Schools in tennessee k-8 not allowed to discuss gays.

[Unhealthy2]

See though, I am not saying, because of my religion, to start a war and get rid of them elsewhere. But I don't believe we should live alongside those who commit evil, without opposing it. We should be the light in the darkness, say no to laws that would allow or enforce evil.
But I view my religious values as absolute.

What Im 'judging' isnt someone's attraction to the same sex, but their actions.

But you've yet to offer a single logically sound argument as to what makes gay sex "evil." The idea of it being inherently evil is borderline incoherent.

[Draconian Races]

Step in the right direction for the same reason "don't ask, don't tell" was a good idea.

It allows gays to live in a safe, normal, non-hostile environment as opposed to constantly bringing it up and rubbing it in their faces.

The bill only applies to teachers and other staff, it doe nothing to protect people from bullying by their peers. Heck, under a strict enough interpretation of the unrevised version, it would have been illegal for teachers to explain why it was wrong to harass them.

Sadly, it isnt that strict.

See though, I am not saying, because of my religion, to start a war and get rid of them elsewhere. But I don't believe we should live alongside those who commit evil, without opposing it. We should be the light in the darkness, say no to laws that would allow or enforce evil.
But I view my religious values as absolute.

What Im 'judging' isnt someone's attraction to the same sex, but their actions.

But you've yet to offer a single logically sound argument as to what makes gay sex "evil." The idea of it being inherently evil is borderline incoherent.

Ive put forth religious ones, aside from the fact that homosexuality perverts the body and doesnt produce children.

[Wikkiwallana]

Which isn't common sense, but your morality, which isn't universally accepted.

No, my morality says dont even listen to my religion: Just slay the homosexuals in their homes. Destroy all trace of them.

My religion is what makes me as moderate as I am.

That officially makes you the most disturbing person I have ever talked to.

[Geniasis]

Odd that you'd have to tell that to a Christian of all people. That's sort of like, the core concept.

I know, seriously. Too much of the time the biggest challenges to my faith are other Christians, rather than those out to explicitly prove me wrong. It's really, really saddening.

You know, I know exactly what you mean.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

The bill only applies to teachers and other staff, it doe nothing to protect people from bullying by their peers. Heck, under a strict enough interpretation of the unrevised version, it would have been illegal for teachers to explain why it was wrong to harass them.

Sadly, it isnt that strict.

But you've yet to offer a single logically sound argument as to what makes gay sex "evil." The idea of it being inherently evil is borderline incoherent.

Ive put forth religious ones, aside from the fact that homosexuality perverts the body and doesnt produce children.

http://www.livescience.com/10867-mouse- ... ddies.html

If this technology extends to humans, you lose a reason.

[Draconian Races]

No, my morality says dont even listen to my religion: Just slay the homosexuals in their homes. Destroy all trace of them.

My religion is what makes me as moderate as I am.

That officially makes you the most disturbing person I have ever talked to.

Can I have a little medal or cookie for that? I need to add it to my shelf of them XD

[Zhou Renmin Pingdang]

Why? They only teach abstinence and homosexual acts do not make someone pregnant...

True, but its still wrong.

No, its not. The only wrong thing here is ignorance and intolerance.

[Wikkiwallana]

That officially makes you the most disturbing person I have ever talked to.

Can I have a little medal or cookie for that? I need to add it to my shelf of them XD

Yeah, but you have to make it yourself. If I sent it to you I'd have to put my return address on the package.

[Wikkiwallana]

But you've yet to offer a single logically sound argument as to what makes gay sex "evil." The idea of it being inherently evil is borderline incoherent.

Ive put forth religious ones, aside from the fact that homosexuality perverts the body and doesnt produce children.

Due to a combination of the 1st and 14th amendments, all religious arguments are wholly invalid in regards to US law. And you have yet to offer any reason not producing children is immoral, as when have contraceptives to make heterosexual sex also not do so, and natural sterility can render a straight person unable to produce any children from the moment their gonads develop, yet you haven't condemned them having sex. Nor have you explained why we need to make sure every single possible person keeps producing children on an already over populated planet.

[Unhealthy2]

Ive put forth religious ones,

Which are invalid unless you can prove that your religion is always correct on issues of morality. Otherwise, it's a specious appeal to authority.

aside from the fact that homosexuality perverts the body

Vacuous word salad. What does "perverting the body" even mean?

and doesnt produce children.

Explain why this is morally relevant.

[Unhealthy2]

Due to a combination of the 1st and 14th amendments, all religious arguments are wholly invalid in regards to US law. And you have yet to offer any reason not producing children is immoral, as when have contraceptives to make heterosexual sex also not do so, and natural sterility can render a straight person unable to produce any children from the moment their gonads develop, yet you haven't condemned them having sex. Nor have you explained why we need to make sure every single possible person keeps producing children on an already over populated planet.

