Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

8th grade, Alas...

I had Health Class in 4th, 8th and 10th grades.

Less that 2% of population is gay. FIND something else important to teach......

Greg: like hate and intolerance?

Come on Tennessee...I thought you were better than this. How disappointing.

snarky68

Why would or should this be tought to any child before 8th grade??

Because sexuality is one of the most basic fundaments of humanity!

Less that 2% of population is gay. FIND something else important to teach......

Less that 2% are fundie wingnut lunatics bent on sharia-style law. They need to find a life and get out of everybody else's.

Right, because it won't make it harder to understand and accept gay people if we put off even mentioning such a thing exists to kids.

What are people so afraid of? Since there are more white people than ethnic minorities, should we also just not speak of them as well?

Less that 2% of population is gay. FIND something else important to teach

Less than 2% of kids are in wheelchairs, what's your point greg?
Shall we not mention disabilities in your world either?

oops, I read your next comments and the troll alert sounded...farm animals?
pleeez

Sharia Christian what's the difference. You cannot legislate morality (I do not believe homosexual people are immoral) and you will do more harm to those children than good.

Unbelievable!

There you go...ignore it, homosexuality, and it will go away.

Less than 2 percent of the population is gay...

So, the right is back to excluding minorities? At least they used to try to hide it...

Less than 2% of kids are in wheelchairs, what's your point greg?

A better question is...what's yours? I fail to see what disabilities have to do with teaching classes that ADDRESS REPRODUCTION. Read the article, people. Instead of just reading the title and jumping to conclusions.

Now if they only pass a law that forbids divorce, war, poverty, abortion, adultery and liberalism from being discussed all the problems of the country will go away.

I think the brains of the Tennessee lawmakers went downstream with the flood waters.

This of course would be almost impossible to manage. So in any middle school current events class we can't disscuss anything about a "first openly Gay [insert job title here]. How about that historical implementation of Don't Ask Don't Tell, or it's repeal. I guess we will have to skip certain parts of our history. No more having cildren bring articles in to discuss what is happening in the world in civics class, can't risk them bringing in something about the Gay Rights Parade, or about legislative action related to Gay Marrage.

But, don't worry about his bill, this is already a contingency plan to address it if this bill is ever signed into law.

Stand Up for Takei Rights

George Takei has just the response these guys deserve.

http://youtu.be/dRkIWB3HIEs

>

A better question is...what's yours? I fail to see what disabilities have to do with teaching classes that ADDRESS REPRODUCTION. Read the article, people. Instead of just reading the title and jumping to conclusions

Pat N
My point was, and I'll type slowly......Greg said why teach about homosexuality when less than 2% are gay. My reponse to his comment was Should we not discuss disabilities because only a small % are disabled?
BTW I read the article

It's about time. I think the P.C. Liberal agenda in public schools actually sets out to create gay kids. What does extolling the virtues of same sex relationships to impressionable young children have to do with academics? How does learning about Adam and Steve prepare kids for higher education? Why is the gay subject being financed by tax payers? The Left complains about religious indoctrination in public schools, well I'm complaining about gay indoctrination in public schools. And that is exactly what it is, indoctrination.

I agree with greg, find something important to teach.

How does learning about Adam and Steve prepare kids for higher education?

You never know! Perhaps they may have employers in the future that have Adam and Steve relationships. Without knowledge of such things, the kids may end up looking and sounding stupid when they realize it.

I think a much better question would be "How does purposely not mentioning to kids about Adam and Steve prepare kids for the real world?"

Apparently a lot of Republicans are interested in ushering in the Neo Dark Ages.

And apparently they believe holding their hands over their eyes and ears will keep the world out.

Pathetic. So much for education, or tolerance. Further, these people are proof there is no 'intelligent design' and that evolution apparently hasn't eliminated ignorance yet.

What a huge step backwards. And for the people who say Obama is making this country the laughing stock of the world, clearly you aren't paying attention to Texas, Tennessee and so many others...

It's about time. I think the P.C. Liberal agenda in public schools actually sets out to create gay kids.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

If I read this correctly, it says that students also cannot mention homosexuality while in school if they are in a grade below 8th...is that correct? If so, how completely and utterly discriminatory towards kids whose parent(s) are gay. Are they not allowed to mention that their Dad and his partner took them to the county fair over the weekend under this new legislation? Or would it only be in the confines of sex ed classes that "the gay" cannot be mentioned? I just see this whole thing as stupid. It is yet another attempt to legislate a certain view of morality and that I find wrong and scary all at once.

It's about time. I think the P.C. Liberal agenda in public schools actually sets out to create gay kids.

How? Do you really believe that it is possible to turn someone gay by promoting tolerance? If heterosexuality isn't a choice, why is homosexuality?

Why is the gay subject being financed by tax payers? The Left complains about religious indoctrination in public schools, well I'm complaining about gay indoctrination in public schools.

I think you're missing a pretty important difference between the two: gay people exist in the real world, your god does not. Teaching kids tolerance and about other people is important, teaching them about some god (which there are far too many to actually accomplish) is not.

Nope Dr. Reid, sadly some people out there actually think that gay folks are 'made'- much like gingerbread wo/men. Usually though, those most afraid of catching 'gay cooties' are those who are more insecure in their own sexuality and live in constant fear that the thought police could detect a fleeting impure thought concerning their same gender. The rest are just nut-bags!

Why does a 6 year old, much less an 13 year old kid need to know such things? Isn't there enough crap going on in the world without stealing more of a kids childhood away? Young children don't know, or even care about laws, or political correctness, or tolerance. They're kids for Christs sake. They'll have plenty of time to learn about the world when they can grasp concepts such as homosexuality and politics.

When I was in Junior High school there were two guys in our class that were suspected of being gay which turned out to be true. You know what happened, nothing. Nobody cared. Sure we poked fun behind their back once in a while, but that's where it ended. They were never harassed or molested, or bullied, in fact, they had plenty of straight friends. Very adult for 14 year old's, would you not agree? It wasn't a matter of being tolerant as much as it was accepting them for who they were. This was in 1968, well before the P.C. card was played. I was in a High School history class taught by a gay teacher. You know what happened, nothing, because nobody cared. He was a good teacher, and that's what really counted.

If anyone wants to get in my face for being intolerant consider this. I am not tolerant, I accept. I see it as a big difference. Tolerant translates to put up with, like tolerating a loudmouth in a theater. Accept means to, well, accept, without condition. Semantics, perhaps, but that's just my point of view. The bottom line, I don't like the idea of taxpayers funding anything that falls outside normal curriculum. I don't believe the indoctrination of gay pride and religion falls into that category.

I think you're selling kids short. And I also think the median blows the issue out of proportion with the help of religious fanatics.

And BTW QuiteContrary, I pretty much expected a personal insult from you.

bontox

Because sexuality is one of the most basic fundaments of humanity!

Agreed, but you tell me how:
1 you would explain it to a 10 yr old
2 would the child ingest that information.
Children have to be at the right age to properly learn about different subjects. Thats why they learn addition in the first grade and not geometry.

Dr. Reid

Can you point me to the website where you bought your "Dr." from. I need to add that to my moniker to add credibilty.

sodomy,fisting, promescuity, aids,syphillis,gonorhea,genital warts,swallowing,immorality,

That stuff pertains to the hetero world as well. Hell, it was all invented by heteros! Ever read your bible? (Nah, probably not).

Tired-2103560

The nerve of the morally correct to deny children to be educated on sodomy,fisting, promescuity, aids,syphillis,gonorhea,genital warts,swallowing,immorality,and all that pertains to anything queer.

I defy you to come up with even one verifiable instance of any one of these practices being taught in any public school, to any pupil, of any age, at any time, anywhere in America.

This is a solution looking for a problem that has never existed and will never exist.

