The "Liberal" Media

Running here to hide doesn't change the fact that I gave you a link to the interview.Unless you are now claiming that reality has a liberal bias and that Conservatives can't be trusted to speak their own words in their own context.I guess you have your own unique concept of "fair and balanced".

While clearly I'm an opponent of this law (check the other thread so see me railing), I don't think that this makes sense.Obviously there is a need for sexual education.If I recall how it went when I was in school:Step One: Some point in grade school (4th grade? 5th?), "Welcome to puberty" -- mostly about "your body is changing". I suspect that there is some extremely basic sexual education in here. "Babies come out of this part."I doubt there's any reason to mention homosexuality in anything but the briefest "Sarah has two mommies" context in Step One. And there's NO EVIDENCE that anyone is doing anything more than that in Tenn.Step Two: Basic Sex-Ed -- Jr high -- mostly dispelling myths and setting the record straight. Urging the kids to wait until they are ready and going over the basics. "No, Asian girls do not have sidewise vaginas", "No you will not go blind if you keep doing that."Perfect place for it. Not graphic discussion of sex acts, but a frank discussion to dispel misinformation. "You can't catch gay".Step Three: Advanced Sex-Ed - High School -- diseases, pregnancy, condom use, etcAnd, while this part isn't covered in the specific law, this is a great place for more detail about safety.

I'm an American. Any law in any state which attempts to suppress other Americans is something I care about. I'm worried that you don't feel the same. The law would make it illegal. That's the problem.

But you must agree that there is A LOT more information to go over when discussing sexual reproduction than there is in discussing homosexual sex.It's not so much a matter of "teaching a preference" as it is "this is where babies come from".Obviously kids (even gay kids) need to know this information.My objection is that asking teachers to pretend as though several of the kids in their classroom aren't gay isn't going to do those kids or the straight kids any favors.

Interesting hypothesis. Now all you need to do is start confronting us with evidence to test it.We've been WAITING and WAITING.

I know you didn't cover American history while you weren't studying Greek History, so I'll try and walk you through this.The GOVERNMENT is not the PEOPLE.You can not oppress the GOVERNMENT by telling it that it can not enact or enforce laws which oppress the PEOPLE.I know you're a big fan of big government, but that's not how this country works.If you want a theocracy or a dictatorship, I can provide you with any number of countries where you can find it.Here, though, the Constitution rules, and we enact no laws specifically designed to oppress a group of people just because "Jesus hates Fags", no matter how desperately you want that to be allowed.

Wow, what a well reasoned argument.The law SPECIFICALLY prohibits the mention of homosexuality.In what way WOULDN'T it make covering homosexuality in sex-ed illegal?Are you even paying attention?Seriously, you've been bitching and moaning for days about how we aren't being "fair" with you, and here you are demonstrating that you don't even know what the discussion is about.

I agree, however, there are basically three times in which sex ed is handled in school.What you are talking about is most appropriate for the Jr High/High School level of sex ed.I think think this sort of material needs to get covered in the separate the 5th grade boys and the girls and have them watch the old 8mm "My body is changing" film.