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

[shintao]

I wonder how they could possibly go about making the Senators ideas legal in America, and have them withstand the Supreme Court where this would end up?

 

[logical4u]

I believe Jim DeMint's statement was about people that touted their immorality. I agree with him, you, apparently, don't.
If there was no public schools and you had the choice of two private schools: one where the teachers acted professionally, and dressed in muted fashion where the focus was on the intellect and learning, and the other where the teachers dress and behavior drew the focus onto themselves and personality, not so much on the intellet, which would you choose for your children?
I work for my employer. I am expected to dress for the job, and act in a professional manner. That is all I am saying that I expect teachers to do. You seem to think teachers should be encouraged to behave as "individuals" with all their personal beliefs, foremost in the classroom. I disagree. I pay them to teach, not work on their egos.

WHO decides if I'm "touting" immorality?

Is me admiting that I smoke dope immoral? I have "good" excuses (health probs), but it's still against the law, here in Texas.

It is NOT against the law, in other states, states which choose to believe that GOD Himself gave us every plant for OUR USAGE.

I wouldn't DREAM of showing up to work, stoned to the bone ~ I have sense enough to realize that it could hurt me, along with anyone I was working with.

My folks HATED that I was a stoner, but it wasn't a view of the reality of the situation. We TALKED about it, and I got to see where they were coming from, as well as letting them know where I was at.

GOD gave me Free Choice, and I'll lay my life down to insure that OTHERS get THEIR Free Choice,

whether I agree with it, or not.

It isn't up to ME; it isn't up to YOU, either, to make those decisions, even for the children you seem to feel you OWN.

That's why I suggested a free-enterprise school. It would be a great experiment for society. If parents were willing to pay to have their children exposed to people that believe teaching children is about their personal ego first and children's education second, it would be a great socialist hit. If parents did not put their children into the school it would demonstrate that parents consider their childrens' education to be the main priority of a school, and not the teachers' ego.

 

[del]

I believe Jim DeMint's statement was about people that touted their immorality. I agree with him, you, apparently, don't.
If there was no public schools and you had the choice of two private schools: one where the teachers acted professionally, and dressed in muted fashion where the focus was on the intellect and learning, and the other where the teachers dress and behavior drew the focus onto themselves and personality, not so much on the intellet, which would you choose for your children?
I work for my employer. I am expected to dress for the job, and act in a professional manner. That is all I am saying that I expect teachers to do. You seem to think teachers should be encouraged to behave as "individuals" with all their personal beliefs, foremost in the classroom. I disagree. I pay them to teach, not work on their egos.

WHO decides if I'm "touting" immorality?

Is me admiting that I smoke dope immoral? I have "good" excuses (health probs), but it's still against the law, here in Texas.

It is NOT against the law, in other states, states which choose to believe that GOD Himself gave us every plant for OUR USAGE.

I wouldn't DREAM of showing up to work, stoned to the bone ~ I have sense enough to realize that it could hurt me, along with anyone I was working with.

My folks HATED that I was a stoner, but it wasn't a view of the reality of the situation. We TALKED about it, and I got to see where they were coming from, as well as letting them know where I was at.

GOD gave me Free Choice, and I'll lay my life down to insure that OTHERS get THEIR Free Choice,

whether I agree with it, or not.

It isn't up to ME; it isn't up to YOU, either, to make those decisions, even for the children you seem to feel you OWN.

That's why I suggested a free-enterprise school. It would be a great experiment for society. If parents were willing to pay to have their children exposed to people that believe teaching children is about their personal ego first and children's education second, it would be a great socialist hit. If parents did not put their children into the school it would demonstrate that parents consider their childrens' education to be the main priority of a school, and not the teachers' ego.

mad strawman skillz, d00d!

 

[Madeline]

I wonder how they could possibly go about making the Senators ideas legal in America, and have them withstand the Supreme Court where this would end up?

It's not possible shinato. It's pandering to the stupidest and the most fearful, and if we had any sense, it would cost this jackass his Senate seat AND his membership in the GOP. Hell, it should cost him more....speech this vile should be grounds to tar and feather someone.

 

[mudwhistle]

I wonder how they could possibly go about making the Senators ideas legal in America, and have them withstand the Supreme Court where this would end up?

It's not possible shinato. It's pandering to the stupidest and the most fearful, and if we had any sense, it would cost this jackass his Senate seat AND his membership in the GOP. Hell, it should cost him more....speech this vile should be grounds to tar and feather someone.

M...just because a classroom isn't full of Gays, unwed-mothers, and such doesn't mean the class is gonna be a total red-neck convention.

