<p>
[quote]
State university campuses with gender and sexuality centers could have to add a “traditional family values center” that receives equal state funding if an amendment to the House Budget Bill from Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, succeeds.</p>
<p>The House passed a version of the budget that included this amendment Sunday. While presenting the amendment, Christian said universities such as UT and A&M would be affected because they have gender and sexuality centers that offer and encourage education about “alternative sexual practices.”</p>
<p>“This is not restricting [alternative sexual practice education],” Christian said. “If they’re going to [offer such education], they have to match the center, the dollars, the mortar and the cost of taxpayer dollars for traditional values. You would be able to go to The University of Texas and A&M and attend their heterosexual gender and sexuality centers.”
<p>What do you think about this? I think it's pretty disgusting and just demonstrates yet again the impotence of the Texas state legislature and their unwillingness and wanton inability to do ANYTHING to benefit the state...</p>
<p>Why is it that those who want to cut government spending are trying to increase spending only in areas of interest to them? Hmmmm. Since the vast majority of students are heterosexual, this is a waste of funds and resources.</p>
<p>…and what, may I ask, is wrong with this? If anything, it’ll be beneficial for the gays on campus, who will now be getting specialized knowledge about gay sexual practices while heterosexuals get information on heterosexual practices. I swear, some people just ■■■■■ the internet for things to get offended about.</p>
<p>So many pro-LGBT activists complain about how we live in a “heteronormative” society (not a word in the dictionary btw, just about as useful a word as ottowoman or herstory) but they themselves state that heterosexuality and heterosexual rights aren’t something that needs protection because heterosexuality is the norm. </p>
<p>Which is it? You can’t have it both ways – no pun intended.</p>
<p>These sort of centers are fine if they are privately funded or supported by a non-profit that raises the necessary money, but using taxpayer funds raises some eyebrows.</p>
<p>Personally, I’d rather my tax dollars get used to improve the roads I travel everyday or providing our law enforcement officers with upgraded equipment. </p>
<p>We are dealing with $4.00 gasoline, rising food costs and sinking home values. Our pockets are empty but governments have money to fund gender/sexuality/family values centers? </p>
<p>Then can you provide a defense (that applies to tax-payer-funded state schools, not private ones) that does not attack “family values centers”? Cuz it seems to me that they are the same concept but with different driving philosophies, in the sense that you would say a mosque and a church are the same concept. As for these university “centers,” I cannot see how one could say that one shouldn’t exist without inadvertantly argue that the other shouldn’t exist, or that one deserves funding and another doesn’t. It seems like you’d run into some sort of double-standard. So I’d like to hear how you, or anybody else, could speak out against the “family values center” but favor the “alternative sexuality centers.”</p>
<p>I agree with GovAffairs, for the record. I have trouble believing that these politicians are serious about “family values centers” being funded by the tax-payers, I’m sure they see how silly it is and are using it as a bargaining chip. They are trying to show “the other side” how silly it is to have tax-payer funded “alternative sexuality centers.” Neither one is a legitimate use of tax-payer money, really. (in fact, I’d argue that vocational training, of the kind offered by universities and colleges, is a private good and thus is also not a legitimate use of tax-payer money, but that system won’t change anytime soon, plus it’s a whole other thread)</p>
<p>@MLD - It went a lot further than that, they retooled the textbooks there to basically rewrite history. Teachers couldn’t say anything negative about the founding fathers, the native americans were “asking for it” slavery wasn’t “that big a deal” and McCarthy was “essentially vindicated in the end” (for the sake of fairness, he was vindicated in the sense that they DID find somewhere in the ballpark of 100 communist spies… at the cost of about 100 Million people’s lives or more so… no, he really wasn’t vindicated at all).</p>
