Another example of right wing evil

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.

And what university did you go to? The university of jesus christ?I'm not only interested in history, I'm passionate about it. The only reason I didn't major in history and decided to pursue a field of science was because I strongly disagreed with the academic field being taken over by post-modernist drivel.You can try to wiggle your way out of this one by playing the semantics game. So, I'm going to preemp this by explaining what we're actually discussing.We are really talking about 2 seperate things here when we refer to "homosexuality". We're talking about "homosexuality" the word and "homosexuality" the concept. Most of the ancient world didn't have a word for homosexuality simply because it was such an integrated part of life that it was actually normal. The word didn't come until much later when the church decided to try to stamp it out.So, you're technically correct when you said ancient greece didn't touch on "homosexuality" the word. But unless you got your degree from either the university of jesus christ or a diploma mill, you're bound to run into "homosexuality" the concept. It's an integral part of our world history.Thanks for demonstrating how even a history major could totally ignore such an important part of our world history. It's like majoring in American History without ever reading about the Ghost Dance or the Trail of Tears.PS - Apologies to everyone for my very rare responses. I have a busy life. We're getting ready for another set of tests in the lab. And our funders (those sons of bitches that know nothing about science but control all the money) are making us beg for it. Free Tibet!Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Southern Illinois University. and George Mason University. sounds like a cop out to me, I just double majored and got a history degree and a geography degree at the same time. History for fun, and geography for work. its really not. and you would know because you majored in history too... oh wait.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

with your inability to remain focused on the topic I am sure its hard for you to keep up.you responded to CS, and quoted his text, then called him out as a southerner. CS is from the north, near St. Louis.I live in Virginia (near Washington DC), in the south.the thread is about some legislation in Tennessee.I know its difficult (for you) to keep up, but if you try I think you can do it (maybe). off topic. (for the umpteenth time) LOL are you really that thick?find on this thread where I claim that, because I have not.you even suck at making strawmen LOL!!!!Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Its not a "new law", its an amendment to the existing law (which pertains to sex ed). It doesn't have to, its simply the nature of codifications like this.2010 Code, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, Section 05... Section 5 doesn't pertain to Section 6 like Part 10 doesn't pertain to Part 11 like Chapter 6 doesn't pertain to Chapter 7 like Title 49 doesn't pertain to Title 50. No, I don't KNOW that... Now you're just arguing out of fear and emotion. No, the amendment is in addition to the existing law and the existing law still applies. If the student comes to the instructor then they can get the information they need. No, its a law that limits the material that can be provided to students in a public school in a sex ed class. The motivation for the bill is in the bill itself and has been quoted to you. That's just emotional spin out of fear, not an argument against this bill.

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"?

And the existing law was broken and needed amending in what way? What was happening in Tenn that the state deemed it necessary to correct the existing law to prevent that thing from happening any further?Is there a specific case the prompted this? Is there some famous story in the Tenn Newspaper about a kid who got gay on him then accidentally turns his whole family gay?Why, apart from "Jesus hate fags", is this amendment being pushed through the legislature? If that's true, then fantastic.However, I suspect it will ultimately be the other way around with teachers being unwilling to risk their careers over this. Which brings us back to - why?Why is this law needed? What possible gain is there for *** through omission about the existence of homosexuality to kids (some of whom are gay)?Again, point to a single teacher in Tenn who has been handing out graphic gay porn to 3rd graders and I'll drop my argument.But if you can't, then why is this happening? Why now? No, the motivation for the bill is not in the bill itself. The bill says nothing about what has changed that requires this bill that WASN'T TRUE ten years ago.

"Too?"You haven't demonstrated that you majored in history. You merely claimed it.Your posts have demonstrated a serious lack of historical knowledge, particularly about the Greeks and Romans, which leaves the rest of us scratching our heads.I can't IMAGINE someone getting through 4 years of higher education in the field of history and not studying the classical period.It's sort of like claiming to be a chemistry major and then saying "Nobel gasses? What are those?"
Or claiming to be a geologist and saying "Who is this Volcano guy everyone keeps talking about?"Greek and Roman history can't be understood without a grasp of Greek and Roman _culture_. You seem to have skipped that part COMPLETELY in your "education".

They recognized that some things are best explained and discussed at home when children are old enough, like its said in the bill itself:

quote:

---

The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.

---

Codifications of laws don't get into that kind of detail. What is this "***" stuff? I've been seeing it lately from different posters and I don't know what it means.

Do you always result to Ad hominem after your strawmen fail? They must feel that it is important to them. Why does a law have to correct anything? I don’t know, and I don’t care if there is I am not a resident of TN; it’s none of my business. ??? To counter the gay agenda? LOL just kidding. It’s not part of an anti-gay agenda, it’s simply defining a previously ambiguous law. They are going to refrain from teaching kids about gay sex in elementary school.
Someone who doesn’t want their 7 year old daughter in 2nd grade learning about male on male butt fucking, is not part of some anti-gay conspiracy, they are probably just being a good parent. This question is based on a false premise.
Jesus doesn’t hate anyone. But don’t try and do business in his temple (he’ll kick your ass). Who said it was broken? I think they are defining the previous law further, to be more specific. I realize that geography is not one of your strong subjects (you are an American so it’s okay, most are bad at the subject). Tennessee is a state. It is 42,000 square miles (about 440miles x 120miles). There is no Tennessee Newspaper. WTF are you talking about? false premise. Invalid question. Because the people of Tennessee want to, that is why. Yeah right, you move the goalposts every page, your argument changes constantly.

off topic personal attack.you are sad an illogical being, indeed.

And this wasn't true when the original law was passed? It wasn't true 50 years ago?Someone was skirting the law? Abusing a loophole that needed closing?What SPECIFICALLY happened that made someone sit up and say, "Oh crap! Look what we forgot to do! We better fix that and quick!" Apparently the three letter word which means "to tell an untruth" is now a swear.

Sorry, but since you were acting like a child, I lost my head and treated you like one.I admitted that you won the shit flinging contest. Can be get BACK to the actual topic now, or do you need more babying?Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

God, you whine like a baby. What's the matter? It's not *fair* when other people throw your shit back at you? Boohoo.YOU were the one claiming to be a History Major. YOU were the one claiming that Taz didn't know what he was talking about because he wasn't a History Major.Yet YOU apparently didn't study the Classical Era.If it's off topic, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.And if it's a "personal attack" to point out that you are fibbing about your education, then we're all PhDs in every field of study and no one can claim otherwise.

Caps mine for emphasis.No, you aren't here on some anti-gay agenda, that's clear now. Clearly you show nothing but respect and maturing in the debate.