Tenesee bans using the word "Gay"

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
123.jpg


A state lawmaker wants to block the word from schools ... except when teachers suspect a kid might be gay, in which case they must notify parents.

Like an irksome zombie, Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which so many opponents had thought was dead, is alive once again—and this time there’s a twist. The infamous measure was first introduced in 2011 and prohibited any instruction or discussion of homosexuality in classrooms from kindergarten through eighth grade. After passing the state Senate but dying in the House, the bill was reintroduced Wednesday with a new provision: teachers would be required to out their gay students to their parents.


Could it pass this time? And who’s pushing this thing, anyway?

Here are five things you should know about Tennesee’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill.



1. Last Time Around, It Died for a Good Reason


The “Don’t Say Gay” bill first cleared a Tennessee Senate panel in April 2011. Officially called S.B. 49, the bill was sponsored by Republican State Sen. Stacey Campfield—who had previously tried unsuccessfully to push the idea as a member of the state House for six years. Prohibiting the discussion of any sexuality except for heterosexuality in kindergarten through eighth grade, “even with students who may be gay or have gay family,” the measure quickly earned its now widespread nickname.
Even so, the bill passed the Senate, ultimately dying an expensive and embarrassing death in the House after two years of debate. “We found out there really is not sex education curriculum in K-8 right now,” GOP Rep. Bill Dunn said at the time, pointing out that sexuality isn’t discussed at all in Tennessee schools until ninth grade, rendering the bill useless.

It took two years to realize this.
But wait, there’s more. Campfield reintroduced the legislation Wednesday with a new caveat: not only would discussing homosexuality be banned, but teachers would have to tell parents when students are—or even just might be—gay.


2. It’s Really Called the Classroom Protection Act


The new, and Campfield thinks improved, measure is S.B. 0234, or the Classroom Protection Act. It begins by stating that “certain subjects are particularly sensitive and are, therefore, best explained and discussed within the home.” The bill states that “human sexuality” is among those subjects.

The key language—and the wording that earns the “Don’t Say Gay” nomenclature—is the reference to “natural human reproduction” in this passage:
At grade levels pre-K through eight (pre-K-8), any such classroom instruction, course materials or other informational resources that are inconsistent with natural human reproduction shall be classified as inappropriate for the intended student audience and, therefore, shall be prohibited.



3. Even If a Kid ‘Might Be Gay,’ Teachers Have to Report It
The bill does not prohibit school officials from counseling students who are engaging in—or “who may be at risk of engaging in”—activity “inconsistent with natural human reproduction,” but it does require that they notify parents or legal guardians of the counseling. In other words, if students seek advice or counseling about being gay, question being gay, or are treated by peers in a way that indicates they are suspected of being gay, school officials must out them to their parents.
It goes a step further, requiring that school officials notify parents if they notice a student “whose circumstances present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality.” So if a teacher even suspects a child might be gay, he or she must out the student to parents. How can we be sure that Campfield thinks homosexuality is one of those “immediate and urgent safety issues”? He flat out said it: “The act of homosexuality is very dangerous to someone’s health and safety.”

Chris Sanders of the Tennessee Equality Project says that the provision “seems to force counselors to become tattletales.” Requiring that they inform parents about any counseling related to LGBT issues or questioning will “erode the trust between students and counselors and leave students without any confidential resource in a place where they might be enduring bullying or other issues related to their sexuality, gender, or other factors."

4. The Bill’s Sponsor Is Confused About AIDS


That Campfield construes gayness to be a dangerous act may be rooted in his faulty understanding of HIV and AIDS. “My understanding is that it is virtually—not completely, but virtually—impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex,” he said during a radio interview last year. “Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community—it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, I believe.”

(Renowned scientist Jacques Pepin’s book The Origin of AIDS differs greatly from Campfield’s account.)

True to the wording of his bills, Campfield does find homosexuality unnatural. Homosexuals “do not naturally reproduce,” he says. “It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does bestiality. That does not make it right or something we should teach in schools.” And he does find homosexuality dangerous: “What’s the average lifespan of a homosexual? It’s very short. Google it.”
In the past, Campfield has proposed bills requiring aborted that fetuses receive death certificates (thus publicly identifying women who have abortions); forcing voters to register for the political party that most closely represents their views; and, recently, cutting welfare to families with children who are performing poorly in school.