I love how so few people bothered to read the article before posting... what maroons.

maroons - arn't those cookies made with coconut

/s

maroons - arn't those cookies made with coconut

/s

I think you're thinking of macaroons. I'm pretty sure maroon is a color.

And BTW QuiteContrary, I pretty much expected a personal insult from you.

Geeze Virgil, lighten up already. If you saw my opinion that those who refuse to accept the fact that there are gay men, women and children in this world are either deeply insecure or nut-bags and identify with either camp- it's not really my problem.

I think you're selling kids short.

I believe that you are the one selling kids short if you think that in this day and age they are all magically innocent until high school. The instance of teen pregnancy in the 12 to 15 age group is absolutely abhorrent and I am not of the opinion (there it is again!) that ignorance will improve the situation. Also, for the perfect illustration of my point, please see post #1.24 and then tell me I am wrong. I still will not believe you, but feel free to tell me anyway!

As for Tired: I believe that your moniker is excruciatingly apt, as I simply do not know just where to start to unravel your tightly wound cloak of ignorance- the mere thought of doing so exhausts me dreadfully!

First off what a horrible title for this article, "Teaching Homosexuality"!

The whole idea of banning teachers from admitting that homosexuals exist, is just about the most ass backwards BS I have ever heard. The American South never seizes to amaze!

Less that 2% of population is gay. FIND something else important to teach......

Yeh, like our rights under the Constitution!

Marq

Come on - I even used the /s tag. Sheesh.

I agree spg64...WTF is wrong with the AP? They always have headlines as if its a zero sum game... I have seen titles that totally misrepresent the stories from both the right and left.

Its not a ban on teaching homosexuality...its a ban on even acknowledging homosexuals exist. Big friggin difference. You mentioning or acknowledging that gay people are here, are among your friends and neighbors is a violation of the law. Wow talk about D-E-N-I-A-L.

Ironically, this if not overturned by the rational people of the country, rules like this would lead to more exploration of sexuality....more confusion and experimentation and of course suicides of gay children.

So stupid. What next, Woodstock caused gay priest molestation? Oh thats already happening. Good Grief!

I love this...From Sulu of Star trek Fame...Don't say Gay...Say Takei!!!

Michael in S J

Dr. Reid

Can you point me to the website where you bought your "Dr." from. I need to add that to my moniker to add credibilty. *credibility*

Dear Michael,

I applaud you in your desire to gain credibility, I am eager to help!

While it does seem that your credibility needs work, as your needlessly confrontational response and overall nonobjective attitude would suggest, you do not need to fear, one does not need a PhD to earn credibility, instant or otherwise. I would argue that earning a PhD adds none if the person has no wish to be credible, or no desire for his or her points to be taken seriously.

However, if credibility is your goal, then you are already halfway in meeting your goal.

The most important, step in attaining credibility is forming a desire to be credible, after that the rest is easy.

Simply strive for your post to be objective, replace your Pathos with Logos and avoid engaging in personal attacks.

A good example would be implying that your's truly purchased his degree at a *website* rather than at a certain university in Boston. (I harbor no hard feelings by the way, forgive and forget is one of my many motto(s).)

By forsaking emotional and responses and appeals as well as limiting confirmation bias when reviewing information, your credibility, and even your maturity should naturally increase!

As you mature, you will grow more and more aware of the harm that insults bring to constructive conversations, which will hopefully motivate you further in your desire to refrain from such comments.

Soon, you will find that those you choose, to engage in debates with, regardless of whether they agree with you or not, will begin to replace calling you a "troll", and "ignorant", with calling you a "nice intellectual human being".

P.S. I would like to point out that Virgil is my friend, while I disagree with him on many issues I befriended him because I found his post to be generally respectful, and engaging in debates with him was enjoyable.

That is what friendship (on Newsvine) is all about! Don't just befriend those you agree with, befriend those you find agreeable!

Final tip to defuse early tensions, I like to sign of with...

Let us debate as friends, not argue as enemies.

Sincerely, Dr. Reid

Well said my friend.

Why does a 6 year old, much less an 13 year old kid need to know such things? Isn't there enough crap going on in the world without stealing more of a kids childhood away? Young children don't know, or even care about laws, or political correctness, or tolerance.

I can think of a dozen different ways the topic might come up in the day to day school yard. Now, I don't know why or in what situation some particular eight year old might need to know something about the topic, nor do you and I'm damn sure that lawmaker way over in the capital doesn't know.

The child's teacher knows.

I'm not talking about teaching tolerance or political correctness or teaching laws or teaching politics.... I'm just talking about teaching, plain and simple. We hire teachers, we train them, trust them with our children and we pay them to be professionals... so let them be.

I'm not saying teachers should go out of their way to bring up topics that are not in the core curriculum; I'm just saying it's stupid to gag them.

The child's teacher knows.

I'm not talking about teaching tolerance or political correctness or teaching laws or teaching politics.... I'm just talking about teaching, plain and simple. We hire teachers, we train them, trust them with our children and we pay them to be professionals... so let them be.

I think that this goes to the heart of education in this nation: Americans, for whatever reasons, don't trust teachers and that is leading to the war on education. It really is sad and simply another example of the disrespect and indignity that comes with the position.

greg m-1174186 how about we talk about beating / pounding your little girl or boy down. You know what we are talking about.

Is it ok we talk about that ???

Wow...I am so glad that my 12 and 10 yr old have already learned everything about sex, reproduction and sexual differences....maybe if more parents would actually step up to the plate and be honest and open with their children we would have a better world and far less teen pregnancy and ignorance about the subject!

The information that our children are given directly effects how they are raised. There are certain things that parents should have the right to protect their children from. Sexuality is one of the fundamental reasons that our nation is in such a state of moral compromise and debauchery. If the homosexual parents of children want to teach their children about sex at such a young age then they can do this at home.

It seems to me that there was a time when kissing in public was not an accepted practice. These days we are berated with sex in our culture. Sex should be kept in the bedroom where it belongs. Lets get back to basic values.

PS I do not hate homosexuals. I make it a point not to hate anyone due to the fact that we are all hypocritical. My statements above are not even indicative of the lifestyle I led during the early years of my life. Because of this I do not judge people for what they do or how they chose to live. I may disagree with a persons life choices but I always remember that I too made life choices of a similar sort.

The state is getting way too involved with our countries children, and the fault lies with the parents. Yes we put trust in teachers, too much trust, as teachers represent the state, and the state dictates what your child will learn. I'd wager that a great many parents in this country haven't a clue what their child is being taught because their too busy busting their humps to put groceries on the table, and when they do find out it's probably on the news, and by then it's too late.

The political agenda teaching needs to stop because the educational system in this country is turning Stalin-esq.

Problem solved!! From now on there will be no pre-adult homosexuals in Tennessee!!!

Seriously, while I support avoiding discussion of sex topics other than avoiding sexual molestation with K through about 4th grade, students should be taught and be allowed to discuss sexuality long before 9th grade. They're going to find out about it whether you try to ban it or not, so you may as well have an educator teach them rather than the media!!

They're going to find out about it whether you try to ban it or not

I'm still wait for one person to show me where homosexuality...or any mention of it, for that matter...was "banned" in the final version of the bill.

Should they even be teaching sexuality in k-8 in the first place? Kids in the 8th grade are usually entering their puberty stage and should start learning about human sexuality, but in the home kids are raised in and the shows they are exposed to on tv and films, kids are asking questions at very early ages on what's this and how does it work kind of questions.

I recently watched the film Little Fockers and couldn't believe the script for the kids. A little boy asking the dad if his sister poops out of her vagina. WTH! I turned it off and that was it for me and that film. I don't understand how anyone with a brain would think that would be funny or entertaining coming out of a kids mouth.

When kids see two adults kissing and then try to mimic it, should we then ban kissing in public?

I think this is more directed in not teaching people (kids) about different kinds of human sexuality. This has nothing to do with sexuality, it has everything to do with not teaching kids that gay people are people and part of the human race.

