Another example of right wing evil

What do you think those who want to implement this law hope to achieve through it's implementation?

But they could exert that independence by unilaterally outlawing multi-coloured chequered shirts and in doing so restrict offending anyone other than pimps and rich white men who play golf.So why pick a law about homosexuality......What do you think those who want to implement this law hope to achieve through it's implementation?

And gay relationships?How old are the kids that will be affected by this law?

Doesn't it seem a bit Orwellian to pretend such things don't exist if the issue is raised? Regarding actual sex education - Anything that goes beyond the plumbing of reproduction is probably not that relevant to all but the upper end of that range.But if a 14 year old confronting their own sexuality is unable by law to discuss with a teacher or school counselleor surely you would agree that this isn't doing anyone any favours?Out of interest is there an age of consent in the US and if so what is it and is it the same for gay sex?

"Feel strongly"......?Obviously this is about more than simply flexing their state legislature muscles to make a point as you first implied. They could have done that on any issue without targeting homosexuality.So in what sense do you think the residents of Tennessee "feel strongly" about the subject of homosexuality specifically?Do you think their feelings regarding homosexuality are positive - For example?

Well most kids have parents and all kids have teachers. If for whetever reason the kid in question doesn't feel they can speak to their parents then a teacher is for many the next obvious port of call.Also I guess school can be a bit of a social jungle and teachers may well be aware of aspects of a kids social life (i.e how other kids treat them) in a way that parents aren't.Having said all that - When I was a teacher being some sort of sexuality advisor would not have been a role I would have felt particularly qualified for. We had a school counsellor who would have a been a much more appropriate person for that role.

I can't see any mention of homosexuality at all?As written I don't see any problem.Unless it has actually been applied in a way that matches the objections put forward here I am wondering what the fuss is about.

Ah I see. Well that does seem to preclude even acknowledging that gay relationships exist. That seems overly Orwellian to me. Seriously - What is the harm in acknowledging that same sex couples exist? Nobody has to go into the details of sodomy or whatever any more than the intricacies of blowjobs need be a feature of the "instruction or material" pertaining to heterosexual relationships that is allowed. I may well be getting confused with the law and the amendment. I guess part of the lefty-liberal concern is to consider what message this law sends to a gay teenager coming to grips with their sexuality. It definitely implies that there is something about themselves which they should feel the need to hide.And I don't think that is right.

Look nobody sane is advocating that 7 year olds get taught about gay sexual pratices any more than anyone is advocating that we teach 7 year olds about hetero blow jobs, 69ers, spanking fetishes or anything else of that nature. Concerns about teaching little kids such things are an unwarranted smokescreen for the real reason for this law. The real reason being disapproval (to the point of prejudice in many cases) of homosexuality.Bottom line - If the law makes life harder for a gay kid in Tennessee than it already is, by promoting the idea in law that homosexuality is something that should be repressed as somehow wrong then - In my view - It is a shit law.

Would you agree that concerns regarding 7 year olds being exposed to stories about male on male butt fucking are no more legitimate than concerns that 7 year olds will be taught about hetero blowjobs, 69ers and other such practices in these classes? But if any mention of homosexuality to 13 and 14 year olds in school is banned how can it not lead to a lack of guidance and information as well as fostering the impression that homosexuality is something which is taboo? If you really want to take the self-determination stance then any legislative bodies, even local ones, dictating what people can and cannot say should be opposed unless there is very good reason for such restrictions to be applied.Are there good reasons for the restrictions on speech imposed by this change in the law?

