Another example of right wing evil

I disagree.Clearly, homosexuality isn't natural. Clearly no one has any gay intent from birth. Everyone is born 100% hetero and has absolutely no interest in gay sex.So, the only people who are gay are people who were talked into it by gays.Those gays were themselves talked into it by other gays, going all the way back to the original gay who was talked into it by....I don't know, I guess a natural born hetero sexual who has no interest in homosexuality but did it anyway because....Ah crud, this line of reasoning is collapsing the more I think about it.Better not think. Praise Jesus!

It'll be interesting to see what happens.
The black population hasn't decreased any. If it comes up for vote again when Obama is on the same ballet, it's likely gonna stay the same.

While you are technically correct that what Taz says will be an outcome of the bill is not written literally into the bill, it's worth looking at what was actually put in and the likely consequences of that.Here's what the bill contains, according to the article in the OP: Most obvious ramification of this is no homosexuality discussed in sex ed class.Now, given that homosexuality is a condition from birth, this is stripping a certain percentage of students of information that they actually need to remain healthy. Unlike hetero sex, students who are gay are unlikely to absorb real information through society.While it is true that there is information aplenty on the internet, the same can be said for literally every class in high school.It doesn't seem unreasonable to spend a class or even just part of a class, discussing homosexuality or at the very least providing reading materials in such a way that students who may not be out of the closet can access them.But, there are other more subtle ramifications.
The text says: _any instruction or written material_ that discusses any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.Now, that COULD be used by Conservatives (and let's face it, if they CAN use it, they WILL use it) to insist that homosexuality not be discussed in history class.-no mention of homosexuality among the Greeks
-no mention of gay civil rightsOr social studies/issues class-no mention of gay marriage
-no mention of gay civil rightsOr potentially (depending on your definition of "instruction") guide councilors-no support for a kid who is openly gay
-no support for a kid who can't come out for fear of retributionSo, while you are right that these things are not specifically forbidden within the law, Taz is right that the law can have long reaching consequences.I think the better question is this:Is there _ANYTHING_ to gain from this law? At all?Will not mentioning homosexuality somehow magically convert gays back?What are these people afraid of?

There are two different times during education that this topic is covered.In grade school/jr high, there is basic sexual education about sexual reproduction. That is what you are describing.In high school, there is "health" class, which covers things like sexually transmitted diseases, testicular cancer, etc.While I agree that there is no need to go over more than the basic nuts and bolts in the grade school class, there is no reason NOT to go over homosexuality in the adult version. I agree that much of this wouldn't be an issue in grade school (though councilors should NEVER be prevented from helping kids in need).Though I am SHOCKED that your history education didn't brush on homosexuality in greek and roman society. While not "core" to the understanding of these two cultures, it would sort of be like discussing American history without mentioning Puritanism. The reason we have a nanny-state federal goverment is because southern states insist on acting like children.As much as you hate minority groups, you don't have the right as a member of the Union (and yes, you ARE members of the Union) to pass laws which discriminate against them.Banning teachers from discussing homosexuality in health class discriminates against a percentage of the population the same way banning teachers from discussing the contributions of African Americans would discriminate against a group.Ignoring a minority group does not make them go away. We had a war over this. You lost. Bad.Or is that someone you also didn't learn in your history class?

Much the same way that gravity is "debatable" in that people can say "No, I don't want to believe it", but it's not really much of a debate.Women who produce multiple male children are more likely to produce gay children with each successive male child. This remains true even in cases where the children are raised in different homes as single children (in other words, it has nothing to do with having older brothers in the house).Basically, the woman's repeated exposure to excess testosterone is having an effect on the fetus in the womb.That's the science.Now onto the 1st hand accounts. Ask any given homosexual when he decided it he'd rather be gay and turned his back on heterosexuality.And then onto logic. If homosexuality is NOT a condition from birth, then people must be getting "talked into it". Meaning, a heterosexual person is presented with an argument for homosexuality that they find so convincing, they turn their back on their natural inclinations to take up a life of rejections and intolerance. Who exactly is presenting them with this argument? If EVERYONE is heterosexual from birth, then there must be a "first gay", a heterosexual who INVENTED homosexuality and talked some other heterosexuals into it.Can you explain how there could exist a heterosexual who wanted to have gay sex but wasn't homosexual? The percentage isn't any different among children as among adults, though the children may be less likely to openly admit it. Given that I'm not in elementary or middle school, I don't know what's currently taught there. However I do know this:7th and 8th graders are typically between 12 and 15 years old.
According to the Kinsey institute, a full 25% of kids both male and female loose their virginity by/before age 15.If these classes AREN'T covering more than the nuts and bolts, they really need to. And if people don't want their young children taught about blacks or muslims or cripples, is that not a big deal for them to prevent that too?Denying children education because the parents are bigots does not result in safer children.

