Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School

[Modbert]

Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing "traditional marriage," according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and "said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom."

Controversy over DeMint's position on this issue first arose in 2004 during a Senate debate, when he was asked whether he agreed with the state party's platform that said openly gay teachers should be barred from teaching public school. DeMint said he agreed with that position because government shouldn't be endorsing certain behaviors.

"(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense," DeMint said on Friday in Spartanburg. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

There are so many things wrong with his statements that I don't even know where to begin criticizing them.

 

[logical4u]

Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing "traditional marriage," according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and "said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom."

Controversy over DeMint's position on this issue first arose in 2004 during a Senate debate, when he was asked whether he agreed with the state party's platform that said openly gay teachers should be barred from teaching public school. DeMint said he agreed with that position because government shouldn't be endorsing certain behaviors.

"(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense," DeMint said on Friday in Spartanburg. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

There are so many things wrong with his statements that I don't even know where to begin criticizing them.

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing "traditional marriage," according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and "said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom."

Controversy over DeMint's position on this issue first arose in 2004 during a Senate debate, when he was asked whether he agreed with the state party's platform that said openly gay teachers should be barred from teaching public school. DeMint said he agreed with that position because government shouldn't be endorsing certain behaviors.

"(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense," DeMint said on Friday in Spartanburg. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

There are so many things wrong with his statements that I don't even know where to begin criticizing them.

It's South Carolina man. The majority of folks here probably agree with him.

 

[Modbert]

It's South Carolina man. The majority of folks here probably agree with him.

That would be the scariest thing about his statements.

 

[elvis]

if parents don't want their kids to go to school and have teachers that are gay or pregnant out of wedlock, there is always the private school option. Otherwise, too fucking bad. Public schools cannot and should not discriminate.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing "traditional marriage," according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and "said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom."

Controversy over DeMint's position on this issue first arose in 2004 during a Senate debate, when he was asked whether he agreed with the state party's platform that said openly gay teachers should be barred from teaching public school. DeMint said he agreed with that position because government shouldn't be endorsing certain behaviors.

"(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense," DeMint said on Friday in Spartanburg. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

There are so many things wrong with his statements that I don't even know where to begin criticizing them.

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

Jeeze what a novel idea.

 

[fyrenza]

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

That's one way of looking at it, but there ARE gay folks out there, In Real Life,

as there are unmarried pregnant women,

and I'd rather our school system didn't TEACH bigotry...

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

That's one way of looking at it, but there ARE gay folks out there, In Real Life,

as there are unmarried pregnant women,

and I'd rather our school system didn't TEACH bigotry...

I don't think it has anything to do with bigotry.

It's more to do with letting them live a childhood before real life hits them in the face. There's value to a decent childhood.

 

[Barb]

Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing "traditional marriage," according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and "said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom."

Controversy over DeMint's position on this issue first arose in 2004 during a Senate debate, when he was asked whether he agreed with the state party's platform that said openly gay teachers should be barred from teaching public school. DeMint said he agreed with that position because government shouldn't be endorsing certain behaviors.

"(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense," DeMint said on Friday in Spartanburg. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

There are so many things wrong with his statements that I don't even know where to begin criticizing them.

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

There are laws against employment discrimination. If you want your kids going to a school that discriminates, YOU should pay for a private school.

 

[logical4u]

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

This has to be one of the stupidest posts I've read on here in awhile. Congrats on setting that bar so high, or would it be so low? Either way, congrats.

Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
If you want "brain-washed" worker bees, then you give them role-models, not people that are "rebeling against the system". If you want the children to grow up not believing in the rule of law, and taking advantage of the system at every turn, then you give the students "alternative models".
If I am a parent, I do not want my tax dollars to support a person that does not respect my values by trying to push "their agenda" onto school students. It is like the guys that were using drugs and drinking that worked for Chrysler; it was unacceptable for them to do that while they were going to be working that afternoon. If you want to display your homosexual tendencies, or immoral living conditions, or your recreational drug use, don't teach school. If you want to represent a moral person that will be influencing young children, then teach school.

 

[fyrenza]

The other side of that coin is homeschooling,

trying to protect children from EVERYTHING,

and it just leaves them defenseless for what is GOING to occur in their lives.

I'd MUCH rather be able to talk with my son about how gay peeps feel, and about how accidents DO happen when you have sex,

than to try to "protect" him from knowing anything about any of it, you know?

I believe that we ALL go through a time when we aren't sure about our sexual identities,

and I'd like to address it, As Soon As my child wEnders about it,

rather than heaving them out into the cold, cruel world to fend for themselves,

afraid to speak to me about any of it 'cuz I'm on record as being "against" it.

 

[rdean]

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

That's one way of looking at it, but there ARE gay folks out there, In Real Life,

as there are unmarried pregnant women,

and I'd rather our school system didn't TEACH bigotry...

I don't think it has anything to do with bigotry.

It's more to do with letting them live a childhood before real life hits them in the face. There's value to a decent childhood.

Because gays and pregnant women are such terrible things to face. They will snatch a little Christian's childhood away before you can say, "Will and Grace".

 

[elvis]

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

This has to be one of the stupidest posts I've read on here in awhile. Congrats on setting that bar so high, or would it be so low? Either way, congrats.

Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
If you want "brain-washed" worker bees, then you give them role-models, not people that are "rebeling against the system". If you want the children to grow up not believing in the rule of law, and taking advantage of the system at every turn, then you give the students "alternative models".
If I am a parent, I do not want my tax dollars to support a person that does not respect my values by trying to push "their agenda" onto school students. It is like the guys that were using drugs and drinking that worked for Chrysler; it was unacceptable for them to do that while they were going to be working that afternoon. If you want to display your homosexual tendencies, or immoral living conditions, or your recreational drug use, don't teach school. If you want to represent a moral person that will be influencing young children, then teach school.

red herring. prostitution and drug use are illegal.

 

[fyrenza]

Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
If you want "brain-washed" worker bees, then you give them role-models, not people that are "rebeling against the system". If you want the children to grow up not believing in the rule of law, and taking advantage of the system at every turn, then you give the students "alternative models".
If I am a parent, I do not want my tax dollars to support a person that does not respect my values by trying to push "their agenda" onto school students. It is like the guys that were using drugs and drinking that worked for Chrysler; it was unacceptable for them to do that while they were going to be working that afternoon. If you want to display your homosexual tendencies, or immoral living conditions, or your recreational drug use, don't teach school. If you want to represent a moral person that will be influencing young children, then teach school.

And based on YOUR logic,

being gay or pregnant out of wedlock should be ILLEGAL,

as are all of your examples.

That's a fail, friend.

 

[Modbert]

Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
If you want "brain-washed" worker bees, then you give them role-models, not people that are "rebeling against the system". If you want the children to grow up not believing in the rule of law, and taking advantage of the system at every turn, then you give the students "alternative models".
If I am a parent, I do not want my tax dollars to support a person that does not respect my values by trying to push "their agenda" onto school students. It is like the guys that were using drugs and drinking that worked for Chrysler; it was unacceptable for them to do that while they were going to be working that afternoon. If you want to display your homosexual tendencies, or immoral living conditions, or your recreational drug use, don't teach school. If you want to represent a moral person that will be influencing young children, then teach school.

So you're equating prostitutes and drug addicts to homosexuals and unmarried women who are pregnant.

Do I really even need to try at this point folks?

Also, if you don't want your kids being taught by a unmarried pregnant woman, send them to private school.

 

[fyrenza]

red herring. prostitution and drug use are illegal.

So is being drunk at work...

 

[elvis]

red herring. prostitution and drug use are illegal.

So is being drunk at work...

yeah I'm thinking that would fall under public drunkenness.

 

[Barb]

The other side of that coin is homeschooling,

trying to protect children from EVERYTHING,

and it just leaves them defenseless for what is GOING to occur in their lives.

I'd MUCH rather be able to talk with my son about how gay peeps feel, and about how accidents DO happen when you have sex,

than to try to "protect" him from knowing anything about any of it, you know?

I believe that we ALL go through a time when we aren't sure about our sexual identities,

and I'd like to address it, As Soon As my child wEnders about it,

rather than heaving them out into the cold, cruel world to fend for themselves,

afraid to speak to me about any of it 'cuz I'm on record as being "against" it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fyrenza again.

 

[logical4u]

Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
If you want "brain-washed" worker bees, then you give them role-models, not people that are "rebeling against the system". If you want the children to grow up not believing in the rule of law, and taking advantage of the system at every turn, then you give the students "alternative models".
If I am a parent, I do not want my tax dollars to support a person that does not respect my values by trying to push "their agenda" onto school students. It is like the guys that were using drugs and drinking that worked for Chrysler; it was unacceptable for them to do that while they were going to be working that afternoon. If you want to display your homosexual tendencies, or immoral living conditions, or your recreational drug use, don't teach school. If you want to represent a moral person that will be influencing young children, then teach school.

And based on YOUR logic,

being gay or pregnant out of wedlock should be ILLEGAL,

as are all of your examples.

That's a fail, friend.

Where did I say those should be illegal? (That would increase the size of the government)
I would encourage those "teachers" to start their own school. It would demonstrate how many parents would "pay" to have their children "exposed" to people that choose to live a less moral lifestyle.
Guessing by the amount of negative feedback, some of you feel that the schools are a great experiment to be conducted on other people's children, and not an institution that focuses on reading, writing, and arithmetic. How does "exposing" children to distractive lifestyles improve their test scores?

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.

This has to be one of the stupidest posts I've read on here in awhile. Congrats on setting that bar so high, or would it be so low? Either way, congrats.

Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
If you want "brain-washed" worker bees, then you give them role-models, not people that are "rebeling against the system". If you want the children to grow up not believing in the rule of law, and taking advantage of the system at every turn, then you give the students "alternative models".
If I am a parent, I do not want my tax dollars to support a person that does not respect my values by trying to push "their agenda" onto school students. It is like the guys that were using drugs and drinking that worked for Chrysler; it was unacceptable for them to do that while they were going to be working that afternoon. If you want to display your homosexual tendencies, or immoral living conditions, or your recreational drug use, don't teach school. If you want to represent a moral person that will be influencing young children, then teach school.

Yes...we shouldn't be able to discriminate against child-abusers, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, mass-murders, communists, nudists, sheep-fuckers, people that drool uncontrollably, retards, folks with Tourettes, cross-dressers.....etc, ether.