I don't think the whole butt fucking thing was particularly helpful. Let's put it to one side. Would you agree that lack of information where information is needed is not a good thing? If homosexuality is considered so offensive as to require explicit laws to ban it even being mentioned I don't really see how that can do anything other than result in a degree of stigmatisation. The objection here is to the ban on it being mentioned where contextually relevant. It is this seeming determination to keep the issue out of sight that creates the impression of being taboo. Sure - By explicitly restricting what can and cannot be said in a classroom situation. And there are many good reasons why one may want to do that on any number of topics. But is there a good reason for banning any mention of homosexuality? Or is it just because certain people in society don't like homosexuality?The self-determination you are so keen to advocate is not achieved by constantly making unnecessary laws to restrict what people can and cannot do where there is no need to do so. The libertarian approach would surely be for the state to impose as few restrictions on individuals as is necessary. I thought you claimed to be a libertarian.........?So - I'll ask again - Are there good reasons for the restrictions on speech imposed by this change in the law?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This thread seems to have changed direction since I last looked. It was about laws pertaining to homosexuality in Tennessee. Now it seems to be about how much Paris Hilton's tax payments are subsidising Coyote's lifestyle. Here is the law as provided by CS earlier: To me that reads as any discussion of homosexuality regardless of how context appropriate it may be to be unlawful. How do you see the law being applied in practise? If home and internet are all that is required why does there need to be any discussion of heterosexual relationships or orientation either? The internet is awash with information about that. I would have expected every libertarian bone in your body to object to the idea that governing legislatures should go round needlessly making laws to solve problems that don't exist by imposing behaviour on schools and individuals regarding what they can and cannot do. If even acknowledging that gay relationships exist is banned from context appropriate class discussion then that seems rather Orwellian. Nobody is suggesting that there should be grade school classes on how to be gay!! A better anology would be an environmental pressure group who manages to enshrine in law a ban any discussion of the fact that cars run on gasoline in grade school because they fear that the idea that oil drilling can be a legitimate activity might take hold in the minds of the young. So you are against government needlessly intervening and dictating in people's lives but you are advoacting that Tennessee local governemnt should do exactly that in the name of liberty?That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

You and CS have done a decent job (butt fucking fiasco aside) of making this whole thing sound like it is just a very reasonable and minor amendment to the sex education syllabus. A simple clarification which has no implications beyond sex-ed class and which simply states that at grade school level sex education doesn't really need to go beyond "where do babies come from?".Now it may be that I have got the wrong end of the stick here but the it seems like the whole thing goes significantly further than that. As I understand it this is a state law that essentially bans teachers from mentioning homosexuality in any grade school class no matter how contextually relevant it may be or even if the issue is initially raised with a member of school staff by a student.Is this wrong? My objections are:

It is a completely unnecessary law which serves no practical purpose whatsover but to give voice to those who out of prejudice, misplaced fear or misunderstanding want to make some sort of anti-gay statement. The prejudiced will see it as a moral victory.

​

By enshrining such attitudes in law I think it does add to the already existing notion (amongst many) that homosexuality is taboo and something that should be repressed or kept out of sight. It entirely unnecessarily adds to the stigmatisation that already exists.

​

In the rare instances where discussion of homosexuality or information regarding homosexuality might be needed it makes it unlawful.

​

AE writes:

​

I don’t think the law will be very effective in doing much of anything. I think it is redundant.

​

AE writes:

​

I am advocating that TN can self regulate if they want to.

​

So if the national government makes unnecessary laws telling people what they can and cannot do it is a case of Big Government, nanny state, unjustified intervention in people's lives etc. etc. etc. But if local state government does exactly the same thing it is a victory for liberty?

​

Maybe this is a US cultural thing because I don't think that same distinction would be made here.

At the end of the day the law either can or cannot be applied beyond the scope you say it is intended to cover. I am genuinely trying to find out what the fact of this is. So - for example - A teacher of history who in response to a question from a student discusses homosexuality in class definitely will not be subject to this law and definitely cannot face consequences resulting from this law?Is this the case? This idea that local government needlessly making laws and pointlessly telling people what they can and cannot do is somehow a win for freedom is really rather skewed.Don't you think that from a genuinely libertarian perspective you should be objecting to this bill as unnecessary and intrusive law making?

I think you are missing my point. You guys have become so embroiled in the whole local Vs national thing that you cannot see the wood for the trees. You have completely lost sight of the libertarian principles you claim to hold dear. The state is implementing a completely pointless law that needlessly dictates what people can and cannot do to no practical end. Yet rather than condemning this lunacy the self-procliamed libertarians here are championing this act as some sort of twisted victory for unintrusive government and step forward for freedom and liberty.It's madness!! Of course. But my objections to this law are not based on what Tennessee can or cannot do legally. I have no doubt that they have the legal right to implement all sorts of pointless and intrusive laws.From a libertarian perspective the question that should be being asked is whether these laws are strictly necessary to protect people's individual freedoms or whether they are examples of needless and wanton law making of the sort over-enthusiastic legislators are prone to if left unchecked.