Another example of right wing evil

Look, it's simple. Paris Hilton's dogs were eaten by a coyote. There are coyotes in Tennessee. And Tennessee Williams was homosexual. Williams wrote "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof", which was made into a film starring Elizabeth Taylor, who appeared with Elizabeth Perkins in 1994's "The Flintstones"; and Elizabeth Perkins starred in "He Said She Said" with Kevin Bacon.If I also tell you that coyotes eat bacon, you should see how it all fits together.

So if we no longer exploit anyone, can we still be great or will we get pushed to the back of the line and forced to work like debt slaves for fifty years?Our protesters will all have guns, unlike Greece.Coyote thinks the rich will move away, but this is too nice of a place to abandon.I fear globalism. Its so scary. Edited by Phat, : added quote

yeah wierd, I don't really come to the circus on the weekends. Excuse me!?! I posted this law before he did, he explained the law, and how it related to education and the classroom. I think if you read what CS posted me and you probably wouldn’t be having this debate. 1. To me it reads (in the context of the whole legislation see CS message 142 in the liberal media thread), that elementary school sex ed, will not cover gay relationships, it will not discuss them, and it will not provide information on them (in the classroom for this class).
2. I don’t think the law will be very effective in doing much of anything. I think it is redundant. I don’t think homosexuality is covered in elementary school sex ed right now anyway. I see this as nothing more than defining curriculum. Was this rhetorical, because you answered your own question. I’ll take a stab at it anyway, because I respect the way you discuss things rather than attack nonstop like most of the posters do on here. There is a discussion of heterosexual relationships because that is the relationship of Mommy and Daddy, and this is a class for children in grade school about where babies come from. Federal, yes. A state that I have never lived in and visited twice, no. Though I also don’t see this as imposing a behavior, as I do see it as just some minor school curriculum regulation. Even though we speak the same language maybe the definitions are different on either side of the pond. I think if it’s contextually appropriate, then it is not Orwellian. Otherwise we’d be teaching creationism alongside the evolutionary theory in biology class (I do not see the lack of teaching creationism in school as Orwellian either). We may just have to agree to disagree. What I get from your analogy is that by teaching homosexual lifestyles to elementary school children, that TN fears they will be indoctrinating the kids to be gay one day. If that is the point you were trying to get across let me know, because that is different from the leaving gay children in the dark topic we have been discussing this whole time. I used the analogy that I did because I think the amount of gay children among the general population of children is a small ratio, just as 16year olds in 8th grade. Are you against the legislation because it won’t give information to those who need it (gay kids), as you have been saying, or because TN fears teaching about being gay, will cause more people to be gay? Not quite, I am advocating that TN can self regulate if they want to. And defining and establishing the curriculum in an elementary school sexual education class is hardly dictating in people’s lives.

Yes, need, justice, humanity, empathy, Christianity, morality, common sense.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Aw, tough.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And yet, this is precisely what people like Coyote want to do.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

jar, why are you never on the side of the middle class? Granted we were ignorant and allowed all of these changes to happen over the last thirty years, but the wealthy are the only ones that can pay the bill anytime soon. I cant understand why you have no empathy to a class of people that will feel like Greece in the next twenty years.Yes, we have discussed this before, and yes, i realize that the fix will take fifty years. I am just curious why you don't hold the wealthy equally responsible for fixing the imbalance.

I think the wealthy should help and favor a progressive tax policy, increasing inheritance taxes, closing many business deductions and know that if such things are done then in maybe only 25 years we will be able to see a significant improvement.What side I am on is totally and utterly irrelevant. The bill will get paid.It really is that simple.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then WHY put it forward as legislation? If you admit that this law does NOTHING to fix any problems (which in turn never existed in the first place), then you admit that the motivation for this law is suspect. Not all kids are from a home with a mommy and a daddy. Should those kids be barred from school? Should they not be allowed to ask questions? Should they have to *** about their parents so that other kids don't find out about it?Further, the use of terms like "mommy and daddy" is just an attempt by you, like your BUTT FUCKING comment about 2nd graders to try and color the debate.This law is about sex ed in the 8th grade. 13-15 year old. You need to actually read 1984. The Ministry of Information QUITE LITERALLY struck words it found offensiveThis law is as Orwellian as any law could possibly be. It's the exact same ratio as any other age group. Not if that regulation is in violation of the Constitution.

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.

I don't know what you mean by "Bread and Circuses", but I will say this.Like it or not, there is a minimum amount of money needed by an individual to survive.So, there is a minimum level at which people can be taxed. If someone makes less than the amount needed to survive, taxing them is unjust.Therefore, there is NO SYSTEM in which everyone pays the same rate. Period.Additionally, we live in a system that rewards capital with capital. Earning $1,000,000 is hard if you start from nothing. Earning $10,000,000 is easy if you start from $1,000,000.As a result, there are enormous mathematical pressures which drive wealth from the many to the few.If the system were left absolutely alone, it would rapidly lead to what we see in Saudi Arabia. A few small families holding 99.99% of the wealth, controlling all the power, and the entire rest of the nation dirt poor and essentially slaves.That's not sustainable.So, in order to keep America as a land of opportunity, those which are gaining the most from our society are asked to help keep our society working.If they don't like it, they are free to leave the US and join some other country.

Without repeating what I have already stated I am not sure how to answer that question. You think it is a don’t say gay ever anywhere legislation, and I think it is a curriculum change. I think we are at an impasse. We both realize how the other side feels about this. They will now, because of all the backlash against its passing. This is mainly due to the for profit sensationalist media that we have. If this issue was not reported as the don’t say gay legislation, blowing everything out of proportion, and taking the entire thing out of the context that it was intended for, then it would not be seen as a victory against the leftists, and people outside of TN telling the people in TN how to run their state. This is a perfect example of the topic of the thread on left wing media bias. This is a nothing legislation, that has been turned into this anti-gay thing that it never was in the 1st place. Bad press is still good press, and the left is responsible for it. Not in a contextually appropriate sense. There is no reason to bring up homosexual relations in a reproductive class for elementary students. Oral sex and Anal sex do not make offspring. Speaking about these in a class about reproduction would make as much sense as teaching creationism in a class that covers human evolution. I don’t know why you are stuck on this. This is for a specific curriculum, not general information and topics in general. Well it’s not that black and white. This legislation is an education issue. The US Constitution has no powers over education, that has always been left to the individual states to deal with. Thus the federal government has no power and authority over education. This legislation is by Tennessee, and for Tennessee. So if the national government makes regulatory curriculum laws about education (In the United States), telling people in those states what they can and cannot do then that federal legislation is BIG government, and unconstitutional at the same time.Probably more US legal, than cultural, but yeah.

So long as the State of Tenn doesn't take a single dollar in Federal aid.However, since Tenn is a welfare state, that's not the case, is it?

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?

That depends on the federal dollars usage.National Highway funds do not come encumbered by the requirement to follow a National Education curriculum. Nor do welfare funds from Federal Needy Family programs (TANF).There are dozens of Federal Education grant programs. Some of them require certain eligibility criteria, some do not. It all depends on the program in which the state wants to participate.