<p>@Anti </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the same logic as saying “intelligent design = evolution” and both deserve equal amounts of funding. We already basically HAVE “hetero education centers” that’s what most basic sex ed stuff is about. There NEEDED to be funding for LGBT-centers because the population is largely ignorant or misinformed about them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is a word, just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it not a word. We DO come from a heteronormative society, thats why your rights don’t need protecting because you’re considered “the norm.” That’s perfectly in line with logic and reality. In our society LGBTs are not “the norm” but that doesn’t throw them automatically into “the abnormal” pile. Lemme… try to explain it to you this way… I’m guessing there are probably a minority of Asians in the Deep South, I’m gonna pick on Alabama. Asians would not be “the norm” in Alabama. But that doesn’t mean they’re “abnormal” except in a statistical sense. It doesn’t comment on their merits. A man in a room with 20 other women would be considered “abnormal” statistically for that room, but that doesn’t make being a man “abnormal” in the sense that it would be wrong/deficient/etc to be the man in that room. </p>
<p>@Tom
</p>
<p>I would agree, it’s a cheap dirty ploy to try and cut funding from the alternative LGBT center, which makes it on its face a despicable disgusting concept. If taxpayer money shouldn’t be going to this center, it shouldn’t fund ANY type of center on a campus, all of them should have to close down. I’m pretty sure there are several that fall under that that would be a logicistical nightmare to have closed down. I’m sure you can name at least one similar group on the campuses that has a “right to use taxpayer money to fund itself” - in essence, just one, and your argument is moot. Because the same can be argued for pretty much all of them unless it really IS frivolous. Case in point: an LGBT center serves a purpose, a hetero center has no purpose.</p>
<p>According to the article, the gender and sexuality center is NOT funded by the state, although the guy who proposed this has a different interpretation. The center is supported by donations and a required services fee from attending students, so taxpayers don’t contribute anything to the center. This whole thing is just silly. </p>
<p>And what Itachirumon said… A gender and sexuality center is not the same concept as a family values center. The reason that there should not be a family values center is the same as the reason why there should not be a white history month or a men’s history month. The gender and sexuality center is there to address oppression of lgbtq, prejudice against lgbtq, social injustice. A counterpart would have to address things like heterophobia, which is not what a family values center would do. If not a statement of xenophobia, a family values center is absolutely ridiculous. One already exists - the health center. If this passes, texas will be the laughing stock everywhere … </p>
<p>
What the hell is this guy talking about… The gender part refers to women’s issues. There’s no relation there… which is why “gender” is separate from “sexuality” in the name. What does he want, a men’s resource center?</p>
<p>I go to UT and think this is ridiculous. without regard to the necessity of our GSC or GSCs in general, this is just another money and time-wasting measure by our state government, which SHOULD be worrying right now about our gigantic budget deficit and not about setting up “family values centers.” sometimes i’m ashamed to be living in Austin.</p>
<p>Separate from this specific issue, this is a good example of why public universities should have a shorter leash with taxpayer money. </p>
<p>Many states are currently operating at a loss and face serious debt issues, yet these university are using tax dollars to fund centers/programs that in my opinion fall out of the definition/mission of a public university.</p>
<p>I don’t see how a public university is responsible for educating people on “traditional family values” or “sexuality values”, it seems like a real waste.</p>
<p>This issue is even more insane considering it’s the University of Texas which just signed a mega multi-million dollar deal with ESPN to have it’s own sports broadcasting network.</p>
<p>In my opinion, government should have nothing to do with sex ed. I know some people who had their kids taught about homosexual behavior before they even knew what sex was. The parents were ignored when they told the school they did not want their kids attending classes which taught about homosexuality, especially at young ages.</p>
<p>If you don’t believe me, I found a video which depicts classes similar to those my friend’s kids went through. I don’t mean to start a political argument here, but I am disturbed that homosexuality is being taught about to young children, and I certainly don’t want my children to learn about homosexuality in this way when they are old enough to attend school.</p>
<p>I know this post seems out of place, but I would like to spread awareness about this issue since I have had personal experiences with it. It does relate to the discussion in a way, since it involves government funded sexual education, but at a level much lower than college.</p>
<p>The title may sound extreme on this video, but just watch it and the other one I linked to. It really will open your eyes to the issue of government sexual education and indoctrination of children.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Homosexuals Brainwashing Public School Children.](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Homosexual Agenda Indoctrination Of Kids](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>