UT-Austin: Amendment could require ‘family values’ centers

<p>Texas really is its own punchline.</p>

<p>@This - O I see what you did there (and I love it) </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They are closed-minded. Why do people not accept homosexuality? The reasons given show that the person is closed-minded. You are shown very quickly in a debate setting to be closed-minded.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, you can hold any opinion you want to, but if the facts disagree with you that opinion isn’t really grounded in anything. If you continue to follow said opinion even when the facts at hand disagree with you then… well that’s not really an intelligent approach to things, is it? Being so intransient. And “values?” Why does Homosexuality /= Values? See? Right there. Homosexuality is dismissed as something contrary to “Values” because of what it is. The underlying assumption there is that nothing about Homosexuality can conform to “Values”… I hope you’re capable of seeing why that is entirely inaccurate. And how that assumption completely supports you being closed-minded.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nothing, except half of them don’t know their own scriptures and the ones who do focus on… well let’s use the Bible… a rabbi actually did some research… Homosexuality is mentioned in .03% of the bible. That’s not me accidentally attaching a percentage to .03 as in 3%. That’s .03%. One three-hundredth of one percent. And yet those very loud and very nasty people spend… about 98% of their time screaming about it. There’s nothing “hard” to understand there, it’s just also unacceptable.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I guess you could look at it that way, yes. I am intolerant of intolerant people. I am intolerant of racists, and bigots, and xenophobes and misogynists, I have no tolerance for views that preach hate. But you see… I didn’t say I was intolerant of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. Because not all of them feel the way the vocal screeching minority does. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s the school’s responsibility to educate kids, that’s pretty much the #1 function of schools. If the kid’s facts on something are incorrect, it’s the responsibility of the school to correct those facts. If the kid believes something like “Fossils are fake” then it’s the school’s responsibility to make sure the kid realizes that uhh, yeah, no, they’re real. That’s “reeducation” as you call it. Wonderful use of a buzzword btw “they’re indoctrinatin’ our kiddddss teachin’ um stuff different from what we taught 'um. It’s wrongg, it’s wroooonnnnnng” So I’m just gonna say… look up the definition of “School” and report back here.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Deal, why don’t you start. [Logical</a> Fallacy: Slippery Slope](<a href=“http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html]Logical”>The Slippery Slope Fallacy) while we’re at it I’ve provided a link to slippery slope fallacy, so we all know what it is. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What. You can absolutely teach tolerance, tolerance and intolerance are learned. You think you came into the world believing what you did? Exactly as you believe it today, through perpetuity? Yeah, no. At one point you learned your beliefs, you learned them. If you can learn them, you can teach them. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t NEED the schools to teach people how to behave, but too many parents don’t bother to teach their kids the proper way to act. So the school needs to set the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable. “Don’t beat the brown kid” “Don’t slap that girl’s butt” “DO treat everyone with respect and kindness.” Simple. What the hell happened to you in your life that you would think schools didn’t also serve that function with their… you know… “teaching” capacity?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Which is exactly the same as the one you mentioned above, it’s just a different way of teaching kids “don’t call him a f@g” - but it goes a step further. It reminds you that kid is a person, deserving of respect, because YES, being gay is fine. That’s exactly the point, teaching gay is fine. To think otherwise IS closed-minded. It IS intolerant, it IS bigoted. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Behavioral Psychologists would disagree with you. Reading a schoolbook about gay penguins shows schoolchildren the normalcy and human side of homosexuality, in an innocent and sweet way. That generally engenders tolerance in them. “OH that’s right, I shouldn’t pick on Timmy cause he has two dads cause the two penguins taught me that that is okay. I think I’ll be friends with Timmy instead of making him come running home crying every day after school.” Simple little lessons teach kids not to discriminate. Besides, it’s not just the inter-child bullying they have to guard against. It’s the bullying by the “Gay is icky and wrong” folks that bombard television in some places with the message that not only is it NOT okay to be gay, but you ought to hate yourself if you are. You know what that leads to? Suicide! Thank you, I think cute innocent penguins to a lot more good than harm to all youth but especially LGBT youth. Maybe that’s why you hate it right, cause it makes an LGBT’s life easier. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See above.</p>

<p>Actually, there is a difference between tolerating homosexuals which would just involve not bullying them or insulting them and accepting their lifestyle which involves approval of their behavior.</p>

<p>Many people do not see homosexuality as normal, and they should be free to hold their opinion on the matter. I do not think the Anus was intended for sexual intercourse, I can clearly see that a woman has organs built for that function. A simple anatomy class would tell you the difference between an anus and a woman’s organs. </p>

<p>I should be free to inform my kids as I see fit on the matter, and not let public schools inform them according to their own opinion.</p>