5. It Could Actually Pass


According to Campfield, the bill already has a House sponsor, and he says he is optimistic that it will pass. After all, the earlier version did pass the Senate, and only expired because it wasn’t necessary—not because it lost a vote. It actually passed through several House committees before dying, and reintroducing the measure with a sponsor attached increases its chances of approval.




Last year, a bill proposed by Republicans in the Missouri General Assembly also earned a “Don’t Say Gay” label, as it prohibited the teaching of sexual orientation in public schools, but it stirred such controversy and faced such staunch opposition that it was eventually buried. (Though it, too, could find a new life this year. The legislator who introduced it, Steve Cookson, was recently named the new chairman of the Missouri House committee that eventually squashed it.)

With near-instant outrage from liberal-leaning blogs when Campfield’s bill was reintroduced Wednesday, the Tennessee senator can probably expect a similarly strong movement to move the measure off the docket. As ThinkProgress points out, “Family rejection is a serious risk for LGBT youth. Kids who are LGBT often face alienation, if not outright abandonment, because they come out.

But for many of Campfield’s supporters, the new rallying cry might just be “Don’t Say Nay.”


Discuss?
 

spazatak

Well-Known Member
guess you will start having to use other synonyms for "happy" then


how homosexual

meanwhile in other news jimbob marries his sister mary jo in TN
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
*Tennessee

LOL this is just a way to drum up votes for the dumbass.

Title is misleading too, since the word gay is not banned in any way by this legislation. It would be unconstitutional to ban specific words.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It seems like somebody is being niggardly with which words will be permitted to be used in the english language.
 

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. I must of really struck a nerve. You've been(t)here this long... What's a few more sentences?

Ladies and gentle-dudes, I put it to you, that Beans' last comment, wasn't a knee jerk response at all, but rather, an indictment of the American public education system.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
It won't pass so the headline is a lie. If it passed, it would never stand the legal test.

The thread is a lie.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
attempting to ban a WORD? who'd have thought? my queer friends are all pretty sick of that word anyway. Sad though, first we blow through a perfectly wonderful, prim, and expressive word such as "gay" and then we are left to destroy another kindly euphemism "queer".
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
attempting to ban a WORD? who'd have thought? my queer friends are all pretty sick of that word anyway. Sad though, first we blow through a perfectly wonderful, prim, and expressive word such as "gay" and then we are left to destroy another kindly euphemism "queer".
Gay is better than queer to my ears. But I wonder if that's it. For kids these days, everything can seem "gay" to them. Surely the Asian kids that study day and night and 4 hour of piano, are "gay."

It really seems to have morphed almost back to the reason gays called themselves that anyway. Artful Dodge of queer was only part of it.

Try really hard to succeed and maintain a cute smile and just be gay and happy. Show an example that it is not a mental illness.

"I don't identify with being a gay man. I simple am a gay man." Anderson Cooper

What I see is an acceptance of gay as establishment, much more than when the little twisters bothered to taunt me with it. I was too stupid to realize they were doing the attention dance.

We know the youts reject establishment and the establishment is gay. We win!!!, er...male lesbian here.

work hard = gay
study much = gay
care for family = gay

I don't know if the taunts are still the same. Probably.

(Psssst young guys. if they bother to taunt you....kiss them. Then ask, What do you think?)
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Fascinating. I believe the gay rights movement should be far more militant. It should go further than demanding the right to marry, people should demand as a whole that churches that supported anti-gay legislation have tax exempt status revoked.
Zappa tried that in the 80s.
It didn't go very far.
So what's different this time, and how would such a plan be executed effectively?
Remove their benefits and a whole barrel of festering worms will be opened. NGOs, Foundations, Charities...many pieces of welfare society would become scrutinized far more closely.

Therefore, I don't believe this idea has been completely considered from all angles. Although, the sentiment is duly noted and approved. :lol:
 
Top