the same folks who push "intelligent design." The logical end to ID is that their god(s) created fabulous people and fully dictates all of their fabulous behaviors. How gay is that?

All in all, this is just a big ol' bigotry show being put on by bible-thumpers. At least they are going through the lawful process to enforce their hate. Gives reasonable people a chance to fight back.

[bigbadberry3]

Kids will find out about homosexuality one way or another, so banning the organized instruction or mention of LBGT isn't going to stifle anyone below the 8th grade.

Unless they have two moms or dads that whole time.

[mattblancarte]

In the spirit of objectivity, the law isn't telling teachers to speak negatively on the issue.

However, I totally agree that it may cause some confusion for young ones that have LBGT parents. I can imagine a scenario where families are being discussed, and you have a small percentage of children with two moms or two dads asking where they fit into the family unit hierarchy.

In that case, I'm sure (hoping) their parents will step up and save the day by offering a mature and rational explanation.

[IBCoupe]

So, we can call get together, then, on not letting ideology drive education standards?

[mattblancarte]

I wish we could. I have and always will be on board with that idea, but there are too many people out there who take fairy tales as fact.

[telcoman]

In that case, I'm sure (hoping) their parents will step up and save the day by offering a mature and rational explanation.

I don't think there are any mature and rational people in Tennessee?

Telcoman

[Cold_Zero]

Why is your solution, Isaac, for the state to run/administrate everything. Effectively, keep the status quo? That's right because your system is heavily dependent on the lawyers! If we don't expect responsibility from our members in our society when people choose to engage in certain activities, say having children then we have the government (at some level) pick up the slack. And I am not ok with that.

[stebo0728]

I dont want to chime in too quickly with a full position, but I did want to say, I remember when I was in grammar school, they were just breaching the idea of teaching sex education, and they taught it in 5th grade. However, it was not mandatory, in the sense that the parents could choose to opt their child out of the session. It was only taught in one specific round of sessions, advertised well in advance, and parents could make the choice to let the school do the educating, or withhold their child with a signature, as an uncounted absence. Whats wrong with that idea? Now its mandatory and MUST be attended in public school. Why not still teach it for those whose parents are oblivious, and still give parents the option to opt their child out if they'd rather teach them otherwise.

[mattblancarte]

Now its mandatory and MUST be attended in public school. Why not still teach it for those whose parents are oblivious, and still give parents the option to opt their child out if they'd rather teach them otherwise.

When I was in school, the parent(s) could opt out. Same deal, though. Sex ed was in 5th grade.

I don't remember ever discussing homosexuality or anything along the lines of transgender stuff. Now that I think about it, I have no idea when I became aware of those two concepts.

[stebo0728]

No we didnt either, it was non issue then, pretty much everyone (even those practicing) thought it was evil still. Our moral compass has shifted greatly over the past 20 years.

[heliochrome85]

No we didnt either, it was non issue then, pretty much everyone (even those practicing) thought it was evil still. Our moral compass has shifted greatly over the past 20 years.

shifted for the better in this case.

[stebo0728]

No we didnt either, it was non issue then, pretty much everyone (even those practicing) thought it was evil still. Our moral compass has shifted greatly over the past 20 years.

shifted for the better in this case.

Im not gonna argue that either way. A shift is a shift, value it as you wish.

[IBCoupe]

Why is your solution, Isaac, for the state to run/administrate everything. Effectively, keep the status quo? That's right because your system is heavily dependent on the lawyers! If we don't expect responsibility from our members in our society when people choose to engage in certain activities, say having children then we have the government (at some level) pick up the slack. And I am not ok with that.

Not sure if serious...

[IBCoupe]

In 1996-7, our "maturation unit" for 6th graders was optional in the same way. In which way are we saying it's mandatory?

[AZhitman]

I'll comment on Matt's [rare] idiotic and semi-offensive post tomorrow - hopefully he'll be sober by then.

Howie, go F yourself (if your head's not already occupying the space). You're unqualified to breathe my air, you racist, classist, fake-a$$ liberal.

[AZhitman]

With that said, the TN proposal is quite possibly ignorant. I'll agree that I'm glad it's being done via the Legislature, so that rational people can openly confront it.

However, let's not lose sight of two things:

One: It's no one else's business what TN decides to do in their schools... that little matter of states' rights seems to get trampled on when it benefits the mouthbreathing cretins who oppose anything that smacks of conservatism.