We seem to be taking one step forward and three steps back. No one complained when they were teaching heterosexuality to them, not that they want to include teaching kids about other different kids of sexuality it's now all of a sudden a problem.

For me, it's important to teach kids in school that there are all kinds of different people in the world, including gay people.

Kreepy Krawler

My step-daughter is 12 yrs old just finishing 6th and she already has bigger boobs than me AND started her period at xmas!!!! Puberty sometimes starts before 8th grade!

And her mother just caught a boy with his hand down her shirt last week! It happens sooner than when I was growing up for sure!!!

I'd like to see the actual wording of the bill but have not yet been able to find it through Google.

As far as I'm concerned, banning any mention of what "gay" is will backfire. As the article points out, this will make things difficult if there is a child with gay parents. I mean, honestly, no one is going to start explaining gay sex to little kids. The Louisiana law mentioned is silly, too:

A Louisiana law forbids the use of sexually explicit materials depicting homosexuality in sex education classes.

How do they define "explicit"--when I was in sex ed in high school, I didn't even see any heterosexual materials that I would call "explicit." Sex education in school is supposed to be factual but not graphic.

I don't understand why anyone has to advertise their sexuality to these kids. I'm of course suggesting that straight people should be forbidden from wearing wedding rings around them. Forbidden from talking about their wives/husbands/girlfriends/boyfriends.

It's ok for a kid to talk about their dad. It's ok for a kid to talk about their mom. But if they talk about their "mom and dad", send them to detention. They should have the sense to know that talking about their parents' heterosexuality is inappropriate for kids that age.

Virgil and Greg, you are poster kids for what is wrong with our country today. Who are you to decide what is a "normal" curriculum? Times change and the curriculum has to adapt, it's that simple. Teaching something is the same as promoting something.

I hate to burst your bubble but your connection between educating students about homosexuality and the propensity of them to magically transform to gay just doesn't track. By that logic, I should be murderer because I enjoy reading murder mysteries. See how silly that sounds?

As for Greg's 2% comment, that's even more ludicrous. Touching on bonos_rama's comment, the people believing that Sharia law is pretty small, so using Greg's logic, we should dismiss it entirely.

I believe in being fully informed and when children are fully informed about topics such as sexuality, they can make better decisions. After all, schools don't exist in a vacuum.

So, it is OK to teach these young kids about sex, but while teaching them about sex, you can't let them know that homosexuals exists?

Yeah, I can see how that makes sense. /s

greg, what % of folks are bi-sexual. You also categorized homosexuality as a fettish. Since when is loving or being attracted to another human being a fettish? Since you like using %, what % of young women do you think have been molested by a member of their own family through incest, perhaps before they even start the first grade? Truth, there was a time when alot of incest was tolerated, as well, because we were not permitted to say anything.

It's about time. I think the P.C. Liberal agenda

Most mainstream liberals agree that overzealous political correctness is stupid.

in public schools actually sets out to create gay kids.

No. Liberals are intelligent enough to realize that gay people are born that way, and straight people are born straight.

What does extolling the virtues of same sex relationships to impressionable young children have to do with academics?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This bill would prevent anyone saying "the first gay -blank-", even if it's very relevant. Also, teaching kids about diversity generally leads to less bullying. Are you in favor of bullying?

No one is "extolling the virtues of same-sex relationships".

How does learning about Adam and Steve prepare kids for higher education? Why is the gay subject being financed by tax payers?

It' part of anti-bullying and sex-ed.

The Left complains about religious indoctrination in public schools

Because it's unconstitutional.

well I'm complaining about gay indoctrination in public schools. And that is exactly what it is, indoctrination.

No, it's teaching kids that many people are gay and that it's no reason to bully them (or beat them so bad they need hospitalization -- yes, this has happened. Look it up on Google.) If schools aught about diversity in an all-white neighborhood, would you complain about black indoctrination?

Why would or should this be tought to any child before 8th grade??

This is not about teaching; it is about freedom of speech (or, rather, the abridgment thereof):

A bill passed Friday by the Tennessee Senate would forbid public school teachers and students in grades kindergarten through eight from discussing the fact that some people are gay.

Even if asked, teachers cannot discuss the reality of gays in our communities.

Well, all I can say on the matter is ???

Hmmmm !!! When I was young we talked about sex when we were in around 8-10 years old. We had it all wrong, and had no clue as to what the heck we were talking about. LOL

As far as educating the children ?? Well with all the crud in the news, televison, music, movies, magazines, newpapers, ... Don't ya think it might be wise to make kids aware of the basics, just so they are not confused and scared to death about things they hear, see or read about ??

Teaching sexuality and homosexuality is fine by me. People a long time ago use to keep their sexuality hidden from the people they were around, but in private, they were being who they really are, GAY. Today it's out in the open and the gay people have decided to come out of the closet and be who they were meant to be.

Sexuality in schools should be taught, but don't exclude gay people, because they are people that have a sexuality just like everyone else.

The bottom line is, if you are born heterosexual, you cannot be taught to be gay, Human Sexuality is just something that needs to be taught so people can see that there are people born different and have different sexualities. I have gay friends. It doesn't bother me one bit and sometimes they have watched my kids. No big deal. I trust them, we grew up in school together, college etc.

I think the bigots are making this into something it's not. They only thing from this article I'm reading is that the Nashville Tenn. Senate is filled with bigots supported by bigots.

Well stepping on gays and putting legislative time and effort into continually re-defining marriage is just doing a wonder for the economy - it would seem Teapublicans only vote to block social programs and eliminate collective bargaining, and yet have produced nothing in the way of real budgets, jobs bills or even a reasonable explanation as to why Corporations getting State and Federal aid and the wealthiest get a tax break while everyone is being asked to tighten their belts?

Why does a 6 year old, much less an 13 year old kid need to know such things?

Because a 6 and a 13 year old live in the real world where they will interact with other kids and society who may or may not tell them things about sex, try to have sex with them etc etc. I know when I was about 6 years old, I had older kids telling me all sorts of crazy stories about sex and what it was, and how you do it. It is completely asinine to think that you should just not mention anything about this to a child all that does is open up room for some person to fill their head with mis-information. Not to mention you might catch something in the news, or see it in a newspaper or in a movie or TV show.

This is just as foolish as thinking if you don't tell kids that condoms prevent pregnancy they just won't have sex. Life will happen whether or not you try to hide it and burying your head in the sand while your entire body is exposed doesn't do anything to protect you.

Remember that there are people who like to get too close to kids, and these people are seldom the ones you think will do this, like police officers, priests/pastors, littlel eague coaches, etc. Every time one of these cases is reported, parents always say, "We never expected him/her, he was always so good to the kids and they loved him/her."

Ignorance is not bliss. Stop making such a big deal out of sex. Teach it as part of life. I believe the parents are more afraid of the subject than their kids.

I'm having a seriously hard time trying to figure out how you're equating teaching kids about how to spot and avoid chid predators with sexual relations.

That is truly disturbing.

You seem to have a difficult time understanding anything. Just keep your kids in ignorance. You will be happy. Since I have seen others attempt to explain differnt points of view to you and see the results. I will pass.

LOL...typical. Can't argue the comment with intelligence? Attack the poster instead. My kid is a 19 year old and a virgin who was taught that she should treat her body with respect and expect others to do the same.

Apparently you would have rathered I would have said to her "Ahh...you're just a kid and can't control yourself anyway. Go have sex. Just get on the pill first."...and done so when she was 10 years old.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

GEDDE--------

Fistgate II: High School Students Given "Fisting Kits" At Kevin ...

Dec 8, 2009 ... Obama's “Safe Schools Czar” Promoted “Fisting” to Children (Video) ..... the future of mankind is at risk if kids aren't taught in school ...
gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/.../fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given- fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/ - Cached

►

#1.28 - Fri May 20, 2011 7:32 PM EDT

Gedde

Tired-2103560

The nerve of the morally correct to deny children to be educated on sodomy,fisting, promescuity, aids,syphillis,gonorhea,genital warts,swallowing,immorality,and all that pertains to anything queer.