So, your argument appears to be that the Tennessee school system fails to provide children with information therefore we should give up on children in Tennessee.We're talking about kids who very likely aren't getting accurate information from friends and family. What is a school for if not to provide unbiased information free from the prejudices of society? Here you are arguing that it's Tennessee's right TO CHOOSE where to draw the line.That misses the point. They don't have the right TO DRAW the line in the first place.What purpose does it serve to prohibit a guidance councilor from having a pamphlet on his wall addressing homosexuality? They have pamphlets on dealing with divorce. They have pamphlets on dealing with abuse. They have pamphlets on teen pregnancy. They have pamphlets on bullying.But it should be illegal to have a pamphlet called "I think I'm gay" which provides some support and guidance to kids who have a MUCH higher suicide rate than straights?All because the parents are uneducated bigots? Religion is a thought, yet religious groups are protected.
And cripples just choose to walk funny because they are lazy.Denying a minority group information because the majority doesn't like them is unamerican.Now, I know that the South prides itself on being unamerican, but you guys did LOSE the civil war, remember?

Your opinion doesn't really count though does it? You opened this argument with the admission that you didn't learn about this topic when getting your education.That's sort of like saying "we didn't go over algebra in school, but I don't think X is a number". My assertion is that the Federal Government has to step in because southern states are misbehaving.Do you want to start with the Civil War or with Civil Rights? [qs]Umhello? Try to stay on topic.
Where do you place bisexuals are they hetero or homo?[qs] Who's off topic now?The question was "how did the first heterosexual convince the 2nd heterosexual to have gay sex with him if neither of them wanted to in the first place??"Why would either of these two heterosexuals choose to invent homosexuality if neither of them were gay? So, students need to engage in sexual activity prior to getting education about it? Really? That's your position?

Are you even listening to yourself? Seriously?You are saying that the percentage of children that would be helped by including this information is small, therefore we shouldn't include it.So, the UPSIDE of including it is that some children are helped. The DOWNSIDE of including it is that some parents are bigots.So, let's NOT include it, because helping children is less noble than satisfying bigots.That brings us right back to the title of the thread: Right wing evilIt's evil to insist that hurting children is better than confronting bigotry. Yes. And because there are a number of families which have gay children who are afraid to come out for fear of retribution from their parents, or their town. Who is talking about "teaching children how to engage in sex" of one kind or another?From what I remember of health class, it was very nuts and bolts. We learned a lot about things that really don't make one bit of differences in the actual sex act.Do you, as a male, really need to know what an ovary looks like in order to have sex? No.However, it is important for all kids to feel accepted. And specifically leaving out information which could help one group just because you are a member of a larger group is wrong. Since when is the "home" the best place to explain or discuss anything?How is this statement any different than a statement made by Creationists? 8th grade is hardly "early".
And telling kids that school is the wrong place to get information is EXACTLY what I expect from a state like Tennessee

It's a fair point, however pedophilia =/= homosexuality.Pedophiles are interested in children. Homosexuals are interested in adults of the same sex.A homosexual who is attracted to an adult man is not likely to be interested in a little boy, as they are girlish.