Two: I, like others have mentioned, don't recall discussions of gender roles or sexuality in my elementary education. I'd argue that I turned out just fine, so perhaps this is a non-issue... maybe we should let the schools focus on teaching the Three R's instead of thinking it's their role to educate kids on why little Johnny has two daddies.

But because it mentions "gays", it's a sensitive, hot-button issue. Substitute "Muslim" and you get the same reaction. Labeling (and dismissing) it as "hate" is just as ignorant as misperceiving that it's a verboten topic. The public school system does NOT exist to teach kids political correctness. Hell, it's having a hard enough time teaching them math, spelling, science and English.

Those of you tossing about regional stereotypes (instead of understanding the intricacies of the issue) can kiss my a$$. It's JUST as ignorant (and offensive) as it would be if it referenced "lazy Black welfare recipients from New Orleans", "bomb-toting radicals named Mohammed from Afghanistan" or "AIDS-infested artists from San Francisco". I'm from AL / MS, my wife is from TN, and either one of us would be more than happy to match wits with the best of you. Stupid isn't confined to state lines and you all know it.

[IBCoupe]

Greg,

Who's business was it that Topeka, Kansas had segregated schools? There are certain issues where "states rights" becomes a cop-out.

And there's an argument that schools do exist to teach, among other things, about the diversity of behaviors and beliefs that children will invariably encounter. Setting that aside, however, there is a difference between not wanting to teach political correctness and outright banning the mentioning of certain parts of society.

I understand you're not advocating for the law, but I'm just trying to disarm your criticism of those who are opposed to it.

[AZhitman]

Point taken re: Topeka. However, of course, the difference should be painfully obvious to you. But you're right that "states' rights" has previously been misused as a cop-out.

...at what point to we say, though, that it's simply not the role of the public school system? Let's not forget, we're not teaching creation. Even in the early-to-mid 70's, I learned far more about the theory of evolution (in school) than I did about Creationism. Seems to me that we might be being a bit hypocritical - if we can dismiss one out-of-hand but not the other.

If that argument [that schools exist to teach about the diversity of behaviors and beliefs that children will invariably encounter] holds true, then the slope gets not only slippery, but not entirely pretty, either - think about it. Perhaps this was a pre-emptive "shot across the bow"? Now, I'm not suggesting the sponsors of this bill HAD that forethought - but critics of the bill will have a hard time convincing the genpop of that argument's legitimacy when things inevitably start sliding down said slope - "Today's Topic: Fetishes and the Family Ferret."

[mattblancarte]

My tone may have been flippant, but I was decently careful to steer the criticism in the direction of those who deserved it.

The legislators that pushed for "don't say gay" are the same type of people who voted to dumb-down the scientific curriculum in TN public schools. I blame them, along with the voting public who put them into office. I don't see how that's wrong.

IB articulated my next point, which is to point out the difference between political correctness and shielding children from reality.

I labeled it hate, because the base for anti-gay legislation is always hate. They don't want young kids to even hear the word "gay" because the legislators hate gays. I don't see where I'm off here. I guess you could replace the word hate with "dislike," "fear," or "despise."

There is no legitimate reasoning for this law whatsoever. No rational thinking was done when they decided that punishment would be jail time for teachers who break the law. There are no intricacies in this case. It's very simple. Anti-gay legislation is 99% religiously motivated. Please, prove me wrong. It's the invocation of Leviticus on their legal system, and it pisses me off.

I never said that stupid is confined to TN. Anti-gay folks are all over the country. I'm just not surprised that this legislation would be considered in TN because they have a history of ridiculous lawmaking when it comes to public schools.

Like you said, they are having a hard time teaching kids natural science, math, literature, etc. Why waste time legislating stupid, bigoted laws like "don't say gay?" It's hot-button because it's discriminatory in nature.

[AZhitman]

The measure is needed to make clear that the topic of homosexuality should not be taken up until high school, Campfield says. The amendment introduced Friday would limit the bill’s impact to prepared lesson plans and materials, so schools and teachers would be able respond to issues and questions about homosexuality without punishment, he said.

“Teachers could respond to that, but they couldn’t be offering materials,” he said. “They couldn’t say, ‘Today, we’re going to teach about homosexuality, lesbianism.’ That can’t be part of the course work.”

I'm not seeing "hate" in this.