I defy you to come up with even one verifiable instance of any one of these practices being taught in any public school, to any pupil, of any age, at any time, anywhere in America.

This is a solution looking for a problem that has never existed and will never exist.

you wanted an example of this immoral crap being taught in schools---heres one for your denial

"Fistgate" was not as complicated but it is still a nasty situation.

First of all, Jennings did not "preside over" the so-called "Fistgate" scandal. He wasn't even there.

In 2000, Mass Resistance, entered unauthorized in a state conference, "Teach-Out," that was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the GLSEN. This conference was held at Tufts University.

Included among the conference-goers were preadolescents, some as young as 12, who were (like the rest of Teach-Out's attendees) allowed to ask questions about sex in a safe environment.

One student asked what fisting was, and was answered with an explanation. This led the incident to be dubbed "Fistgate" by Camenker and others. A person working for Camenker's organization, Scott Whiteman, taped some of the students without their knowledge. As a result of the outcry that was generated when parents heard tapes of the event, Margot Abels, a state employee who participated in the discussion, and two other state employees were fired.

Abels later sued the Massachusetts Department of Education, Camenker, and Whiteman for "violating her civil rights and the state's antiwiretapping law."

In 2001, she was not only reinstated but was also given back pay via arbitration. The arbitrator, Marc Greenbaum ruled that:

Abels was not acting on behalf of the Department of Education, but said the department had knowledge of and "supported" her participation in the presentation.

He also said:

that her participation was "authorized by her superiors, and her conduct, while controversial, did not violate then-established department guidelines."

And here is my favorite part, regarding the tape:

He also said that the tape was "misleading" because portions of it, which contained "important messages about AIDS prevention, abstinence, postponement, alternative forms of sexual intimacy and the need for students to enforce their own boundaries of personal security," were missing.

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-obama-appointment-makes-religious.html

SMEAR: High school students received "fisting kits" at 2001 GLSEN conference

REALITY: Planned Parenthood distributed safe sex kits including "instructions for how to make a 'dental dam.' " Conservative bloggers have followed http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-2001-glsen-conference/">Hoft's lead in claiming that "fisting kits" -- often placed in quotes -- were distributed at the 2001 GLSEN/Boston conference. But those bloggers have presented no evidence that the kits distributed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts were actually intended for fisting. Indeed, while the conservative newspaper Massachusetts News - cited by Hoft -- http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/4_April/apfist~1.htm">reported in 2001 that the kits were "intended for 'fisting' or oral sex," the paper described the kit's contents as "a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a 'dental dam' out of the material," and offered no support for their claim that the kits were "intended for 'fisting.'" FoxNews.com has http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/obamas-safe-schools-czar-tied-lewd-readings/">reported that Hoft "alleged that Jennings and GLSEN were involved in Planned Parenthood's purported distribution of 'fisting kits,'" but that the kit "was actually for making a 'dental dam' -- designed to prevent STD transmission during oral sex."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912150012#11

And so goes more misinformation from Tired -- you are the only one spreading "immoral crap," Tired.

Exactly Gedde. What could possibly be taught other then the fact that they exist?? This law is aimed at the ignorant people that think homosexuality is a choice, which it is not.

I never chose to love boobs.

Some people like farm animals.

Are we really going to waste time on a small % of peoples fetishes?

Gedde

We're losing our collective minds here, folks.

IMO, it's just one part of a a full frontal assault by these theocratic fascists to eliminate any and all things they consider a part of liberal thought. Oh, and it's obviously a major part of their let's fix the economy initiative. /sarc.

I'm sure this legislation will create many new jobs.

Well, someone is going to have to excise all of the ghey codewords from all of the textbooks and library books.

Words like rainbow, gay, flit, fag, swish, drag, glee, Lance...

American Illuminati

I never chose to love boobs.

Correct! I dig me some boobs. When I was very young I knew I did, but didn’t know why. It would have been nice to learn about it early on in a structured setting instead of having to rely on my brother’s mutually ignorant interpretation. :)

Jim watkins-441964

I'm sure this legislation will create many new jobs.

Yeah! Jobs like curriculum gestapos. And lookouts making sure kids don't touch themselves.

greg m-1174186 wrote:

Some people like farm animals.

So much for any credibility you may have had.

Are we really going to waste time on a small % of peoples fetishes?

Sexual orientation isn't a fetish.

Some people like farm animals

Yeah, they are called farmers.

"I'm sure this legislation will create many new jobs." Green jobs or Union?

Badda boom!

Was there a joke somewhere in there?

FrJack: The 'joke' is apparently in TN, but I do hear that it's wildly contagious among members of the GOP!

American Illuminati .. now that you love boobs should you suck everyone?? or maybe leave the kids and married women alone???

Was that an attempt at communicating in English??

Let me take a stab at what you may have meant to say seeing as how you certainly didn't succeed in saying it.

now that you love boobs

Not just now, I've loved them as long as I can remember.

should you suck everyone??

What?? I don't suck. I don't think everyone sucks. This is just weird.

or maybe leave the kids and married women alone???

I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise. But I acknowledge that they exist. The kids see that boobs exist, so acknowledging boobs when kids do is only the responsible thing to do. When a kid asks about boobs, I don't think it's appropriate to respond

"Boobs? How do you know about boobs? Did you see someone at school who has boobs?? That's a lie, you should never think about boobs! BOOBS ARE THE AN ABOMINATION AND YOU"LL GO STRAIGHT TO HELL IF....." Ok the metaphor fell apart at the end there

Actually, that would be legislation that I could get behind.

We all know that young minds that are exposed to 'the gay' catch it every time!

that could have dire consequences.

Please define these dire consequences. You mean things like tolerance and self-worth? What terrible attributes to teach our young!

Can't say about that, but I do understand, what's thought as right from small often last til one realizes better and by then it can be to late psychologically.

what's thought as right from small often last til one realizes better and by then it can be to late psychologically

.

Truer words could not be said, when you treat homosexuality as something that is so wrong, that it cannot even be acknowledged, the damage to the gay youngster will be irreparable.

You wouldn't want young influential minds getting too curious before their time

I have a gay godfather. I am not gay. Why the @!$%# does this matter so much to you people?

"NOT AT ALL IN SCHOOLS"

Out of curiosity could the state then ban any reference to sexuality at all in the schools? Because that would be stupid.

Thats a great call on Tennessee's part. You wouldn't want young influential minds getting too curious before their time on a subject that could have dire consequences.

Which is why I won't allow my kids near a church or any evangelicals.

Yeah I would rather them to learn to make love to the same sex then follow JESUS .. makes a lot of sense to me

Yeah I would rather them to learn to make love to the same sex then follow JESUS .. makes a lot of sense to me

Please try to be more constructive...

DNFTT good Dr- it's time for ignore-o-vision!

mehhh, while I hate the act of trolling, I just don't like to *ignore* anyone.

I really don't know why...

That's not trolling. That's asking a moral question. MORALS do we have them anymore

There are those who are guilty of the First Deadly Sin: Pride/Hubris. That is taking upon oneself those things that belong to God alone, like judging people or questioning the value of His creations.

Even if The Bible was the revealed word of God, it is God speaking in human language. Not even Christians agree to what it says or means. If they did there would be only one brand of Christian, but we have Roman Catholics, Copts, Methodists, Baptists, Westboro Baptists, Lutherans. There are even Churches that have gay preachers.

I often wonder how many people ndeepnow has turned away from Jesus and his teachings by his continued Bible postings and messages of hate in the name of Jesus. I am sure he never considers the possibility because of his Pride in his total understanding of God. After all he has captured God in a book.