<p>Look, there is more.</p>

<p>This article shows how the homosexual teachings aren’t just tolerance.</p>

<p>Every fall, millions of parents drop their children off at taxpayer-funded public schools.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, many of these same parents have little or no idea of what is happening to their children once they pass through security into the classroom.</p>

<p>Instead of learning the three R’s, or how to be good citizens, schoolchildren are being taught to reject their parents’ values and to affirm – even celebrate – homosexual behavior.</p>

<p>Radical homosexual activists know that one of the main keys to implementing their agenda is to convert young, impressionable children as early as possible. At a 1999 conference of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Educational Network (GLSEN), attendees were told: “The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they’re right.”</p>

<p>To GLSEN, and other advocates of homosexual behavior, parents and traditional religious values are the main obstacles to achieving their goal of a society that does not just tolerate homosexual behavior, but affirms it as a normal, perhaps even as a preferable life choice.</p>

<p>Remember, it was GLSEN’S “Day of Silence,” when the group encouraged students to remain “silent” for an entire day. When asked a question, participating students were told to hand the teacher or administrator a card that read: “Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies.”</p>

<p>If you tell your child the Day of Silence is a bad use of school time, will your child call you a homophobe? Will the other students taunt your child because his or her parents are homophobes?</p>

<p>GLSEN told children that they should “brainstorm” a list of people “who are likely to stand in your way” of promoting their “cause.” In their organizing manual, children are told that they should target teachers, counselors, and administrators that “have denied you their support in the past, or who’ve expressed bias against (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) people.” The list should also include other children, school board members, people in the community and relatives “who have shown intolerance” of homosexuality. The manual concludes: “People who oppose you on your issue are known as, you guessed it, your opponents.”</p>

<p>Does GLSEN believe that “relatives” includes mom and dad?</p>

<p>Undeniably, yes. In Silver Lake, Massachusetts, a freshman health text said: “Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in your early teens with people of your own sex…You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents.”</p>

<p>In Beverly, Massachusetts, after a week of “Homophobia Week” assemblies, a 14-year-old girl came home and told her father that he was a “homophobe.”</p>

<p>Perhaps most alarming was what occurred in Visalia, California, a sleepy Central Valley town, nowhere near the homosexual power centers of San Francisco and Los Angeles. After legal action from GLSEN and the ACLU, the school district agreed to implement so-called “anti-harassment” programs that would be conducted by GLSEN.</p>

<p>The school district agreed it would implement mandatory training for all school staff and high school students to root out any objection to homosexual behavior and the student training would be “peer to peer,” meaning that students who do not agree with homosexual behavior will be pressured by their fellow classmates to comply. “Big Brother” is alive and well in Visalia and he is watching you and your kids.</p>

<p>At a GLSEN conference in 1999, homosexual activist Chuck Jones told the audience, “This is war, so plan accordingly” when taking on parents and teachers. If this is “war,” then parents and those who have moral objections to homosexual behavior have already lost a number of strategic battles. A 2001 Zogby International poll of high school seniors found that 68 percent said that homosexuals should be able to adopt children and two-thirds thought that same-sex marriage should be allowed.</p>

<p>What is this gay agenda, anyways? I don’t have a problem with an aggressive agenda if it’s trying to attain equality and acceptance. If my future government is filled with gay people then hey, cool, I don’t care. A person’s sex/romantic life has nothing to do with government so I don’t see why these right wing nuts, religious or not, are making such a fuss about the “gay agenda.” Oh wait, yes I do - they’re intolerant bigots.</p>

<p>Let me force intelligent design on your children then. That needs to be accepted too.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>non sequitur</p>

<p>Those centers are almost always primarily funded by student activity fees, not state appropriations.</p>

