Highly amusing.

Hahaha, that was funny. I wonder if the don't say gay bill covers lesbians (even though I know most people on this site would rather see lesbians uncovered). What I mean is, is it allowed for a teacher to say "lesbian" I hope Tennessee has covered that loophole.

I think the idea behind it is more complex than just "if we don't say gay they'll disappear" but I wonder what the actual motivation is. I suppose if you can't discuss homosexuality you can't "promote a homosexual lifestyle" which conservatives seem to feel educators often do. Leave it to the USA, less than a month after Stephen Harper was elected with a majority government the American south already has me saying "thank god I live in Canada" again.

I would hope the intent of the law is to keep first graders from rote instruction on "equality" talking points and instead focus on, you know, reading and math. Outside of English class junior and senior year (and, of course, health class) I can't even remember a single time it would have been appropriate to talk about ANY sort of sexual act.

This bill probably comes from a meaner place than what I guessed at above, but how big of a deal is it, really? Teachers shouldn't be talking about gays any more than they should talk about furries or S&M or even God-fearing, missionary position, just for procreation boning.

What if a student asks a question Invictus, about the issue? Health class and biology class seem relevant, as you've said, studying books which might have themes dealing with sexuality, what about in a history class when discussing rights movements, or a politics class? My school offered courses covering social sciences including psychology, might not sexual identity be relevant there? This isn't just about first graders, it includes high school students as well. And more to the point, as I understand it the law isn't limited to the classroom. What if a student is struggling on their own, and can't go to their parents or another adult figure for help or guidance. This law would prevent teachers from helping an LGBT student, would muzzle them even if they tried to give a likely bothered student some much needed advice. School is a social setting, a lot more goes on there than just plain learning about math, and I wish people would stop pretending otherwise.

I'm not going to pretend to know what to do in situations like that, but the idea of separating the insufferable sort of airhead liberal talking points from the classroom is a good one. Obviously students in crisis should able to talk to a trusted teacher like you said (though if they're that close I'd assume any teacher would break this law), but a calculus teacher waxing poetically on the latest gay marriage story is rather unhelpful for the students' education.

I haven't read the bill and I don't even think I would support such a move if it came to my own state, but there are some legitimate positions to take here apart from blanket support of total sexual openness.

And I don't see the problem with "equality talking points," Invictus...

They are, after all...equal, yes?

To use the oh-so-familiar refrain once more--if two men or women love each other as much as a man and a woman might, why shouldn't their love be recognized as being "equal?" And, again, if a man and a woman can hate each other and still marry, why not two of the same sex?

"The Sanctitiy of Marriage?"

Sorry, but the moment the divorce rate hits those high percentage marks...and the amount of infidelity that occurs even among our "most respected" leaders--seemingly not a week goes by without some sort of sex scandal involving a politician--any sanctity of marriage there might ever have been goes out the window.



They're equal, and let it be taught that they're equal--that doesn't mean shoving the kids faces in it, but just, say, if they ask, let them know, yes, they are, in fact, equal.

This same sort of taboo was in place 100 years ago--just conceringing interracial marriage.

We teach our kids now that's OK, so why not do the same for same sex marriage?

This is exactly it. Look at how you get on the equality high horse as soon as an opinion is raised which differs from the liberal dogma only a little. No one's even brought up the Sanctity of Marriage here. You're using a talking point to steer the conversation to meet your own pre-conceived convictions. That's fine here, not so fine when there's a captive audience of children.

Really obiwanobiwan, you post proved everything I was trying to say. This is what can happen in the classroom when this subject comes up, this subject with no real educational merit since it's basically subjective opinion. I'll say again I probably wouldn't support this sort of rule in my own state, but the way you responded shows that there is an issue here.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the issue as:

1. I don't adhere to "liberal dogma," I'm just for treating folks equally on this regard, I could care less if the Red Elephants or Blue Donkeys are leading the charge for that sort of equality.

2. I didn't introduce anything not implied by the the idea of banning discussion on gays in general; "The Sanctity of Marriage" is an idea inextricably linked to the issue, so to mention one is to imply the other.

3. "It's basically subjective opinion?" I don't think equality in this regard IS subjective, this is a matter of civil rights--if we make the statement that such rights are subjective, by that stretch, we might go so far as to say that you or I might treat blacks as second-class citizens still because their civil rights aren't apparent or granted or anything of the sort, jsut a "subjective" idea to be batted around.

4. I'll ask it again--WHY NOT have this discussion with kids? I think they're more perceptive than most folks give them credit for, they can handle a bit of information on the subject or, at the very least, learn what they're REALLY saying when they say "That's so gay!" I don't react as vicerally to that as some folks I know, but that is, in my mind, a slur that is being proved to be more and more an inexcusable slur and something that msut be removed from our vernacular...we once referrenced those qualities we didn't care for by relating them to the N-word or to the Irish or Jews or whoever the scapegoat of society was at the time. Right now, it's the LGBTs that are "free game" for everyone to beat up on and make reference to in a derogatory fashion--ultimately leading to a derogatory attitude. The solution to this ARE THE CHILDREN...they must be taught this is NOT acceptable; turning a blind eye and keeping it out of the classrooms won't work, they're kids, they'll still use it as an insult unless they're instructed on the subject--and some, of course, will still use it as an insult, but as a result of this education, some won't, and the problem will begin to be treated.