 

[uptownlivin90]

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.

Or a woman who has been raped and Republicans want to force her to have the child and take care of it.

Those women are OK. They can be at school and unmarried and pregnant.

No, they just have to pick another profession. They get the awesome responsability of raising a child by herself with a big red letter R on her forehead working in a factory somewhere there's no camera.

We hide our "immoral" women here in America.

 

[rdean]

I wonder how they could possibly go about making the Senators ideas legal in America, and have them withstand the Supreme Court where this would end up?

It's not possible shinato. It's pandering to the stupidest and the most fearful, and if we had any sense, it would cost this jackass his Senate seat AND his membership in the GOP. Hell, it should cost him more....speech this vile should be grounds to tar and feather someone.

M...just because a classroom isn't full of Gays, unwed-mothers, and such doesn't mean the class is gonna be a total red-neck convention.

Like I said, Republicans want to force women who have been raped to have the child. How can you take that position and be embarrassed by seeing a "pregnant, unwed mother"?

A pregnant, unmarried rape victim is still a pregnant unwed mother.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's not possible shinato. It's pandering to the stupidest and the most fearful, and if we had any sense, it would cost this jackass his Senate seat AND his membership in the GOP. Hell, it should cost him more....speech this vile should be grounds to tar and feather someone.

M...just because a classroom isn't full of Gays, unwed-mothers, and such doesn't mean the class is gonna be a total red-neck convention.

Like I said, Republicans want to force women who have been raped to have the child. How can you take that position and be embarrassed by seeing a "pregnant, unwed mother"?

A pregnant, unmarried rape victim is still a pregnant unwed mother.

Another rumor. I think the main focus is not using Treasury funds to pay for it. I don't think anyone should consider taking the right a woman has to murder her own child in the womb away. I figure if there is a God he'll deal with her when she passes. If you can explain why the child has to die because his mother was raped then maybe we'll have a meeting of the minds. I suggest if it bothers her so much she can always give the kid up for adoption.

 

[logical4u]

Stealing- Against the Law.
Bullying- Against the Law (harrassment).
Bearing False Witness- Against the Law.
Murder- Against the Law.
Sex in public places- Against the Law.
Selling drugs- Against the Law.
Guns on government property- Against the Law.
blackmail- Against the Law.
Kidnapping- Against the Law.

Guess what?

Having a baby out of wedlock- Not against the Law.
Sodomy- Not against the Law.

Can you guess why?

Those ARE moral behaviors, you, sir, are the ones that suggested there should be no morals at school.
If the woman is not having the baby (out-of-wedlock) in the classroom or relating how she does not believe in the "traditional family" (not trying to imply she is not being inclusive of other family types, just against traditional), I don't really see an issue. If a teacher is homosexual, and does not flaunt it in the classroom, I don't see an issue.

Once again, please explain how acting in a professional manner is a bad thing?

No they are not. They are legal behaviors. I'm an extreme libertarian when it comes to social issues especially. What you are talking about isn't morality it's lifestyles. The children should be taught a respect for the law and should be taught the law itself. However the teachers have no right to teach children how to live their lives within the boundry of the law.

We should not be teaching children "traditional family values" in the school system, that's the parents jobs.

I was raised on personal family values. My mother taught me how to read using a Bible at age 3 and 4.

I still believe homosexuality is a sin.

I have sex outside of wedlock (even though I know I shouldn't) but I won't live with a woman outside of marriage out of respect for my mother (strange how southern folks are raised).

However, do I think public schools should be used to indoctrinate those values into students? No. Simply because we live in a society where constitutionally noone has the right to force their lifestyle on anyone else outside of following the law. I believe in the philosophy "to each his own". Which is why I stand for gun rights and against socialized health care.

I never said acting in a professional manner is a bad thing. No i don't think ANYBODY'S personal life should be discussed with little children. However, that's not what DeMint said, he said women with children out of wedlock and gays SHOULD NOT BE HIRED professional or not.

Legally, you can do a lot of those things, including committing murder. It is personal morals that infuence your behavior. In your case, you are borrowing your mother's.

I never suggested teaching "traditional family morals", I just said they should not be held up for ridicule by teachers that believe in "alternate lifestyles".

If you have a sexually promiscuous teacher bragging about their lifestyle, it does not belong in the classroom if they are hetero, homo, or animal. I think that was the context of DeMint's statement. He is not the best-spoken senator out there. I think he does care about the country and want the best for its' citizens.

 

[logical4u]

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.

