Fence in the queers

[stu]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Then perhaps you can explain why radical gay advocates would challenge this ruling. Soliciting? Imposing? Encouraging? Promoting? Sounds like a wee bit more than "awareness" orientation, now doesn't it?

The case, Board of Education of the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, v. National Gay Task Force (Case No. 83-2030), focuses on a 1978 statute stating that any teacher, student teacher, or teacher's aide who is "advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging, or promoting public or private homosexual activity" in a manner that "creates a substantial risk that such conduct will come to the attention of schoolchildren or school employees" may be "rendered unfit for his position."

Although no teacher has ever been dismissed under the law, the National Gay Task Force challenged it.

There are quite rightly statutes to hinder radical extremism of all kinds. Take creationism for instance.

However, providing an appropriate awareness of something doesn't fall into that category. Challenging an order against that much would seem reasonable.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from stu:

There are quite rightly statutes to hinder radical extremism of all kinds. Take creationism for instance.

However, providing an appropriate awareness of something doesn't fall into that category. Challenging an order against that much would seem reasonable.

The issue in your argument is each person's definition of "appropriate". What you consider appropriate, I may (and probably do) not.

 

[stu]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

The issue in your argument is each person's definition of "appropriate". What you consider appropriate, I may (and probably do) not.

There are no doubt many issues you or I may think inappropriate. It doesn't mean they are.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

There are quite rightly statutes to hinder radical extremism of all kinds. Take creationism for instance.

However, providing an appropriate awareness of something doesn't fall into that category. Challenging an order against that much would seem reasonable.

So what you and the radical gay advocates are trying to claim is that soliciting, imposing and advocating homosexual activity in the classroom is covered under freedom of speech? In other words, if a gay teacher wants to ask Johnny to come over after school for some head, he should be free to do so under the 1st ammendment? Good luck with that going mainstream.

 

[stu]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

So what you and the radical gay advocates are trying to claim is that soliciting, imposing and advocating homosexual activity in the classroom is covered under freedom of speech? In other words, if a gay teacher wants to ask Johnny to come over after school for some head, he should be free to do so under the 1st ammendent? Good luck with that going mainstream.

You can't make my arguments up for me however much you'd like to.

If you'd just calm down a second you might understand what I said which is there are quite rightly statutes against radical extremism.
As far as I'm aware, any statute that worked against advocating reasonable and appropriate awareness of something, would not be right.
That's all I said.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from stu:

You can't make my arguments up for me however much you'd like to.

Priceless, you and several leftits here do that all the time.

 

[stu]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Priceless, you and several leftits here do that all the time.

Silly false assertions like that won't work either.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from stu:

Silly false assertions like that won't work either.

Denials of the obvious make you look like an idiot or a complete lying scumbag , which are you?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

Silly false assertions like that won't work either.

That particular assertion was neither silly or false.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

You can't make my arguments up for me however much you'd like to.

If you'd just calm down a second you might understand what I said which is there are quite rightly statutes against radical extremism.
As far as I'm aware, any statute that worked against advocating reasonable and appropriate awareness of something, would not be right.
That's all I said.

You wrote, "However, providing an appropriate awareness of something doesn't fall into that category. Challenging an order against that much would seem reasonable".

Your response was to my post about radical gay advocates challenging the ruling against solicting and promoting homosexual activity in the classroom. You can see how one might take it that you were defending their position.
I have no problem with some education towards tolerance. Very closely monitored education. More than that is off limits in the classroom.