A proactive attitude is required for GBT civil rights, not a blind eye, and such an attitude is fostered with kids and the classroom.

It is against the law to ambush fags, and issue them a justifiable correction for their overt sexual depravity.

They should STFU and be happy.

The bill says, specifically, that it's prohibited to discuss in any manner any sexuality except heterosexuality with children below...ninth grade, I think?

The biggest problem with it, to me, is the "except heterosexuality" part. You don't want your teachers to talk about sex to kids? Ban it all.

sacred digits +1

Honestly I don't really understand this bill. It's not like kids aren't going to hear about gay anyway. Lol. It just hamstrings teachers. Shame.

It's a teacher's duty to educate the students when they hear one calling the other "gay" or "fag." Same as if a student called another a "nigger" or a "jew" etc.

Teachers need to be able to educate students about why these insults are offensive and gay-rights are surely part of that discussion.

This law is indefensible. I assume that you are playing devils advocate for the sake of promoting the discussion which is fine but I hope that you do personally condemn this law for the bigoted rubish it is.

@Invictus,

Did you have neither a Modern Politics, nor a Debate, nor a Psychology course in your HS? I had all three and it seems to me that various topics about gays would be appropriate in all three. Do you disagree?

@Obi - On talking point 3. Marriage was around long before the law began recognizing it. Most people with an aversion to same sex marriage have no problem with equality under the law. Their problem is with the term marriage being used for it. They view marriage as ordained of God. Hence civil unions are usually considered ok by them. Not saying I agree with it and some find the whole concept so revolting they don't even want civil unionns, but they are the same ones who are dying off, like my mother in law.

@ Invictus - I'm so goddamn tired of people pretending that issues regarding gay rights are a matter of personal opinion, down to conscience. It's prejudice, plain and simple. We, at least ostensibly, don't tolerate racism, or overt misogyny, and I'm just so frustrated by the fact that the political right is so determined to prevent anyone seeing anti-LGBT prejudice for being seen as what it really is. We don't just say, "well racism is just down to personal opinion", we would expect teachers to step in in a student was being racist, and perhaps explain a little about racial sensitivity. But god no, if a teacher wanted to do that with regards to LGBT issues? My god, that should be against the law!

Being anti-gay is the new way of coming out.

Ugh, that should say "I'm just so frustrated by the fact that the political right is so determined to prevent anyone seeing anti-LGBT prejudice for what it really is" and "we would expect teachers to step in if a student was being racist".

Draugnar, Invictus, this issue simply comes down to this:

Do you want to occupy the same position as the White Citizen's Council in history? I firmly think that in fifty years, our children or grandchildren will wonder how on Earth we could have been that willing to discriminate... much like we today find it absurd that our parents or grandparents generation were racist. It doesn't make sense.

And the bullshit argument (and it IS bullshit, sorry) that people don't like calling it "marriage" is crap, simply because no minister or suchlike would be forced by law to marry anybody he/she doesn't want to (which is the case now... for example, I couldn't MAKE a Catholic priest marry me, because I'm not Catholic. He only marries those who he wants to.) We're talking about equality before the law, friends.

You want to discriminate? The prepare yourself to be lumped in the same category as the KKK, friends. Its the same bullshit in a new era.

@Jack_Klein - What part of my stating I didn't agree with it didn't you understand?

The simple solution is to cease calling anything in law a marriage. Legally make all unions called civil unions and no longer issue marriage licenses or cfertificates so that whatever church and congregation holds the ceremony calls it a marriage but in legal parlance it is a civil union. Then LGBT marriages can occur in churches that except alternative relationships and the religious right would have no say in anything because they don't own the word marriage.

@Jack

You kind of lose the moral high ground when you completely disregard what someone wrote...

For any of my fellow web-dippers afflicted with this insidious disease, homosexuality, do not despair! I offer counselling for your problem.

http://exodusinternational.org/find-help/leaving-homosexuality/

God bless you all(even the Jews).

"Their problem is with the term marriage being used for it. They view marriage as ordained of God."

so prevent straight marriage, separate church and state, and allow churchs sanctify whatever marriage they wish. Meanwhile states need only register civil partnerships. (also one church may choose to recognise gay marriage as within 'gods' will, and the state should have no say in stopping them)

All this is absurd. Gay marriage, actual marriage, is allowed in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. These places have not ground to a halt, life goes on. The people who don't like it have learned to deal with it, and most people living in these places just don't care very much. The USA needs to face up to reality, and the bigoted blowhards so opposed to anything different need to learn that the world does not, and should not revolve around their beliefs.

the US is different, hard-liners are listened to. They have more influence, the modeates don't get as much media coverage.

i think it is a matter of scale as much as democratic structure...

There are also many cures for homosexuality readily available to those among the afflicted in the United States.

I'm not sure why hard-liners would have more influence in the states than elsewhere.
You'd think that a two-party system would actually silence the hard-liners more as there is always a majority government.

My guess would be is that there are more hard-line nutjobs in The States than people feel comfortable admitting.

[poorly researched point] Wiki suggests that gay-marriage support is somewhere around 50% which is double what it was 15 years ago so I'm going to hazard a guess and say that America has a gross amount of soulless bigots rather than it being a fringe minority [/poorly researched point]

Draugnar, at what point did I accuse you for having those views?

I just said that if you line up on that side of the issue, you're lumped in with the KKK. You assumed that I was saying you were doing so.... when in fact I did no such thing.

Don't be overly sensitive, sir.