Or a woman who has been raped and Republicans want to force her to have the child and take care of it.

Those women are OK. They can be at school and unmarried and pregnant.

No, they just have to pick another profession. They get the awesome responsability of raising a child by herself with a big red letter R on her forehead working in a factory somewhere there's no camera.

We hide our "immoral" women here in America.

If she was going to be a good teacher, she should pick another profession. Many teachers put in 14 hours a day for their job. It would leave very little time to be a mom.

 

[logical4u]

I wonder how they could possibly go about making the Senators ideas legal in America, and have them withstand the Supreme Court where this would end up?

It's not possible shinato. It's pandering to the stupidest and the most fearful, and if we had any sense, it would cost this jackass his Senate seat AND his membership in the GOP. Hell, it should cost him more....speech this vile should be grounds to tar and feather someone.

Are you saying the same about the congressmen that are saying worse things about people that go to teaparties?
Are you only saying this about DeMint because he is a conservative?

 

[mudwhistle]

Those ARE moral behaviors, you, sir, are the ones that suggested there should be no morals at school.
If the woman is not having the baby (out-of-wedlock) in the classroom or relating how she does not believe in the "traditional family" (not trying to imply she is not being inclusive of other family types, just against traditional), I don't really see an issue. If a teacher is homosexual, and does not flaunt it in the classroom, I don't see an issue.

Once again, please explain how acting in a professional manner is a bad thing?

No they are not. They are legal behaviors. I'm an extreme libertarian when it comes to social issues especially. What you are talking about isn't morality it's lifestyles. The children should be taught a respect for the law and should be taught the law itself. However the teachers have no right to teach children how to live their lives within the boundry of the law.

We should not be teaching children "traditional family values" in the school system, that's the parents jobs.

I was raised on personal family values. My mother taught me how to read using a Bible at age 3 and 4.

I still believe homosexuality is a sin.

I have sex outside of wedlock (even though I know I shouldn't) but I won't live with a woman outside of marriage out of respect for my mother (strange how southern folks are raised).

However, do I think public schools should be used to indoctrinate those values into students? No. Simply because we live in a society where constitutionally noone has the right to force their lifestyle on anyone else outside of following the law. I believe in the philosophy "to each his own". Which is why I stand for gun rights and against socialized health care.

I never said acting in a professional manner is a bad thing. No i don't think ANYBODY'S personal life should be discussed with little children. However, that's not what DeMint said, he said women with children out of wedlock and gays SHOULD NOT BE HIRED professional or not.

Legally, you can do a lot of those things, including committing murder. It is personal morals that infuence your behavior. In your case, you are borrowing your mother's.

I never suggested teaching "traditional family morals", I just said they should not be held up for ridicule by teachers that believe in "alternate lifestyles".

If you have a sexually promiscuous teacher bragging about their lifestyle, it does not belong in the classroom if they are hetero, homo, or animal. I think that was the context of DeMint's statement. He is not the best-spoken senator out there. I think he does care about the country and want the best for its' citizens.

They've got warning signs on books and movies now if it contains lessons on morals and Christianity.

Warning: may contain content inappropriate for children.

 

[shintao]

I wonder how they could possibly go about making the Senators ideas legal in America, and have them withstand the Supreme Court where this would end up?

It's not possible shinato. It's pandering to the stupidest and the most fearful, and if we had any sense, it would cost this jackass his Senate seat AND his membership in the GOP. Hell, it should cost him more....speech this vile should be grounds to tar and feather someone.

There is sure a lot of hatred pouring out of the rightwing's frustrations. I can't imagine these DC legislators telling the president to go to hell, or an idiot like this spouting publicly his hatred of gays & single women. How about single men who are screwing the single women and teach in schools? It is crazy talk. I also wonder if Mintty gets his campaign contributions from the gay Log Cabin Republicans on time.

 

[fyrenza]

Those ARE moral behaviors, you, sir, are the ones that suggested there should be no morals at school.
If the woman is not having the baby (out-of-wedlock) in the classroom or relating how she does not believe in the "traditional family" (not trying to imply she is not being inclusive of other family types, just against traditional), I don't really see an issue. If a teacher is homosexual, and does not flaunt it in the classroom, I don't see an issue.

Once again, please explain how acting in a professional manner is a bad thing?

What are you considering "morals?"

The idea of what is "moral" and/or "right" have changed, time and again,

as we come to grips with LIFE, and with EXACTLY what all Free Choice could encompass.

THAT's why muslim folks are still living in a past that the rest of us got over and kicked to the curb as the REPRESSION that it is.

