Fence in the queers

Quote from Brass:

Assuming the accounting of events is accurate, then some of the stuff is aggressive, if only because sex education has a time and place. However, in my quick skim of the material, I did not come across any evidence of "try it, you'll like it" segments.

This goes back a good ways, but it begs the question, why would gay activists oppose this ruling unless they wanted to advocate or even encourage homosexuality in the classroom?

Published: January 23, 1985

Homosexuality Law Weighed by Court

By Alina Tugend

Washington--An Oklahoma law that prevents public-school teachers from advocating or encouraging homosexual activity impermissibly tells teachers to "shut up" on the topic or face dismissal, a prominent constitutional scholar told the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

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 on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment and has a "chilling...

The rest of the article was not available, but you can find many such incidents with a simple google search, as I'm sure you already know. The fact is radical gay activists want their lifestyle promoted and advocated in any forum they can. That is why there is still such strong opposition. You want to be gay, fine, but you can't teach it or suggest it to kids. There's a very fine line between tolerance and advocating and the radicals want that line eliminated.
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Obviously your lack of perceived coherency in my opinion on the subject is directly linked to your personal attachment to the outcome of the issue.
It's a govt subsidy of behavior and new found rights
I'm against the growth of the liberal welfare/nanny state (in any form) and the associated forced obligations of the private sector by gubbermint dictate REGARDLESS of the reason.

how does letting gay people have rights promote a welfare/nanny state? if anything, subsidizing single moms because their husbands/babydaddys/whatever won't support them literally creates a nanny/welfare state.
 
Quote from Brass:

But that's the thing. If there is going to be any sex education at all, at whatever age it is deemed appropriate, then key topics should be covered, which would include homosexuality. Not that it should be encouraged. Merely explained. In that way, people who have that orientation won't feel left out of humanity at a young and impressionable age, and the majority who are straight will be educated enough not to ridicule and tease kids who they feel are "different." Win-win.

When I was a young kid, there was no such education. What we learned from grade 7 onward did not cover homosexuality. As kids, we made fun of gays, although none of us knew of any personally (at least not knowingly -- you can imagine why), and we called them by another name. Looking back, it must have been really tough for those kids who marched to a different drummer. And even though I was always an empathic kid, some things just didn't sink in until later. Perhaps if we had gotten a head start to better understanding at an appropriate time, we might not have been so judgmental and more accepting of those among us who are "different."

+1
 
Quote from FixedGrin:

how does letting gay people have rights promote a welfare/nanny state?
income tax
social security
federal , state , local govt benefits of partners retirement, medical, dental , .

forcing private business to do the same

How is it you are so fricken clueless?
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Pretty much my view. The radical gay activists went a bridge too far when entering the educational curriculum . When they take the stance that little Johnny, who might be a bit confused about sex ought to go suck some dick and find out if he likes it, that's problematic, and that is exactly what they want taught. The radical activists aren't satisfied with social acceptance of homsexuality, they want it pushed as a lifestyle choice.

Two thumbs up Captain.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

I think some paranoid reactionaries are confusing the teaching of gay awareness with the promotion of the gay lifestyle.

Nobody needs GAY awareness so it really is just the pushing of the lifestyle on captive audiences.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

I think some paranoid reactionaries are confusing the teaching of gay awareness with the promotion of the gay lifestyle.

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.
 
Back
Top