Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Tennessee warns against "gateway sexual activity"
Including such heinous acts as holding hands, and kissing.
Did I travel back to Victorian England without noticing? Maybe we should go for segregation of the genders at all times, next.
Comments
>Implying Holding hands was seen as sexual activity in Victorian England
But I don't get why the Deep South of America wants to copy Islamic states when it comes to certain behaviours
>Implying the Deep South of America actually knows anything at all about Islamic states
Give them a century or two, and they'll probably upgrade to 50's America.
Okay, as someone who lives here, that really isn't true (though the worst of them will insist that the war was mostly not about slavery). 50s America is pretty much where they are, since most of them think the cold war is still going and was actually about something.
I imagine this will lead to unintended results, considering how promoting abstinence doesn't work all that well, as this quote from the article:
The problem with religious/moral conservatives' thinking about issues/problems of sexuality, particularly irresponsible sexual behavior, is that they have a belief that responsible sexual behavior can be forced by indoctrination, never mind that that solution only works before the genie got out of the bottle...and especially considering modern society's scientific knowledge and social connectedness, it has already.
So if you try to repress sexuality, it works...but only for those people who want to repress their sexuality in the first place. For everyone else, they just find another way out.
Someone needs to explain to them that you can't force people to behave righteously*; they have to want to do it themselves, AND you also have to deal realistically with what happens when they don't.
* At least, what they consider morally correct behavior. You might disagree, but I'm trying to think of things from their perspective here.
It's a turn of phrase, not literal.
^^ To be fair, not only conservatives think that you can force people to behave righteously, what with hate speech laws, political correctness and all that jazz.
Last I checked, the Deep South are still stuck debating about who won the Civil War.
If you consider wearing Confederate shirts "debating", then yes, they do.
^ Pretty much that. Liberals have done lots of things that could be considered forcing people to accept "the right thing".
Yes, truly, liberals are forcing their bigotry upon others with their vile hate speech laws.
The conservative problem with sex education is that it's far too focused on trying to get teenagers to not have sex. This is never, ever going to work. The best sex education is to tell kids what sex is, what happens if you have unprotected sex (consequences of raising a child, why abortion is terrible, STDs, etc.) and tell them how to have safe sex. This new legislation also, unsurprisingly, comes from the War on Drugs and the thought that outright banning something will make people stop using it. Hint: it won't. Not that anything beyond alcohol, weed, and tobacco should be legal, of course, but telling people that it's some super-duper deadly toxin that will CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER only makes people more eager to try it. Whether it be sex or drugs.
What I said has nothing to do about bigotry/non-bigotry, but the imposing of moral ideas. There were no value judgments there whatsoever, just stating a fact.
Yes, truly, liberals are forcing their bigotry upon others with their vile hate speech laws.
Never said it was bigotry. But by some, who would use hate speech, it would seem like liberals forcefully enforcing their view of what is right. Not that I'm endorsing hate speech, but it's all a matter of perspective.
Anyway, I do agree that sex and drug education simply needs to tell people how it works, not try and paint it as a really bad thing. Especially by high school. Tons of kid use marijuana, and trying to paint it as an unquestionably bad thing just makes these kids more convinced that it's just the man trying to mess with their fun. They (or I should say we, since I'm still in high school) need to be told just the facts and allowed to make decisions ourselves.
Uh, guys, hate speech is protected as free speech under the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment anyway.
That said, it does raise a secondary point that just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Something can be legal but still make you a jerk if you do it.
Not for all of us
...uh, not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you don't live in the U.S., or that you do but have beef with the way this issue is handled by current laws/caselaw, or what?
Whale's English, and there are hate speech laws in most, if not all, European countries.
Oh, okay.
Actually, I am specifically British but yes, hate speech isn't seen as protected speech in the EU.
I also think that various other federal and state discrimination laws in the United States prevent speech that is meant to incite violence or hatred against a group of people. Not sure, though.
That's the "fighting words" exception. It's pretty narrow, though. More about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words