For MY "morality?" I'd MUCH rather a woman that accidentally got pregnant would have the child than an abortion,

BUT I DON'T GET TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR HER.

I HATE abortion. It's an abomination, the KILLING of unborn innocents.

BUT

I would no more send a desperate woman to a back alley "doctor" with a wire coat hanger than I would kill my own self.

How can you presume to KNOW what is right for EVERYONE,

AND be willing to FORCE them to do YOUR bidding?

You can't. No one on this earth can.

What you CAN do is to try to understand how shit happens, to EVERYONE,

and even when they don't want that for themselves, they find themselves in a position of having their backs against a wall and choosing the lesser of the two "evils,"

the FIRST of which is just being THEM and being in that sitch.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Those ARE moral behaviors, you, sir, are the ones that suggested there should be no morals at school.
If the woman is not having the baby (out-of-wedlock) in the classroom or relating how she does not believe in the "traditional family" (not trying to imply she is not being inclusive of other family types, just against traditional), I don't really see an issue. If a teacher is homosexual, and does not flaunt it in the classroom, I don't see an issue.

Once again, please explain how acting in a professional manner is a bad thing?

No they are not. They are legal behaviors. I'm an extreme libertarian when it comes to social issues especially. What you are talking about isn't morality it's lifestyles. The children should be taught a respect for the law and should be taught the law itself. However the teachers have no right to teach children how to live their lives within the boundry of the law.

We should not be teaching children "traditional family values" in the school system, that's the parents jobs.

I was raised on personal family values. My mother taught me how to read using a Bible at age 3 and 4.

I still believe homosexuality is a sin.

I have sex outside of wedlock (even though I know I shouldn't) but I won't live with a woman outside of marriage out of respect for my mother (strange how southern folks are raised).

However, do I think public schools should be used to indoctrinate those values into students? No. Simply because we live in a society where constitutionally noone has the right to force their lifestyle on anyone else outside of following the law. I believe in the philosophy "to each his own". Which is why I stand for gun rights and against socialized health care.

I never said acting in a professional manner is a bad thing. No i don't think ANYBODY'S personal life should be discussed with little children. However, that's not what DeMint said, he said women with children out of wedlock and gays SHOULD NOT BE HIRED professional or not.

Legally, you can do a lot of those things, including committing murder. It is personal morals that infuence your behavior. In your case, you are borrowing your mother's.

I never suggested teaching "traditional family morals", I just said they should not be held up for ridicule by teachers that believe in "alternate lifestyles".

If you have a sexually promiscuous teacher bragging about their lifestyle, it does not belong in the classroom if they are hetero, homo, or animal. I think that was the context of DeMint's statement. He is not the best-spoken senator out there. I think he does care about the country and want the best for its' citizens.

I can completely agree to this statement.

I can't agree to what Senator DeMint said. His comments were clear. Don't hire unwed mothers and homos as teachers. That's a DANGEROUS statement.

If you flaunt your sexuality no matter what it is in front of children you are a pervert.

If he would have said don't hire perverts, I'd be fine with it. He didn't. So I have a problem with his statement.

 

[mudwhistle]

Those ARE moral behaviors, you, sir, are the ones that suggested there should be no morals at school.
If the woman is not having the baby (out-of-wedlock) in the classroom or relating how she does not believe in the "traditional family" (not trying to imply she is not being inclusive of other family types, just against traditional), I don't really see an issue. If a teacher is homosexual, and does not flaunt it in the classroom, I don't see an issue.

Once again, please explain how acting in a professional manner is a bad thing?

What are you considering "morals?"

The idea of what is "moral" and/or "right" have changed, time and again,

as we come to grips with LIFE, and with EXACTLY what all Free Choice could encompass.

THAT's why muslim folks are still living in a past that the rest of us got over and kicked to the curb as the REPRESSION that it is.

For MY "morality?" I'd MUCH rather a woman that accidentally got pregnant would have the child than an abortion,

BUT I DON'T GET TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR HER.

I HATE abortion. It's an abomination, the KILLING of unborn innocents.

BUT

I would no more send a desperate woman to a back alley "doctor" with a wire coat hanger than I would kill my own self.

How can you presume to KNOW what is right for EVERYONE,

AND be willing to FORCE them to do YOUR bidding?

You can't. No one on this earth can.

What you CAN do is to try to understand how shit happens, to EVERYONE,

and even when they don't want that for themselves, they find themselves in a position of having their backs against a wall and choosing the lesser of the two "evils,"

the FIRST of which is just being THEM and being in that sitch.