<p>One more reason I will never live in Texas.</p>

<p>@USCBioGrad: Trust me. Visailia and all of these ‘sleepy Central Valley towns’ need all the GLBT programs they can get.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, tolerating them would include staying the heck out of their lives and not trying to shape public policy about them </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Except nothing about what they do is “opinion” it’s based on science, backed up by testing. Whereas your opinion is by definition, not really that scientific. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You act like this happens every day. You know it’s not a daily topic, right?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re starting to sound like a massive ■■■■■, as I said originally. You know what? They ARE right, but it’s no different than saying “children are the future.” Bit of a tautology, don’t you think?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay… stop… now… If you’re LGBT, you should be free to live your life as freely as you would if you were straight, with the same rights and priviledges as everyone else. Homosexuality IS normal as defined by science. If you don’t like the scientific definition I really dunno what to tell you. It’s not like it’s an intellectually valid excuse to say “oh yeah? Well I disagree with that.” That’s your opinion. Opinions aren’t facts, although they ought to be based on facts. You’re free to believe what you believe but when you start trying to enshrine your beliefs into the law? Oh yeah, you can BET it becomes OUR problem after that. You’re free to hold those beliefs, just don’t expect a belief to be held in the same equal regard as scientific research. Simple.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And, typically, you miss the point of the Day of Silence. The kid is still in school, is still learning. But they’ve decided to do something that seems so out of place, by taping their mouths and symbolically standing in with LGBT kids who are bullied. Do you honestly not understand how powerfully symbolic willingly surrendering speech for a day is? Do you get the statement that’s being made? Yeah, if you agree with the Day of Silence, you’re PROBABLY a homophobe. You agree with the Day of Truth, right? Right? If you say yes, then you’re entirely a homophobe and your kid has every reason to call you that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This means protesting in front of the people who’ve shown homophobia, these people if they’ve shown bias are homophobes. What’s the problem here, exactly? That they’re questioning the status quo? It’s they’re questioning the status quo, isn’t it? They’re a bit different, and that horrifies you, doesn’t it?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh dear, she said that? Well, what’s the context. What are the father’s beliefs? Where are they printed? Maybe he IS a homophobe, did you not think about that? We’re just told she called him that without the “why” so we’re led to believe she was brainwashed by the schools. Come back and tell me the father’s beliefs and then I’LL tell you if he was a homophobe or not. Clearly you’re bothered by the fact that the girl “questioned” her parents, but that’s the job of the next generation, to question the parents. To realize parents aren’t perfect. That’s how we evolve as a society. Until you provide evidence, I’m going to defer to the girl that her father was actually a homophobe, after all she’d know better than us.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>OHHH how scary, they demand respect. Those darn queers and demanding equality, how dare they? Uppity little weirdos. Outta shut up and stay in the back of the bus, right? Am I right?</p>

<p>No, really?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Got anything more recent than 2001? Yeah, didn’t think so. Goodness me, the younger generation doesn’t believe the same things as their parents, whatever will we do the sky is falling the sky is falling chicken little was right we all need to run run run run!!!</p>

<p>Honestly, do you hear yourself talk? Really? PLEASE tell me you’re a ■■■■■ and you don’t honestly believe the b.s that’s coming out of your mouth. If you honestly have such poorly-developed critical thinking skills, I really REALLY feel sorry for your kids. You’re a right-wing authoritarian though, based on your posts, I really ought not be surprised that you hold such uncritical beliefs and are so terrified by people who question authority and the status quo.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why? It doesn’t have any scientific backing behind it. Homosexuals being no different from heteros, being normal, does. We’re talking about schools teaching on the basis of facts and reality - intelligent design has neither. He’s right, non sequitur - and forced choice fallacy. INVALID</p>

<p>You’ll notice, I haven’t really brought evidence against your points this time. That’s because everything in your “article” has been b.s propaganda that a 7th grader could honestly easily refute. I’m not going to waste my time hunting down sources against such obvious scare tactics that are so clearly false (or innocent in the case of the GSLEN) that they can be dismissed out of hand.</p>

<p>You have no argument. Just a string of logical fallacies and pathos appeals. And appeals to a (false) authority too. My final conclusion of you is that you’re a ■■■■■ who just came here to make trouble and needs to be reported to the admins ASAP - or a sockpuppet of a member making strawman crazy-person arguments in which case “you” AND the original member need to be banned.</p>

<p>YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID</p>

<p>Queer hi 5, Itachirumon.</p>

<p>^-high fives- he has no argument, like… at all. I mean I thought Anti’s arguments were bad, this guy just… REALLY screams ■■■■■. It’s annoying trying to maintain a civil tone and calmly debate the facts against his propaganda and so-obviously-incorrect b.s when I want to just savagely beat him with a Clue by Four while hurling obscinities at him.</p>

<p>Anyway, I need to study for a Theatre Appreciation Honors midterm so you’ll have to hold the fort while I’m gone. No sense in ruining my future and TAP certification over a ■■■■■</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sigh, why can’t you have a conversation without resorting to such childish personal attacks like this? Can’t you just, I dunno, think them instead of writing them? Is this how you argue offline? </p>

<p>

Yeah, /real/ civil. :rolleyes: </p>

<p>It’s just that I don’t think my point is all that difficult to understand… it’s not the school’s job to teach children that the teachings of their religion are wrong (the ones which DON’T have scientific backing; I grant that intelligent design theory is wrong according to science but not that homosexuality is genetic - for every scientific study that “proves” that it’s genetic I’m sure you could find as many or more that “prove” it’s not). Besides that, intelligent design is a matter of biblical interpretation so it’s no wonder that people idled for so long in just believing in Creationism. And this isn’t a right-wing Christian thing, there are many religions that decry homosexuality as an immoral lifestyle. And if I hold an opinion that you disagree with but that has little factual evidence to the contrary, it’s your duty to be “tolerant” of it, is it not? </p>