Yeah I would rather them to learn to make love to the same sex then follow JESUS

ndeepnow: You believe that if you took a class in how to be gay you would become gay. I have taken several courses in homosexuality and someone in my family is gay and I'm still straight so you might want to reconsider your bias, it isn't based on fact.

Following Jesus has nothing to do with morals, nor is homosexuality immoral.

Guys, guys. Chill.

Ndeepnow and the rest of the silly hooligans are expecting to magically vanish at 6pm today, according to a 90-year-old nutcase.

It's all good.

It's 6pm EST and still no sightings of Zombie Jesus... I'm gonna keep my rifle ready just in case tho.

bonos_rama

Which is why I won't allow my kids near a church or any evangelicals.

I have to respectfully disagree with that position. I think it's important that a child be exposed to all faiths and have them ask questions about them. I did it with my children and as they grew older were able to make their own informed decisions on those questions.

We cannot deny that these entities exist in our society and world. Sooner or later children will be confronted with their attempts to enlist. The more knowledge they have of them, the more they can make valid judgements about them.

Except for the fact that churches will deliberately lie to gain recruits, and children cannot always realize that. It's easier to make valid judgements if you haven't been exposed to lies and bias from a young, impressionable age.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. My daughter and I (neither of us particularily religious) made a tradition out of hitting a different church every week. One week we'd check out a Catholic church. Then maybe a synagogue. Then an LDS church. The a Methodist church.

It was actually kind of fun. And guess what? No one tried to "brainwash" her or "lie" to her. In fact, they were very open and welcoming. In fact..her theory on religion is..."Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell. Spirituality is for people that have already been there and don't want to go back."

So I'm with Mike on this one.

Move where? This insanity is nationwide. Vote them out? Trying...really really trying, Red.

Voting them out is all you can legally do. And it is my sole mission for 2012.

This insanity is nationwide.

Not in Seattle and San Francisco.

Oh, Dog, is that funny...Fransicko....HAR.....and so fresh and new; what creativity. Golly I'm impressed.

Wouldn't you just know it Fr Jack, when bigots point out some place where racial groups, hetro's and gays all function as a cohesive society and somehow treat it as all wrong- you really do have to wonder don't you?

What does that means, FrJack? Gays make up about 10% of San Francisco's population. It's not a stereotype.

right wing bigotry is surpassed only by right wing ignorance.

FrJackHackett

right wing bigotry is surpassed only by right wing ignorance.

Chicken and egg, Friar. Chicken and egg.

The mere mention of the word will suffice. As we all know, these foolish teenyboppers running around constantly saying "That's so gay" will soon be jailed (as well they should- they're so dammed annoying) but for all of the wrong reasons!

yes, chuckler, the clergy know what's best. as father o'kneel used to say...........

chuckler, first hand? Or did you mean by word of mouth?

You guys are sick- I almost spewed beer out of my nose! Happy 'All-Rapture's Eve' to y'all- I'm starting early!

Guess I can call into work: "Raptured"?

chuckler-3100463

Guess I can call into work: "Raptured"?

That's gonna be a serious long distance call. You better jack someone's cellular beforehand or hit the Gas-n-Sip for a Slim Jim and a few million prepaid calling cards.

Mentioning homosexuality does NOT equate discussing sex.

I hope he's not going to Catholic school.

It is too early at age 5 to discuss sex.

Considering five year olds are not sexual beings anyway I doubt he would care, since he can't comprehend it to begin with.

5 is the right age to ask "Mommy, where do babies come from?" especially after they start school and have not yet learned to filter out all of the misinformation. An honest and open dialog- without too much information- usually handles the query and then they forget all about it until about 6th grade. At that point- look out!

What about the kid that says he has two dads or moms? Does he or she get detention? lol "hey suzy what are you here for?" "I told the truth"

Hmmm this is a good message lie kiddies lie!

Oooooo! The "hate" word has been throw out. That didn't take long. I imagine 'homophobe' and 'bigot' is next.

The only difference between a homosexual couple and a straight couple is the sex aspect. You view refraining from teaching young kids that some people prefer having sex with someone of the same gender as "hate"? You really think 5 year olds should be exposed to that? Hell..they can't even color inside the lines yet.

If it's up to elementary schools to teach the intricacies of sex to 3rd graders, does that mean it's the responsibility of the parents to teach the multiplication tables?

Pat N- How about little Suzy, who has two mommies, and another 5 year old asks the teacher why? Does the explanation really have to contain the sexual component?

With this ban...the teacher has to say, I don't know. Great way to instill trust in one's own teacher.

Rachel -

Read the article. The legislation talks about discussing human sexuality in conjuction with the biology of reproduction in health classes. Not the social aspects of homosexuality. NO WHERE in this article does it say the teacher is "banned" from answering Suzie's question.

Thanks Pat, I did read it. It also says it NEVER has been taught, so, why the needed law? HOwever, the first paragraph says:

A bill passed Friday by the Tennessee Senate would forbid public school teachers and students in grades kindergarten through eight from discussing the fact that some people are gay.

Ergo, no, teacher cannot say to Suzy's friend...because sometimes two women love each other.

I don't know

Good answer at a younger age. Later when they can understand it find to explain.

How about little Suzy, who has two mommies

Little suzy can't have two mommies, That's just coined to justify two gays that are living together and are trying to justify their relationship.

Ergo, no, teacher cannot say to Suzy's friend...because sometimes two women love each other.

Kindergartners aren't too young to comprehend this. I asked my parents about it when I was that age. We were driving past a wedding and I asked whether two women or two men could get married.

The term Mommy doesn't have anything to do with who gave birth to an individual. My egg donor was locked up when I was 3 or 4 years old. My step-mother is my Mommy. Can I not call my step-mother Mommy either, because she didn't give birth to me?

Pat N

Read the article.

I suggest you re-read the article. Clearly, the bill's sponsor was shooting for a ban, and in his own words, she thinks he's got it:

The legislation was amended from the original version, which said no elementary or middle schools will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." Republican Senate sponsor Stacey Campfield of Knoxville said some of his colleagues were uncomfortable with that language.

"There's more than one way to skin a cat," Campfield said after the vote. "I got what I wanted."

If that cat is indeed "skinned", then he got his ban on:

provid[ing] any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

Rachel -

In the body of the article, it goes on to expound on the sensationalistic headline:

Under the proposal, any instruction or materials at a public elementary or middle school would be limited to age-appropriate lessons about the science of human reproduction.

This reminds me of a recent article that I saw that claimed that "26% of IA Republicans endorse Trump!"...When you got further into the article, it stated that 26% of Iowa GOP caucus goers support Trump. And caucus goers make up roughly 12% of total conservatives in the state. A far cry from the actual sensationalism of the title.

This is exactly the same. A person needs to read past the headline to get to the truth. I think we can both agree that the press will be sensational whenever possible..

Yes, we can agree on that point. But, how long before (if this becomes law) some parent/co-worker/etc. hears a teacher say that to Suzy's friend and an uproar follows.

I think we can both agree that the human condition mandates it.

Pat, they don't grasp the part about human reproduction. I have known no gay person that has the desire to do that part unless they are not really gay..

Pat, they don't grasp the part about human reproduction. I have known no gay person that has the desire to do that part unless they are not really gay..

I kid you not on this one...I asked a Viner that I was debating about sex ed in schools to tell me, in their own words, and in detail...where babies come from. They couldn't do it and resorted to name calling instead.

With this ban...the teacher has to say, I don't know

Or Suzy's teacher could put the question where it belongs and tell Suzy to ask her parents.

It is up to the parents to teach their children what they want their child to know not the schools.

It is up to the parents to teach their children what they want their child to know not the schools.

Why not just ban all schools then and have all parents homeschool their children? If you start by banning human health then why not ban all other subjects?