Don't bring up the constitution. We're debating morality, not law.

[Wikkiwallana]

aside from the fact that homosexuality perverts the body

Vacuous word salad. What does "perverting the body" even mean?

What I've gather from what he has said about that is that because it isn't inserting connector P into slot V for the between married couple M & F for the express purpose of grunting out irritation unit B, it's immoral and wrong, always and forever, because his special and unique understanding of the special instruction manual for the universe told him so.

[Wikkiwallana]

Due to a combination of the 1st and 14th amendments, all religious arguments are wholly invalid in regards to US law. And you have yet to offer any reason not producing children is immoral, as when have contraceptives to make heterosexual sex also not do so, and natural sterility can render a straight person unable to produce any children from the moment their gonads develop, yet you haven't condemned them having sex. Nor have you explained why we need to make sure every single possible person keeps producing children on an already over populated planet.

Don't bring up the constitution. We're debating morality, not law.

You might be debating only morality, but seeing as a bill that would put a teacher in jail for up to 30 days for telling their class that some people have two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each just got passed by my state senate, I'm debating both.

[Galla-]

Whether we like it or not, kids are having sex before they reach High School, they should therefore be taught how to keep it safe with their preferred partner before then as well.

My middle school was a den of sin and depravity, everyday after we school we participated in class orgies, every female was pregnant by years end, and we all got aids.

What, heterosexual orgies with mere vaginal intercourse?

Good God man. What is this, Victorian England?[/quote]

wyt? Victorian England was raunchier than current times bro.

[Unhealthy2]

You might be debating only morality, but seeing as a bill that would put a teacher in jail for up to 30 days for telling their class that some people have two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each just got passed by my state senate, I'm debating both.

But law is just a practical application of ethics. At its core, this is an issue for morality. The only reason that you wish to prevent that scenario is because you find that situation to be unjust in the first place.

[Ceannairceach]

You might be debating only morality, but seeing as a bill that would put a teacher in jail for up to 30 days for telling their class that some people have two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each just got passed by my state senate, I'm debating both.

But law is just a practical application of ethics. At its core, this is an issue for morality. The only reason that you wish to prevent that scenario is because you find that situation to be unjust in the first place.

More so, I feel it to be a breach of the government-granted right to freedom of expression.

[Unhealthy2]

More so, I feel it to be a breach of the government-granted right to freedom of expression.

Which is only relevant because you think free expression is a good thing.

[Ceannairceach]

More so, I feel it to be a breach of the government-granted right to freedom of expression.

Which is only relevant because you think free expression is a good thing.

Yes, because it is useful in generally keeping everyone happy and content, while voicing opinions to make the nation greater.

I can see your point, though.

[Wikkiwallana]

You might be debating only morality, but seeing as a bill that would put a teacher in jail for up to 30 days for telling their class that some people have two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each just got passed by my state senate, I'm debating both.

But law is just a practical application of ethics. At its core, this is an issue for morality. The only reason that you wish to prevent that scenario is because you find that situation to be unjust in the first place.

Yes and no, there are several things I personally find immoral that I do not believe should be criminalized, or even a civil offense. Morals and ethics are personal and with many grey areas, the law should be based on evidence derived logical reasoning with as few grey areas as humanly possible.

[Unhealthy2]

Yes and no, there are several things I personally find immoral that I do not believe should be criminalized, or even a civil offense. Morals and ethics are personal and with many grey areas, the law should be based on evidence derived logical reasoning with as few grey areas as humanly possible.

But evidence derived logic toward what end? Minimizing suffering? Maximizing happiness? Some kind of categorical imperative?

[Nationstatelandsville]

This is kind of stupid, but I think the teacher shouldn't be talking about sex anyways, unless it's a sex ed class or something else credible. Why should a gay person be forced to hide their true selves?

[Unhealthy2]

Why should a gay person be forced to hide their true selves?

Because it hurts the feelings of a bunch of stuffy, emotionally stunted, insecure old men, the same old men with all the power.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes and no, there are several things I personally find immoral that I do not believe should be criminalized, or even a civil offense. Morals and ethics are personal and with many grey areas, the law should be based on evidence derived logical reasoning with as few grey areas as humanly possible.

But evidence derived logic toward what end? Minimizing suffering? Maximizing happiness? Some kind of categorical imperative?

Orderly function of society with as close to even ratio of safety and positive liberty for all citizens as possible, while simultaneously maximizing both.

[Unhealthy2]

Orderly function of society with as close to even ratio of safety and positive liberty for all citizens as possible, while simultaneously maximizing both.

Only positive liberty? No freedom from anything?

[Wikkiwallana]

Orderly function of society with as close to even ratio of safety and positive liberty for all citizens as possible, while simultaneously maximizing both.

Only positive liberty? No freedom from anything?

Sorry, I was taking it as given that certain, in fact many, of the positive liberties are impossible without a strong base of negative liberties to support them.