<p>No one in this thread has called you names or told you they feel sorry for your children, so refrain from doing these things to others, 'kay? Honestly, at times it seems more like you’re just trying to get attention or make a scene than really present yourself as a respectable opponent.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><em>conspicuously clears throat</em></p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s the school’s job to provide a safe place for all of their students. That’s what the Day of Silence is about, as well as other programs that teach acceptance of homosexuality in others.</p>

<p>First of all, books about gay penguins are awesome. “And Tango Makes Three” is adorable.</p>

<p>I found it interesting that someone said schools were teaching about gayness instead of teaching students how to be good citizens. Does the poster not see the direct connection between the two? </p>

<p>No, it isn’t the place of a public school to teach a student that their religious beliefs are wrong. In fact it isn’t the place of a public school to say much about religion at all. The lesson is not “Gay people are awesome and your church is lying to you”, it’s “Gay people exist and that’s okay.”</p>

<p>But I believe this article was about college-level services, which makes this derail kind of silly. Certainly no one is forcing students to use this center, and parents aren’t up in arms over their adult children being taught about sexuality and gender?</p>

<p>EDIT: And by the way, heterosexual and cisgender centers already exist. They’re called ‘everywhere’.</p>

<p>Fullofpop is right, we’ve gotten off topic. This thread is not about gay penguin picture books or the “gay agenda” (pfft). It’s about the incompetence of the Texas legislature and their inability to keep their priorities straight. </p>

<p>I go to UT and our Gender and Sexuality Center is actually a pretty well-kept secret. I went there once and it was literally one small-ish room with a couple of computers and some T-shirts and literature set up in the basement of our Student Services Building. I think they’ve gotten a new location recently, but still, it’s not like it’s this mammoth waste of student money. They only have a couple of low-key social events each year and they’re still underfunded. UT wastes money on PLENTY of things, but trust me, the GSC is not one of them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Can’t you just have a conversation that introduces facts instead of propaganda? Scientific method instead of “opinions?”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Stop. Your point, posted through another account. Sockpuppetry confirmed!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You know science isn’t in the business of proving things, right? Good! But let me ask you something, for all those studies that “support” it not having a genetic basis… how many of them are ACTUALLY studies by people who don’t do the file drawer effect, who used a legitimate sample, who performed their experiments as unbiased as possible? This is just like the Global Warming debate, a fapping monkey could tell you man made global warming exists, but there are studies out there, paid for by corporate shills to fudge the numbers. We know these studies exist, it’s not propaganda. Now, a lot of the anti-gay studies are in the same boat, studies where they wrote the conclusion and found evidence to support it. That’s not how science works. It’s about testability. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I tolerate your opinions to the extent that I think you’re allowed to have them. But a popular libertarian saying goes “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” - once you try to codify your unscientific beliefs into law, especially when they harm me directly, you become an issue. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What, and your arguments aren’t? I didn’t give any value to his opinions because all they were were “WAHH MY KIDS SHOULDNT QUESTION MY AUTHORITY” “THINGS CHANGE” “BWAHH, OBEY ME.” Worthless propaganda, I shouldn’t HAVE to respond to the kind of drek he posted civilly, or show it any respect. None of it was scientific, NONE of it. All it did was post things the GSLEN said or did or the goals of the Day of Silence and act like these were somehow scary very bad awful evil sinful immoral ultra wrong things. It’s like saying I should reply respectfully to the assertion that any woman who was raped “wanted it” it’s SO baseless and so lacking in fact that the only reasonable response is to scream, loudly. It’s so well-known that it ISN’T a fact, I shouldn’t need to waste the time to point it out. </p>

<p>But buriedalie and FullofPop are right, this is not the productive area of discussion</p>

<p>What is an advocate of homosexual behaviour? If you’re straight, you’re straight. If you’re gay, you’re gay… A straight person won’t seriously engage in homosexual behaviour and vice versa (not considering social pressure).</p>

<p>Actually… katy perry fits</p>

<p>

…? Seriously, what on earth are you on about now? By “my point” I meant the things I’ve already said in this thread (go look bro) and the things I’ve said in the bajillion other threads where you and I have argued about homosexuality. </p>

<p>

so you deny that studies could have pro-gay biases? </p>

<p>

Good, we agree on this. Then stop using taxpayer money to teach kids homosexuality. </p>

<p>

ya, whatever you say ace. :rolleyes:</p>