I'm not seeing "discrimination" in this.

I'm not seeing "anti-gay" in this.

I'm not seeing "Don't Say Gay" in this.

I *DO* see dishonesty. I *DO* see the Left mislabeling it (the very title of this thread, for example, is misleading) and failing to be honest with those who choose not to read the bill. You're smart enough to not follow the mainstream media's pathetic misrepresentations.

My position stands. Labeling it "hate" reveals an ignorance of the content.

We've gotten used to such knee-jerk retardation from the Left here in AZ.

[mattblancarte]

I dunno, Greg. It also clearly states in the article that they were forced to amend the previous draft of the bill to allow teachers to respond to questions from students regarding homosexuality. Without that amendment, teachers could have been criminals for telling a student about gays in response to a question.

I can imagine that if the main sponsors of the bill had it their way, it would be literally "don't say gay."

So they got away with the most passive-aggressive version they could force through the TN Senate... It doesn't change the nature of the bill, nor does it change their motivations.

I don't how you can see this as non-discriminatory. Kids are taught sex-ed around 5th grade, but are denied understanding of homosexuality until 8th grade. That's a pretty clear "don't tell the kids about the bad people doing it in the butt" message if you ask me.

Why are they discriminating against gays? Because they hate them, but tolerate them because they have to. It's not like they are even trying to hide it.

Things like this deserve a knee-jerk reaction if you ask me.

[AZhitman]

We're not the thought police. Their motivations, the intended nature, what you "imagine", and any potential "could have beens" don't matter. You'll get nowhere with that. It's not illegal to hold certain beliefs - Yay America.

You're ascribing "hate" to something that might not be "hate" - It might simply be "I don't want some unqualified teacher taking responsibility for teaching my kids something that *I* should be responsible for making the decision on whether to teach them or not."

It's not illegal to believe homosexuality is wrong. I'm not saying that's where I stand, I'm saying it's a person's right to decide what's best for them, and their minor children.

Show me illegal discrimination against a protected class.

It was ok to dismiss Christmas and prayer, but it's not ok to ask that they wait until middle school to crack open the box of fabulous? How about some equal protections?

Again, don't misperceive my argumentativeness for outright support of this bill. I'm simply opposed to the intellectual dishonesty with which it's being portrayed.

[mattblancarte]

We're not the thought police. Their motivations, the intended nature, what you "imagine", and any potential "could have beens" don't matter. You'll get nowhere with that. It's not illegal to hold certain beliefs - Yay America.

I don't think that there is any question as to their motivations. They are religious in nature, and the same group of politicians has made that clear in the past.

I'm not even saying what they're thinking is illegal. I totally agree that it's not my place to control their thoughts. I can, however, criticize and judge their character.

You're ascribing "hate" to something that might not be "hate" - It might simply be "I don't want some unqualified teacher taking responsibility for teaching my kids something that *I* should be responsible for making the decision on whether to teach them or not."

Fair enough. There may be a handful of motivations behind wanting to shield children from the mention of homosexuality. Hate may not be at the root of all of them. It's absolutely driven by fear, though.

It's not illegal to believe homosexuality is wrong. I'm not saying that's where I stand, I'm saying it's a person's right to decide what's best for them, and their minor children.

No arguments there. As you noticed, I gave them some halfhearted praise for at least going through the legal motions in this case.

Show me illegal discrimination against a protected class.

I don't know what you mean by protected class. Sorry, my brain is in code-mode right now and I'm thinking of object/element classes lol. I'm having trouble making sense of it if you mean protected classroom.

It was ok to dismiss Christmas and prayer, but it's not ok to ask that they wait until middle school to crack open the box of fabulous? How about some equal protections?

I don't think equivalences can be made of teacher-led Christian prayer and teacher-led education. Teachers are educators. Teachers are not spiritual guides. Teaching kids about gay people is different than showing kids how it's done... in the butt.

Again, don't misperceive my argumentativeness for outright support of this bill. I'm simply opposed to the intellectual dishonesty with which it's being portrayed.

No worries I understand where you're coming from. I kinda shot from the hip on my first response and your arguments have merit.

[bigbadberry3]

Don't like it? Go to a private school .

[HashiriyaS14]

The measure is needed to make clear that the topic of homosexuality should not be taken up until high school, Campfield says. The amendment introduced Friday would limit the bill’s impact to prepared lesson plans and materials, so schools and teachers would be able respond to issues and questions about homosexuality without punishment, he said.