Sex ed in schools consists of demystifying the proper words for body parts: Males have penises and females have a vagina and all God's chillin' have breasts- although no one really knows just why males have nipples- symmetry perhaps? Procreation is achieved by copulation (for some of you: the sex act) or even by a 'near miss' and that pregnancy can occur during any phase of a female's menstrual cycle. Abstinence is the only sure method of birth control and that 'fooling around' has been known to spread disease as well as providing one with unintended offspring. Basic stuff that any 8th grader can tell you- although some of them have more information concerning birth control- the only lawful birth control curriculum allowed to be taught in schools currently is the abstinence method. There really is not that much to it.

It is up to the parents to teach their children what they want their child to know not the schools.

Like science, math and English? Then just why would one bother to send the little darlings off to school at all?

Like science, math and English? Then just why would one bother to send the little darlings off to school at all?

I didn't realize that people are unaware of how to follow the topic of conversation. This thread is about discussing homosexuality in schools with children in grades k-8th grade NOT about teaching the exact things that they are supposed to be teaching in schools. Discussing sexual education and orientations should be up to the childs parents not their teachers and certainly not the schools.

OK, our school teaches about homosexuals in 6 grade in a segment called Changing Family Relationships. It is also touched on in 4th grade in the HIV/AIDs segment and again more in-depth in 7th/8th grade Sexually Transmitted Diseases and HIV/AIDs (and Abstinence). Any kid can opt out and there is a parallel health class that avoids all mention of the body, sex and anything of the sort.

I know, it's like DADT: "LALALALALALALA It's not happening!!!"

"Itz ok to bonk yer cuzin

It takes a sick mind to come up with a parent telling a 6 year old it's "OK to bonk their cousin". Congrats on revealing where your mind is at. What you found funny...most people find disgusting. Be proud.

Your sense of humor is about as pronounced as your IQ.

Thanks for letting us all know.

Live in TN?

Pablo, at least she has an IQ.

OK to bonk their cousin

Got some demented view on sex. But I think you can do your second cousin legally I think . It's about gene issue if you don't know and it's not a funny issue!

Got some demented view on sex.

Those were my thoughts exactly, ebookout. It's sad that there are minds out there that actually dream up such sick, twisted stuff as young, innocent kids "bonking their cousins".

I'm not sure what's nore disgusting. That he thought of the comment in the first place, or that 7 people (so far) thought it was funny. I wonder how "funny" they would find it if they were "bonked" by their cousin as children?

There is this thing called a joke. When someone tells you one you will know because you will laugh.

I'm telling you, it's gonna' be great someday when you get one.

Some jokes are to serious to laugh at and are taken that way. There seems to be a small group who thinks this is still ok and the results is a child with a lot of disabilities just so you can get off. Not very funny but twisted.

I never mentioned talking about anything with children. Go back and read the joke again. When you get to the line...

but dont menchin dem dar homersecksulz

.. you will realize I was making fun of the legislature telling the teachers that they are not allowed to mention homosexuality.

Get it?

Nothing to do with children.

Get it?

Read much?

Missing the point , when you have sex with a close relative and can have a child, it has a high risk of having genes that are basically screwed up. It's called inter breding and why it is illegal. That's the child part ,not that you were doing children. Now can you crasp that aspect,that why it's not funny. Read what I said before telling someone else about reading. Or did you miss the part about banging someone of the opposite sex and the possibility of having kids. But if you are gay I guess you don't have to worry about that part do you?

Really missing the point: TN is known for it's close relations among it's close relations- ever heard of Jerry Lee Lewis? The joke is funny and some of y'all just need to stop looking for any old excuse to quarrel over nothing. Honestly, absolutely no one on the planet could be so damn literal, or so without regional cultural references, and still walk and talk at the same time!

Oh gosh...home of the Scope's Monkey Trial. The ignorance continues.....

So it's okay to discuss sex between a man and a woman, but not sex between a man and man, or woman and a woman????

If you read the article, you'll see that the only discussions surrounding anything remotely having to do with sex that is allowed in the lower grades has to be associated with REPRODUCTION.

You will also see that it's limited solely to the lower grades.

Are you saying you REALLY have a problem with teaching reproduction in the lower grades and sexuality in high school? Honestly? You think kids should be taught human sexuality in 2nd grade?

Pat N:

Never said I had a problem with sex education, but as I stated in my comment, I too asked, when is the right time? Dont see me saying anything about sex education starting in the 2nd grade, however, even 2nd graders are exposed to sexual messages on tv, radio, and internet. (of course this based off the idea that a parent is ignoring what their kids are exposed too thru the media) You even know that, but yes 2nd grade is way to early. So lets answer the question. When is the right time, and where do we draw the line? Should we let our schools decide, our polticians, or parents? Do we ignor the issues of Homosexuality, which is what this article is really saying? Do we let kids/teenagers figure out for themselves? Agree, sex education is in just sex education only, but doesnt mean we sweep the issues of Homosexuality under the rug either.

So it's okay to discuss sex between a man and a woman, but not sex between a man and man, or woman and a woman????

Lets see! Sex education is based around the reproduction of a human being. Man on man or woman on woman make that kind of hard to reproduce don't you think. So what should they say? You can reproduce this way?

When is the right time, and where do we draw the line?

Everyone has their own personal opinion on this. Here's mine.

Let's teach them "where babies come from" first. That is necessary before teaching them that some people like to have sex with the same gender. Heck, prior to the "where do babies come from" education...they don't even know what sex IS. Homosexuality has no place in the teaching of reproduction. It's simply not a relevant topic when discussing the sperm fertilizing the egg, the egg traveling through the fallopian tube and attaching to the uterine wall.

IF Suzy wonders why she sees two grown up men holding hands and kissing in the park and asks about it, by all means...answer HER question. But don't build a curriculum around it and subject grade schoolers to that curriculum until they at least have a grasp of the BIOLOGY of the whole thing first.

In a nut shell...the biology of babies, reproductive problems, STD's and where they come from and AIDS education from elementary school through middle school. Human sexuality in high school. If individual cases arise where the topic must be addresses earlier...address it on an individual basis.

Let's teach them "where babies come from" first.

This assumes that teachers all around the state are teaching how to have homosexual relations (WHICH NO SCHOOL DOES) first before basic reproduction. Kind of hard to believe since basic science talks about it before your first sex ed class.

IF Suzy wonders why she sees two grown up men holding hands and kissing in the park and asks about it, by all means...answer HER question. But don't build a curriculum around it and subject grade schoolers to that curriculum until they at least have a grasp of the BIOLOGY of the whole thing first.

Again you're assuming that sex is the ONLY time the topic homosexuality will come up. How about tolerance of those different than you? Hell that comes up in kindergarten.

In a nut shell...the biology of babies, reproductive problems, STD's and where they come from and AIDS education from elementary school through middle school. Human sexuality in high school. If individual cases arise where the topic must be addresses earlier...address it on an individual basis.

Great so you have them not learning about protecting themselves if they happen to be homosexual at all unless they out themselves in class. Great! Basically teaching intolerance.

PatN, don't waste your time.... they refuse to hear your VALID point that young children being taught about REPRODUCTION should be taught about REPRODUCTION (sorry, folks, this involves a man and a woman, if one wants to humanly REPRODUCE naturally). They should not be unnecessarily confused about Adam and Steve and Mary and Jill just yet...... ONE STEP AT A TIME FOLKS! Why the gd rush! Sheesh!

Absurd, isn't it? Now they've been reduced to saying it's somehow "wrong" because we aren't teaching kindergarten age kids to use condoms. Can you believe it? What? Do they think that instead of naptime, we should have 5 year olds practicing on bananas?

Unfortunately, Pat... yes, I can believe it because they 'attempt' to push this @!$%# on us pretty much steady and it actually, remarkably, gets more bizarre by the day, IMO. They would have US be tolerant of this pathetically, continuous, ridiculous BS.... I HOPE they hold their breath waiting for ME to actually become tolerant of this one... LOL

Egads Pat...you know better, my friend.