You're either insane or morally corrupt. As of yet, I can't figure out which.On the one hand: Children who need this information are helped, and children that don't need this information learn a little bit about tolerance.On the other hand: Children who need this information are not helped, and children who are intolerant remain unchallenged in their bigotry.I fail to see WHY this law should be needed AT ALL. What harm exists NOW that this bill is meant to correct? Who is harmed by the current situation that this bill is saving from harm by denying education? But you can't refute it. Sort of like "Nah nah, I can't hear you". You can disagree with the left about taxes. And doing so, you would be expected to OFFER SOME DEFENSE OF YOUR POSITION.In this case, you have not offered ANY DEFENSE other than "I don't care if these children need help - F them!"That's evil. Tennessee takes in $1.27 in tax benefits for every $1 it gives out.Until the Red states start PAYING THEIR OWN WAY, they don't have the right to govern themselves without input from the adult states.Check ANY list of "donor states" and "welfare states" against any list of "blue states" and "red states".We foot the bill, we call the shots. You don't like it, then GIVE THE MONEY BACK. I don't know if you're just being childish or if you honestly just hate minorities. I'm starting to lean to hate. Wow. You don't know the difference between what's taught in health class vs what information is minimally required to engage in sex.And you dare to offer you opinion here.That takes some serious balls. So now you want Tennessee to pass a law removing ugly kids from school? Nice.Oh wait, that's right, I'm just one of those damn liberals, paying all the bills and complaining that you can't do whatever the f you want to kids you don't like.Get a job. Then Tennessee needs to refund ~ $300 million dollars to have the right to say that.We'll take a cashier's check.

Laws are meant to correct an injustice. Where is the injustice here?Sure, I could pass a law that says "Because we deem it to be important, all Catholics must be burnt at the stake". Then I can use your same argument of "Well, the law says that it's important". http://www.parentdish.com/2011/04/19/gay-teen-suicide/
25% of gay teens attempt suicide.
4% of straight teens.But no, you don't see any reason why acceptance should be important.After all, they are sinners right, and sinners deserve to die.

Saudi Arabia is a country which has "apples" and it kills people based on their "oranges".How exactly are these two UNrelated?Are you SURE that you got a degree in history? St. Louis is also not in Tennessee, ya jackass. The South has a long proud history of ignorance, hate and begging.If Tennessee were a donor state, paying the way for other ignorant beggar states, then maybe I'd cut them some slack. But, alas, they are not.Instead, they want to bitch and moan about how the Federal Government is so mean for demanding that we obey the Constitution if we want to get money from them.Time for all you Red State monkeys to grow the hell up. All you do is bitch and collect welfare checks.

This from the jackass that claims to be in St. Louis, Tennessee. Right, if by "ousted" you mean "some of the people in the audience left".I guess you and I have a different idea of what "ousted" means.And he didn't get in trouble with Tennessee, he got in trouble with his co-workers - in NY and LA.

No, the EXISTING law that you listed pertains to sex ed.
The new law says "that no students will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.""ANY instruction or material.It says NOTHING about "in this one class". And you KNOW that when a law is available for abuse it WILL be abused.Any teacher which mentions homosexuality in ANY context, can be brought up on charges by any "Conservative Re-Action Group" using the new law.As, any teacher that they want to target, be it a US history teacher that answers a question about Abe Lincoln being gay, or a guidance counselor who advises a kid to not commit suicide simply because he's afraid his family with disown him, they will all be vulnerable to this new law. So, we'll have one law that says one thing and an newer law that says something different. I'm sure there will be no disagreements from teachers/parents/school boards as to which should be followed more closely.And, even if a test case makes it's way through the courts to ultimately protect teachers, how many teachers will have lost their jobs by then? Or simply been scared out of answering questions?But more importantly, this is a law designed to tell people what they CAN NOT SAY. Not based on some violation of the Constitution. Not based on some stated threat. Not based on a case made for the damage that could be done.No, it's a law restricting speech and denying kids information based on bigotry.

Okay, you win. You are the biggest troll under the bridge. You can fling shit faster than anyone else. Yay for you.Let's get back on "topic", shall we?Why is Tennessee trying to pass this law in the first place? What is it meant to correct?Is there some plague of exceedingly graphic instruction on man on man sex that is going on in grade schools in Tennessee that has gone unreported?Is there a case of a kid who was harmed? If so, how?WHY, specifically, is Tennessee pushing this legislation through APART from some anti-gay agenda?Is there ANY reason OTHER than "Jesus hates fags"?