angelxxuanFeatured By OwnerFeb 3, 2013Student General Artist
well Tennessee is in the bible belt, which sees so many things they are against to be sort of, well, "bad", "evil" and so forth. I'm not the least surprised by such an act, a state which brings about the act for children to pull up their pants and wear pants, other odd/awkward bills are going to come about as well.
but there are other therapists out there, have to pay for them, so just because one comes out and people can't accept it, it's best to keep it in the closet and come out to those who you trust. school is the bad place, especially in the younger years, bullies are everywhere and are worse in these years, well, bullies will be with us for the rest of our lives, but one should trust who they are coming out to first and take it slowly, it's still a touchy subject and new, it's the new civil rights thing, so the news has mentioned.
It protects good God-fearing students from the evilness of homosexuality. It protects their beautiful little flower of ignorance. We need this bill for the safety of this land as a whole. WE NEED THIS FOR THE CHILDREN. MURRICA.
The wording of the actual bill seems innocent enough: [link]
All it states TO happen is that sexual things not directly related to reproduction will be removed from the classroom (I disagree with that, but that's another discussion).
It then goes on to say what the bill DOES NOT lot them do, implying that these are things they can already do.
But I do wonder how some of the wording will be interpreted by the legal system and the schools. I can definitely see how some school administrator could interpret this just as BlackStar has stated it and start getting students outed, viewing this bill as evidence that they not only can, but should do such.
Pah. In 2020 we're going to have a single blue Congressional district connecting south Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio with spindly little lines along I-35 and US-290, and another one in the Rio Grande valley.
Barring that, our electoral college will be split.
Nuh uh. Latinos are growing in population. They're going to swing the State blue by 2020. The same thing that's happening with California was predicted a while ago. The same holds true for Texas and I think New Mexico.
Demographics are changing and if the trend holds Texas will be swing or Blue by 2020. New Mexico will not be a swing State, it'll be a Blue State. California is looking to be almost solid Blue for at least a few decades unless Democrats fuck up their Latino base there.
LOL, I feel bad for you XD I imagine the younger generation in Texas is probably going nuts over the people there, at least the ones who don't follow that closely in their parents' beliefs >.> MEET ME IN CALIFORNIA!
It doesn't force them to tell parents if they suspect a student is gay, it forces them to tell parents if they counsel students regarding homosexuality, or what Campfield likes to call "immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality". They are allowed to but are not required to give such counseling, it's up to their own discretion. It's still a fucked up bill, but I wish people would at least read the damn thing before talking about it.
But that's not distributed evenly, and even if it were that means half of the school staff could potentially see fit to abuse this law. It probably wouldn't be a problem in a liberal state like California, but in a conservative state like Tennesse the risk is even greater.
About 50% of the people who answered for that particular Study. If you're citing a particular study, which i hope you are. The reality is that the majority of americans, that's over the 55% mark, are against homosexuality in any shape or form. Homophobia in essence.
I also have to think you're overreacting the bill. When you actually read the bill, it doesn't seem to say anything that you described, unless you think that there are undertones. This is what it says:
"[The bill shall not prohibit...] A school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal from counseling a student who is engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and wellbeing of the student or another person; provided, that wherever possible such counseling shall be done in consultation with the student's parents or legal guardians."
I'm not sure what acts are specifically a problem here, but there is no mention of homosexuality.
Many conservatives think that homosexuality is a risky behavior or a mental health issue of some sort, and in a conservative state like Tennessee that can be a problem with school staff being allowed to twist laws like this to that effect. After all, it doesn't specify any standard for which one has to gauge or justify what a risky behavior is.
It says that if a student is counseled because they are "engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and wellbeing of the student or another person", the person counseling the student has to tell the parents. That senator responsible for the bill, Stacey Campfield, believes that homosexuality is included in that category. He has publicly stated that homosexuality is dangerous.
Note that before it says what faculty will not prohibited from doing, it says "LEA policies and procedures adopted pursuant to this section shall not prohibit:"
Now unless this is some legal language I don't understand, that means that the following is applicable to any procedures or policies that might be adopted in accordance with the previous 2 sections, which are talking about human sexuality and prohibit materials discussing "unnatural" sexuality. This implies that counseling the students on these so called "harmful behaviors" could otherwise be viewed as violating the first 2 sections, necessitating the need for the 3rd section.
Basically it's giving counselors or teachers an opening to "out" students if the counselor/teacher believes they are engaging in anything psychologically harmful. Problem is that a lot people, including Stacey Campfield, think that includes homosexuality.
I don't think there is. Note that it says "LEA policies and procedures adopted pursuant to this section shall not prohibit:" Doesn't this imply that they are still talking about faculty discussing sexuality with students?
Which would be unnecessary to say unless "harmful behaviors" includes homosexuality. It's basically saying "don't talk about homosexuality in the classroom, but you can still counsel students about it if you tell their parents"