Rachel -

The snarky post in #14.5 that seems to think it's somehow ridiculous of me to think we should teach reproduction first, chastised me for "teaching intolerance" because I don't mention teaching these kids how to use condoms.

Absurd, isn't it? Now they've been reduced to saying it's somehow "wrong" because we aren't teaching kindergarten age kids to use condoms. Can you believe it? What? Do they think that instead of naptime, we should have 5 year olds practicing on bananas?

Nope didn't say anything like it....actually I said basic reproduction would happen first anyway because of science being usually taught by fourth grade. You can put words in my mouth all day long it really won't change your desire to teach intolerance.

chastised me for "teaching intolerance" because I don't mention teaching these kids how to use condoms.

No I chastised you because your words are retarded because the only thing they seem to be able to concern themselves with is sex and not the many many other ways the topic of homosexuality can arise. Like people are different and should be treated with the same respect as everyone else....i.e tolerance. Instead you would prefer that no one ever talk about it unless a child brings it up which would be like saying lets not teach math unless someone asks about it. It's not being proactive with what is definitely in the world.

If you're obsessed with sex then that's kind of your own little thing. However, I'm talking about how the topic of homosexuality can be discussed in many other ways than just screwing. Let me know when you are able to talk about that....you know like an adult. Thanks

Nope didn't say anything like it....

Sure you did. Your exact words were:

Great so you have them not learning about protecting themselves if they happen to be homosexual at all unless they out themselves in class. Great! Basically teaching intolerance.

Since this article is about K-8 kids, you are suggesting I was remiss in not mentioning proper condom usage for 5 year olds. Incidentally, how many 2nd graders do you feel happen to believe they are homosexual and 'out themselves' in class?

No I chastised you because your words are retarded

Can you explain precisely what you find so "retarded" about giving elementary school age kids a basic foundation in the reproductive sciences prior to discussing the intricies of human sexual relationships?

Sure you did. Your exact words were:

Great so you have them not learning about protecting themselves if they happen to be homosexual at all unless they out themselves in class. Great! Basically teaching intolerance.

Does that say anything about teaching kids in kindergarten how to put on condoms? No it doesn't. Try again please.

Since this article is about K-8 kids, you are suggesting I was remiss in not mentioning proper condom usage for 5 year olds.

Nope still obsessed about sex i see.

Incidentally, how many 2nd graders do you feel happen to believe they are homosexual and 'out themselves' in class?

In second grade? Probably very little. However, some kids begin puberty as early as fourth and fifth grade. I had a sex ed class in my school when i was in the fifth grade and that was decades ago.

Can you explain precisely what you find so "retarded" about giving elementary school age kids a basic foundation in the reproductive sciences prior to discussing the intricies of human sexual relationships?

Simple. Because the topic of homosexuality can come up way before then and also without having to go over condoms, dental damns, reproduction, STD's etc. That's why it's retarded. The issue isn't so black and white and with children so much of it is in grey. Teaching respect and tolerance for those different than you for example can happen quite early.

Does that say anything about teaching kids in kindergarten how to put on condoms?

If you weren't referring to teaching children how to protect themselves from STD's, AIDS, or pregnancy, what were you referring to?

In second grade? Probably very little. However, some kids begin puberty as early as fourth and fifth grade.

So it's your belief that the school district, rather than the parents are responsible for constructing an entire curriculum surrounding sexual orientation as early as fourth grade because there 'might be' a kid in a class somewhere in TN that hits puberty that early? What about the greater liklihood that the majority of kids that age aren't mature enough to handle a detailed curriculum surrounding sexual relations? Your advocating teaching an entire curriculum for the rare occurance at the expense of the many.

Simple. Because the topic of homosexuality can come up way before then and also without having to go over condoms, dental damns, reproduction, STD's etc. That's why it's retarded.

Wait a second. At the beginning of your post, you said it wasn't about teaching condom usage to 5 year olds. Which is it? Do you want to teach 5 year olds about condom usage or not?

Teaching respect and tolerance for those different than you for example can happen quite early.

I agree. But tolerance for differences is a curriculum for Social Studies. Not Human Reproductive Sciences. And when it's taught in Social Studies...it needs to be taught on a basic level, appropriate for the age level. The details you're talking about going into with 1st graders (condom usage, STD's, dental dams) would be akin to me suggesting that we teach those same 1st graders that there are people of different religions and we should respect all of them, even though some believe in throwing rocks at women who can read. Not real age appropriate for grade schooler, right?

If you weren't referring to teaching children how to protect themselves from STD's, AIDS, or pregnancy, what were you referring to?

Um you were saying I was in favor of teaching kids in kindergarten how to put on condoms. I was not. Don't change the subject when you know what I was talking about.

So it's your belief that the school district, rather than the parents are responsible for constructing an entire curriculum surrounding sexual orientation as early as fourth grade because there 'might be' a kid in a class somewhere in TN that hits puberty that early?

Sex Ed usually happens by 5th. Whether sex ed in general is taught or not by public schools is entirely different subject. If you don't want it taught at all you can always put your kid in Catholic School. I'm sure there they will never have to deal with the issue there. :)

What about the greater liklihood that the majority of kids that age aren't mature enough to handle a detailed curriculum surrounding sexual relations? Your advocating teaching an entire curriculum for the rare occurance at the expense of the many.

Nope. I believe the entire time I've been saying you can have a discussion that revolves around homosexuality without ever talking about sex.

Wait a second. At the beginning of your post, you said it wasn't about teaching condom usage to 5 year olds. Which is it? Do you want to teach 5 year olds about condom usage or not?

It's about teaching tolerance... you know NOT SEX. Capiche?

I agree. But tolerance for differences is a curriculum for Social Studies. Not Human Reproductive Sciences. And when it's taught in Social Studies...it needs to be taught on a basic level, appropriate for the age level.

Tolerance is taught WAAAAAAAY before Social Studies. Johnny or Billy or Suzie or whomever has two daddies or two mommies is an elementary school book that doesn't talk about sex, screwing, STD's or anything like that.

The details you're talking about going into with 1st graders (condom usage, STD's, dental dams) would be akin to me suggesting that we teach those same 1st graders that there are people of different religions and we should respect all of them, even though some believe in throwing rocks at women who can read. Not real age appropriate for grade schooler, right?

I believe I said i was NOT talking about teaching 1st graders (condom usage, STD's, dental dams) etc. But we can go around this mulberry bush as often as you would like I suppose.

Um you were saying I was in favor of teaching kids in kindergarten how to put on condoms.

Baloney. You stated you wanted to teach kids "HOW TO protect themselves". If the HOW doesn't include proper condom usage, what do you feel the education regarding condoms (that you stated you wanted to discuss with them) should go? Are you now seriously stating you want to say: "Little Johnny...there's this thing called a condom. I'm not going to tell you what it is or how to use it...but you should use it for protection from AIDS and STDs. Oh. You don't know what STD's are, Little Johnny?

It's about teaching tolerance... you know NOT SEX. Capiche?

(sigh....) Another person who hasn't read the article and figured out that it's about teaching reproductive sciences. No s*hit, it's not about sex. So why are you so hellbent on including homosexual reference in what basically amounts to a basic human biology class?

Tell me...if you want to teach about tolerance of homosexuals in reproductive sciences classes, where should we teach racial tolerance? Reading class?

Since you want to teach something as nuanced as different cultural positions/groups in science class, I'm assuming to believe in discussing ALL aspects of said cultures, right? Or should we just promote the "happy, nice" aspects of the various groups and minorities...in others words, teach agendas?

it's about teaching reproductive sciences. No s*hit, it's not about sex.