“Teachers could respond to that, but they couldn’t be offering materials,” he said. “They couldn’t say, ‘Today, we’re going to teach about homosexuality, lesbianism.’ That can’t be part of the course work.”

^^
Well shxt, color me misinformed.

I'll happily admit when I'm wrong/misinformed, and I was here. This is the last time I ever take a thread title from HuffPost without reading the source material.

My whole beef with it was that it would somehow keep teachers from acknowledging the family situation of students in LBGT families, but this doesn't sound like that at all, and thus I have zero beef.

[IBCoupe]

Greg's a big boy; he can handle both of us responding to one post.

We're not the thought police. Their motivations, the intended nature, what you "imagine", and any potential "could have beens" don't matter. You'll get nowhere with that. It's not illegal to hold certain beliefs - Yay America.

Their motivations as to what they believe? Absolutely fine. Their motivations as to what drove the legislation? Not absolutely fine. The thought police don't come into play when the legislators are espousing their beliefs as legislators. The thought police do come into play when the legislators are codifying their beliefs into law.

Show me illegal discrimination against a protected class.

It needn't fit the textbook definition of "illegal discrimination" to be discrimination. All kinds of things we discriminate against, and it's just a matter of where you stand on the justification of that discrimination. I'm okay with the government keeping blind people from obtaining driver's licenses. That's discrimination I can live with.

This isn't direct discrimination against a group of people, per se, but it is discriminatory against a group of people indirectly. This law seems really unnecessary, and that's my real objection to it. Was there a rash of pink-triangle parties at George Custer Elementary?

It was ok to dismiss Christmas and prayer, but it's not ok to ask that they wait until middle school to crack open the box of fabulous? How about some equal protections?

You're conflating two separate issues of supreme American law. The First Amendment and the Fourteenth.

[IBCoupe]

If nobody minds the threadjack too much, there's another recent TN (signed into law two days ago) law that's probably going to become much more important. Nissan came out against it. FedEx did the same.

And now I'll explain what the law says: No city, town, or county may pass an ordinance that expands existing protections against discrimination to include gays.

This bill prohibits any local government from imposing on any person an anti-discrimination practice, standard, definition or provision that varies in any manner from the definition of "discriminatory practices" under present law or other types of discrimination recognized by state law but only to the extent recognized by the state. Under present law, "discriminatory practices" means any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial, or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person or persons because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age or national origin.

Under this bill, any such anti-discrimination practice, standard, definition, or provision imposed on any such person by a local government prior to the effective date of this bill would be null and void. The above requirements would not apply with respect to employees of a local government.

Additionally, this bill clarifies that with regards to discriminatory practices and human rights, "sex" means the designation of the person as male or female as indicated on the person's birth certificate.

Why I say this is important is because the law is strikingly similar to language that Colorado tried to pass as an amendment to their State Constitution, that the Supreme Court struck down in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). That ruling came down after the Court said in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), that a Georgia law prohibiting oral and anal sex for all people was Constitutional when applied to gays, but before the Court overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), when Texas tried to explicitly prohibit gay sex.

Now, the Court in Romer and in Lawrence seem to treat gays as an especially-protected class, but they avoid getting too close to that kind of reasoning, and fail to explicitly say that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification" (meaning that, where a government makes a law that distinguishes between people on the basis of their sexual orientation, the Court applies strict scrutiny, assuming the law is invalid until the Government adequately shows that it's a good law).

It's occurred to me that the lawsuits challenging the Defense of Marriage Act could provide the Court an opportunity to hold that "sexual orientation" is a suspect classification upon which to base a law, but that seems unlikely. In all reality, the Court is going to strike down DoMA as a violation of the 10th Amendment, and never actually reach the juicy bits inside.

But this law, for which there have already been promises of suit, is more likely to allow the Supreme Court, if it gets to them, to go where it didn't in Romer and eliminate anti-gay statutes once and for all. One of the things that made it easy for the Court to strike down the Amendment in Romer was that it was a Constitutional Amendment, and the severity of the measure (it's really hard to undo, especially for the minority group targeted by it) led to them saying that this kind of discrimination against any minority group is wrong, rather than explicitly protecting gays. In Tennessee, the severity isn't the same, but the reasoning is. Keep an eye on this law.