Once a kid gets to about 15 I have no problem with it. They taught sex education in 7th grade when I was a kid. I personally could have gone without that information. Being a virgin till you're 19 is rare these days and we can argue why that is but it doesn't help when you're constantly giving kids bad ideas.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Or a woman who has been raped and Republicans want to force her to have the child and take care of it.

Those women are OK. They can be at school and unmarried and pregnant.

No, they just have to pick another profession. They get the awesome responsability of raising a child by herself with a big red letter R on her forehead working in a factory somewhere there's no camera.

We hide our "immoral" women here in America.

If she was going to be a good teacher, she should pick another profession. Many teachers put in 14 hours a day for their job. It would leave very little time to be a mom.

Believe me in this economy if you spent money to go to school to be a teacher no matter what happens your going to be a teacher especially if you already have a job at this time.

Working in any profession with children is hard. Believe me I've watched it all my life.

But you gotta do what you gotta do. It shows nothing to me but strength and resolve.

Real America: struggling, but praise be to God, getting by.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Those ARE moral behaviors, you, sir, are the ones that suggested there should be no morals at school.
If the woman is not having the baby (out-of-wedlock) in the classroom or relating how she does not believe in the "traditional family" (not trying to imply she is not being inclusive of other family types, just against traditional), I don't really see an issue. If a teacher is homosexual, and does not flaunt it in the classroom, I don't see an issue.

Once again, please explain how acting in a professional manner is a bad thing?

What are you considering "morals?"

The idea of what is "moral" and/or "right" have changed, time and again,

as we come to grips with LIFE, and with EXACTLY what all Free Choice could encompass.

THAT's why muslim folks are still living in a past that the rest of us got over and kicked to the curb as the REPRESSION that it is.

For MY "morality?" I'd MUCH rather a woman that accidentally got pregnant would have the child than an abortion,

BUT I DON'T GET TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR HER.

I HATE abortion. It's an abomination, the KILLING of unborn innocents.

BUT

I would no more send a desperate woman to a back alley "doctor" with a wire coat hanger than I would kill my own self.

How can you presume to KNOW what is right for EVERYONE,

AND be willing to FORCE them to do YOUR bidding?

You can't. No one on this earth can.

What you CAN do is to try to understand how shit happens, to EVERYONE,

and even when they don't want that for themselves, they find themselves in a position of having their backs against a wall and choosing the lesser of the two "evils,"

the FIRST of which is just being THEM and being in that sitch.

Once a kid gets to about 15 I have no problem with it. They taught sex education in 7th grade when I was a kid. I personally could have gone without that information. Being a virgin till you're 19 is rare these days and we can argue why that is but it doesn't help when you're constantly giving kids bad ideas.

Being a virgin until your 14 is rare these days. Damn shame, but it's the truth.

 

[rdean]

M...just because a classroom isn't full of Gays, unwed-mothers, and such doesn't mean the class is gonna be a total red-neck convention.

Like I said, Republicans want to force women who have been raped to have the child. How can you take that position and be embarrassed by seeing a "pregnant, unwed mother"?

A pregnant, unmarried rape victim is still a pregnant unwed mother.

Another rumor. I think the main focus is not using Treasury funds to pay for it. I don't think anyone should consider taking the right a woman has to murder her own child in the womb away. I figure if there is a God he'll deal with her when she passes. If you can explain why the child has to die because his mother was raped then maybe we'll have a meeting of the minds. I suggest if it bothers her so much she can always give the kid up for adoption.

A woman is brutally raped and you want to force her to have the child of her rapist? This is one position Republicans and ethical Americans will never agree on.

Should her rapist get "visitation" rights? After all, he IS the father.

 

[mudwhistle]

Like I said, Republicans want to force women who have been raped to have the child. How can you take that position and be embarrassed by seeing a "pregnant, unwed mother"?

A pregnant, unmarried rape victim is still a pregnant unwed mother.

Another rumor. I think the main focus is not using Treasury funds to pay for it. I don't think anyone should consider taking the right a woman has to murder her own child in the womb away. I figure if there is a God he'll deal with her when she passes. If you can explain why the child has to die because his mother was raped then maybe we'll have a meeting of the minds. I suggest if it bothers her so much she can always give the kid up for adoption.

A woman is brutally raped and you want to force her to have the child of her rapist? This is one position Republicans and ethical Americans will never agree on.

Should her rapist get "visitation" rights? After all, he IS the father.

Not of the SOB is locked up.

And most of the time when a kid is adopted they don't allow the kid to know their real parents and the parents aren't allowed to see the kids.