It's about teaching "natural" reproductive sciences -- which is about sex, Pat, unless you know of another "natural" way of reproducing. Specifically, it's about heterosexual sex, and the sponsor of the bill admitted as much, if you would have bothered to read the article. Sen. Campfield made it clear that the language was changed to reflect those who were uncomfortable with the previous version, and as he said it so inelegantly, "There is more than one way to skin a cat" -- meaning that he got the same desired effect with the new language.

But keep your head buried in the sand for as long as you want, Pat; it does not make you seem any smarter than you do now (which is to say, not very smart at all).

Um you were saying I was in favor of teaching kids in kindergarten how to put on condoms.

That was your accusation against me. My accusation against you is that your putting up fear/strawmen ( teaching children how to put on condoms) as an excuse against teaching children tolerance. Big difference... one more time around the mulberry bush i suppose.

Baloney. You stated you wanted to teach kids "HOW TO protect themselves". If the HOW doesn't include proper condom usage, what do you feel the education regarding condoms (that you stated you wanted to discuss with them) should go? Are you now seriously stating you want to say: "Little Johnny...there's this thing called a condom. I'm not going to tell you what it is or how to use it...but you should use it for protection from AIDS and STDs. Oh. You don't know what STD's are, Little Johnny?

Nope. i thought that if I was talking about general sexual education you would be able to determine the difference between sex ed and tolerance and the age groups that go along with that. I guess I put too much faith in you.

(sigh....) Another person who hasn't read the article and figured out that it's about teaching reproductive sciences. No s*hit, it's not about sex. So why are you so hellbent on including homosexual reference in what basically amounts to a basic human biology class?

Because homosexuality is APART of human biology. Actually many species have shown some of the same things we grapple with today. Homosexuality, gender identity, etc. I though you knew that. I guess not.

So why are you so hellbent on including homosexual reference in what basically amounts to a basic human biology class?

See above.

Tell me...if you want to teach about tolerance of homosexuals in reproductive sciences classes, where should we teach racial tolerance? Reading class?

Tolerance of people different than yourself can be discussed way earlier than when reproductive science class are taught. Have you been seriously listening to what I've been saying?

Since you want to teach something as nuanced as different cultural positions/groups in science class, I'm assuming to believe in discussing ALL aspects of said cultures, right?

Who said it had to be in science class. Actually this article is pretty broad. I'll read the bill (if I can find it ) and get back to you on that.

Or should we just promote the "happy, nice" aspects of the various groups and minorities...in others words, teach agendas?

It's not about agendas. It's about preventing people from teaching bigotry and hate and offering some sort of avenue for people who are different from me or you who will require sex ed who are not heterosexual. Get it? Or do you believe only homosexuals have sex? (Keep on digging....please)

It sure is ugly to watch them strive to do the most harm before they wither away into obscurity.
One can only hope these talibangelical will be gleefully written OUT of our history books, good riddance.

vttova I love that- "Talibangelicals", you've coined a keeper there!

You can’t teach an alternative to evolution like creation

Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is fact based and supported by volumes of research in molecular biology.

Creationism is a mythical belief. You can teach it in a class on myths as an alternative to all the other myths. It is not fact based and it has no supporting evidence. It is not a scientific theory, so by definition it is not an alternative to evolution.

Feel free to teach it in an anthropology class, a theology class, or mythology class. But it has no place in a science class where evolution would be taught.

Sweet and low is an alternative to sugar. A Ferrari is not an alternative to toilet paper. You can't wipe your ass with a Ferrari any more than you can teach creationism as an alternative to evolution.

Jim-789449 wrote:

It’s ok to say some boys think they are girls and some girls think they are boys,

The issue under discussion is sexual orientation. What you're describing is gender identity.

Pablo-123

Do you dimwitted fundies even own a dictionary?

I don’t believe I called you any sort of a name what so ever, I posed my opinion just as many others have done on here.

I am both intelligent enough and man enough to discuss an issue without having to resort to name calling or being insulting, homosexuality is called an alternative life style by the way.

I am both intelligent enough and man enough to discuss an issue without having to resort to name calling or being insulting, homosexuality is called an alternative life style by the way.

Sorry Jim, I don't mince words and I don't play nice. The only people who refer to Homosexuality as a lifestyle are scientifically ignorant dimwits.

Get a dictionary, look up lifestyle.

Lifestyle is a chosen method of living your life.

Traveling, eating healthy, chosing to not marry, having or not having kids, engaging in promiscuous sex.

Those are lifestyles.

Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality are innate sexual orientations.

The term lifestype is a biologically and anthropologically inaccurate means to describe homosexuality. Period.

If you are going to engage me in a debate, at least make the effort to learn the correct terms before you comment.

You're pissing into a fan, Pablo.

I've been trying for decades to get someone to explain to me what exactly comprises a "gay lifestyle" is. Such discussions invariably conclude with the busybody admitting that s/he simply doesn't like the genital assortment of the relationship.

s/he simply doesn't like the genital assortment of the relationship.

Classic, I'm borrowing that.

Pablo-123

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to the opposite gender, same gender, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring^[1] and also refers to a person's sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.

A gender identity is the way in which an individual identifies with a gender category, for-example as being either female or male, or in some cases being neither. Basic gender identity is usually formed by age three and is extremely difficult to change after that.^[1] All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a social identity in relation to other members of society. In most societies there is a basic division between male and female genders, that are understood to be determined by biological sex, but in all societies some individuals do not identify with the gender that is otherwise associated with their biological sex.

Alternative lifestyles have become culturally accepted but are still little understood by those who practice heterosexual monogamous relationships.

According to the American Psychological Association,

oh great...The APA...the same people who brought you HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL ILLNESS

for the better part of 40 years or until they realized they might be alienating a $$$ generating market demographic.

Alternative lifestyles have become culturally accepted but are still little understood by those who practice heterosexual monogamous relationships.

Thanks for proving me right.

Alternative lifestyles, not homosexual lifestyle, alternative lifestyle. A man who enters into a polygamous lifestyle does not have a polygamous sexual orientation. He has a heterosexual sexual orientation.

He also has an"alternative lifestyle" when compared to traditional heterosexual monogamous relationships. He is still of heterosexual sexual orientation. Get it, sexual orientation is not the same as lifestyle.

A man and woman who live together, don't marry, and adopt children have a chosen lifestyle. That lifestyle consists of cohabiting without marriage, and bringing children into the relationship.

Lifestyle, got it.

Two women who live together, don't marry, and adopt children have a chosen lifestyle. That lifestyle consists of cohabiting without marriage, and bringing children into the relationship.

Again, Lifestyle.

The two couple have the exact same chosen lifestyle. They have opposite sexual orientations.

Is this sinking in?

I eat right and I exercise. I try to learn new things. I travel, I golf, I fish, I live life to the fullest every day. That is my lifestyle.

I am also Heterosexual.

That is my sexual orientation.

Are we clear?

Alternative lifestyles have become culturally accepted but are still little understood by those who practice heterosexual monogamous relationships.

Except for Chuck Norris, he can levitate because he is stronger than god.

Nah, it's all the hot air he is full of. He is like a human hot air balloon.

What if he farts?

Does he sink?

OMD (deity) Pablo, I almost fell out of my chair! FR sent!!!!

Beautiful analogy.

Ask Bristol Palin the value of such forward thinking sex ed policies.

Abstinence only?

The conservative / Christian alliance forged in the 1980s actually doesn't mesh altogether well in many respects. How does rejection of universal health care mesh with Christianity? It doesn't.

Nevertheless, education has typically been considered one of the 'reserved powers' of the states. Many states have constitutional clauses which specifically compel the states to provide education so it does make sense that states would regulate in this area and as a result dictate the curriculum.

This particular bill proposes to ban the discussion of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality from grades Kindergarten thru 'middle school' (which I am assuming is the 8th grade?)

You can actually google the proposed bill, I tried to link to it, but couldn't just google SB0049, tn and you'll find it eventually, its a PDF at the capital dot TN dot GOV website...(guess I am too knew to post links)

?