What is more important to be taught in school - Gay themes or the Constitution?

Did you have a point or was the brilliant observation (freedom of is not freedom from) all you have to offer ?

 

People who don't see any value in learning new things are the type who end up looking like an idiot on comedy gigs like "Jay walking" and such.

 

LOL By directing you to the claims of the founding fathers in support of separation of Church and State (as evidence for what their purpose was) you claim misdirection.

Too funny. Abject denial is and Ad Hom (rather than address what the founders actually said) is all you have.

 

Obviously the Constitution.

Do you really care about who's b*tt-f*cking each other in private? ... Unless what? That they make it a requirement to get b*tt-f*cked like Spartans? Nice long history they had.

 

When teaching science, especially biology or physiology, homosexuality can be taught in a scientific manner that is neutral poltically. The problem is that social conservatives do not want this to be taught at all no matter what science says. And that is the problem. In addioitn, when teaching the Constitution, especially the concept of minority rights, homosexuality can be related there as well. But again, social conservatives do not want this to be taught at all.

Both can be taught. Children do learn about sex and sexual behavior at an early age from their friends and what they see on TV and other social media. But the school should do this in under a meutral method, either purely for science through biology or physicoogy, or through the laws of government and the rights of minority groups.

 

You still ignore the incorrect statements you make as if you didn't make them. That is not my problem.

"Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Constitution but in one of Jefferson's letters. The Constitution never mentions "separation of Church and State", but then again we are talking about English. The Constitution, and only by amendment, does not allow government to "establish" a religion. The idea that government should be free of religion is how it has now been interpreted but the founders never meant that to be.

 

BS, that is not the schools job.

 

All relgion aside (for there are some religions requiring young post-pubescent boys to get it on with an ugly hairy neanderthal just once)... what if your boy won't get it on with women, and the mother hires a rather lovely woman from the Synagog to seduce him, and she tries three times, and all the boy does is stomp out after the thrid trie hollering something about how he just does not get excited by it?

I stayed out of it. I just taute the kid tonnes about how to use computers. He'd ask me what I saw in his mother, and I'd figure out clever ways to dance around it leading to him giving me cynical looks.

Whatever. As an experiment one day he bought a pile of LSD and didn't think it was kicking in enough after 20 minutes, so he popped more, and next thing we've got is a kid-guy naked running around the house jumping on me like an octopus-Kangaroo untill his mother calls the cops to take him to the hospital while I hold him down.

So... anyway... sorry for getting off topid, but, when did Satan take away your freedom of religion?

 

As stated earlier, later religious control freaks (not to be confused with religious people in general) have seized upon the vague language of the first amendment in an effort to blur historical facts.

The founders thought that this was clear enough "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" No State Religion and no religious laws to be forced on people.

This meaning is made even more clear when reading the writings of the founders some of which was given you previously.

Why are you arguing for theocracy if I may ask ? Is that really what you want ?

 

What if he then told you that he was attracted to his mother or his father? Or what if he told you he was attracted to the dog?

You would probably tell him that he needs to go back and think about it and certainly not act upon those feelings. What makes you think you couldn't do that if he said he was attracted to guys?

 

Not saying Satan, or anyone else did.

My point was that the intent of the first amendment was in part to forbid Congress from making laws on the basis of religion.

 

You have already forgotten the point of the thread haven't you? The argument descended into morality and the Founders who believed mightily in morality and their moral beliefs guiding government. Those moral beliefs derived from religion. Separation of church and State as in not establishing a State religion but nowhere did they believe in separation of religion and State as in religious moral teachings.

 

What exactly is separation of church and state? I would proffer this post on this website as an answer. It'll make you think.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

 

You can live in denial if you wish. I have already given you all the information required which proves the separation of church and state was at the heart of the first amendment and high on the priority list of the founders.

 

Good Lord, you have done no such thing, you only think you have. You also cannot address anything I have said without just repeating how right you are. Typical.

 

I posted the thoughts of the founders. This is not about my thoughts but theirs. If you want to ignore those posts then so be it

Why do you want religion integrated with the state anyway ?

 

So did I but you ignored them.

 

I did not ignore them. I addressed them. If I missed one let me know.

 

Tolerating the intolerant? Oh, the irony!

 

Unless there is a discussion on genetics there is absolutely no reason to even bother to bring up homosexuality at all. Biology is just about components of an organism and whether or not the organism reproduces asexually or not. While its been a while since I had biology class at no point was it ever necessary to mention the sexual orientation of any organism even people. The only class in school that has any reason to discuss it would be psychology or a genetics class.

I don't have any issue with discussing gay rights as it pertains to Constitutional politics and in fact since its a current event it would be weird to not discuss it. Pretending that homosexuality has any business in any general science class though is just pushing an agenda for its own sake and is no better than the social conservatives that you claim want to ban all discussion of it.

 

So, you would see the educational system of your country having a major social assignment and impact?

It is a matter of discussion also in Italy:

school, first of all, should form citizens

This is the main principal of the social vision of education. If you remember a song by Pink Floyd, they sang "WE DON'T NEED YOUR EDUCATION" ... Just the imposition of the social rule of the educational system was among the roots of the young protest movements of the 60's / 70's.

In Italy we tried with "civil education" classes [btw, classes of religion are still there in Italian schools of any level, they are no more compulsory], but the result was poor.

Sex ed has met more success [for obvious reasons at least such a class gets the attention and the interest of the teens!].

P.S. religious schools exist also here, they are more numerous in the low level [it's almost an Italian tradition to send little children to a kindergarten managed by noons in a religious structure, not rarely just in a convent].

 

My point was obvious. You see when people reply and quote you they are replying to your comment. Now use that basic forum knowledge and put the pieces together.. You can thank me later.

 

Why bother. Any discussion of the constitution will jerk off the current interpretation.

 

I agree, and I think that many other liberals would agree with you. Whether one likes or dislikes homosexuality or the constitution, they are a part of life -- but a part of life that one should be familiar with long before college.

They expect us to just bend over and take it!

 

A lot of our founders wore wigs and capri pants. Isn't teaching the Constitution just a little bit gay all on its own?