State moves to remove powers from Department of Education, gives rulemaking and curriculum power directly to governor-appointed position

[KCfromNC]

it is a belief that affects behavior. unless you can show that the behavior is harmful then it is not subject to any civil or criminal penalties.

Almost as if there's civil rights protection for certain types of religious behaviors, despite the earlier false claim that the two are unrelated.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Almost as if there's civil rights protection for certain types of religious behaviors, despite the earlier false claim that the two are unrelated.

what? this is nonsense.

 

[SimplyMe]

they should not be in the school library and it is not the place for them. it is right to remove them. it is a crime to propagate sexually explicit material to minors.

I'm not talking about "sexually explicit" books, I'm talking about standards so loose that the Bible is considered to be a book that needs to be banned.

so. All governments do that. if a person doesn't think that happens in other countries, that person is a little naive. So what. We are good, they are bad. We are not obligated to teach the views of our enemies. We do have to hate ourselves just be certain groups hate themselves.

Some countries do that, not all. Germany has very poignant lessons on WWII and the evils of what the Nazi's did. I find it an issue where some states refuse to condemn the slavery in the history, even going so far as trying to claim that the lives of Blacks improved from being slaves (not to mention the angle that it taught them Christianity). I'm not saying to teach the views of our enemies, I'm talking about teaching an honest history where we can admit to obvious flaws -- slavery and our treatment of Native Americans as two of the things.

I guess you are talking about the LBGTxyz Trans stuff. Again Illegal to encourage sexually based behavior in Children.

What LGBT-Trans stuff are you talking about. And you do realize that "trans" has zero to do with sexual based behavior, regardless of what other complaints can be made about it. In fact, most of what is objected to in elementary schools has zero to do with sexual behavior and, instead, is focused on not bullying or harming people that you might think are "different."

Knowing a fair amount about "trans," I'd like to see the politics -- particularly the demonizing -- stopped. It is a valid medical condition for which there are few good answers (and a lot of bad ones); I do think (beyond anti-bullying) it doesn't really belong in schools and needs to be handled by the individual suffering, the parents (if the patient is underage) and competent, well trained on the subject, doctors; where the goal has traditionally been to delay any type of "permanent" treatment for as long as possible (until the patient is an adult). I'm not happy with either side; both are flawed (as it always is when politics tries to take over).

Children are off limits. They must come by it naturally. It disgusts me to see how people will manipulate the language to say the parents are being denied rights. As though they have the right to destroy their child.

What do you think is a double standard? I don't see one. is an actual principled approach.

Again, when standards are written to where the Bible should be banned, based on the way laws are written, it is not a principled approach.

you cannot force morality, this shows ignorance. morality is not a belief it is a behavior. Morality is Good behavior, immorality is bad behavior. Morality is a state of being. something is either moral or immoral. it is not what I Think. Killing is immoral, it is bad, in most cases, stealing is immoral, bad, in most cases. you cannot force morality on people you can only force immorality on people or penalize people for acting immorally.

Two issues here. First, by this definition there is zero issues with gays, as people. Merely being attracted to the same sex is not immoral as you are defining it -- yet that is often what is being talked about.

Next, yes, everyone agrees that murder and stealing is immoral. It is not so widespread when talking about things like sexual behavior; particularly when roughly 88% of Christians aged 18-29 have had pre-marital sex.

that is what I am talking about. The divorce laws came in under Jimmy Carter and divorce skyrocketed. It was the radical feminist lobby that changed it. what you don't realize is the conservative Christians were Democrats and it was this issue that sent them to Ronald Regan and the Republicans.

No, as I pointed it, the divorce laws did not come in under Carter -- they were largely changed prior to Carter -- and were supported by Republicans. Most of the divorce laws changed in the 60s and early 70s.

It is also worth noting that the only divorced Presidents (unless I'm missing one) have been Republicans (both Reagan and Trump). You can claim Clinton was a philanderer, but the same can also be claimed about Trump (who is documented to have paid off at least two inappropriate content stars to keep quiet about their affairs with Trump). Also, don't forget the "immorality" of Republican Congresspersons -- you have a Congresswomen engaged in vaping and heavy petting during a musical, a Congressman with evidence of having sex with underage teens (with questions of illegal acts), not to mention the Congressman who has completely lied about his past and allegedly has committed various financial crimes. Let's not hold up Republicans as bastions of morality -- they use it, when convenient, to score political points but their record is no better.

again double speak here. It was the hippies, who were democrats that started the drug culture. the war on drugs was the response to that, not knowing how to deal with the problem is not the same as causing it. I am not a Regan backer.

No, the hippies didn't start the "drug culture." And, to be honest, if you go back, it seems the initial fight against marijuana was largely racial in nature (marijuana being easy to grow and cultivate, so used by the poor). I won't claim to know the full history of opiates, but I do know the drug culture started earlier than the hippies -- at a minimum with the Beatniks of the 50s and early 60s. And, honestly, opium abuse goes back to the 18th century (Ben Franklin used opium at an older age), and even heavier use after the Civil War (10 million opium pills were given to soldiers) and later, where it as used for a number of ailments (causing addiction), including women's menstrual cramping.

I don't think he was a great president. He gave us most of the financial problems we have today. Democrats are responsible for the Social problems, and Republicans for the Economic problems.

No, I don't think so. Democrats keep enacting policies that hurt America on this matter. hopefully, the Dems are waking up. with the Illegal workers being bussed to their states and the democrat hold on the black vote crumbling, we might see a change in this.

A border wall would help.

the sexual revolution. all the problems we have with free love and inappropriate content are due to the Democrats. they were the sex, drug, and rock & roll group.

If you have to go back 60 years to make a point, and that point is pretty questionable, then I can't see it as a valid complaint about a political parties views today.

CA and other Democrat states. allow for up to $900.00+ to be stolen by people, encouraging looting and theft.

Crime is up. lawless is Up. what they say and what they do are not the same. crime is up.

As I stated, it is up to the people in those "states" to vote in better prosecutors; and to be clear, it is not the states but local District attorneys, as a general rule, that are not properly enforcing the law. I'm not aware of any laws being changed and, apparently, neither are you. Though, to be honest, I see the some of the similar things happening in Republican areas -- such as having been

Democrats are the ones pushing for Abortion. and Aborting with no limits.

Which is a subject all on its own and fiercely debated on this forum. The fact remains, the typical Republican "position" is no abortions, ever, for any reason; and yes, the typical Democratic "position" has been no limits on abortion before the birth of the child. The facts are, most Americans (including Republicans) support having abortion rights while, at the same time, most Americans (to include Democrats) support limits on abortion -- despite the "official" position of both parties.

Opinion | Laurence Tribe: Should the age of sexual consent in America be lowered?

Consent laws exist for a reason. But that hasn't stopped lawyers and pundits from making demonstrably flawed arguments as “devil’s advocates.”

www.nbcnews.com

I'm sorry, that opinion is just that -- no claims about what Democrats support, instead merely talking about arguments lawyers are making when supporting teenage pregnant girls seeking abortions, and how he finds those "devil's advocate" arguments wrong. He does not talk about any actual support by any party to actual lower age of consent laws, nor even any realistic movement to lower the age of consent. Again, the actual legislation being passed, predominately in Democratic states, is to raise age of consent and the age for marriage.

that is right, but it also includes the abuse laws that allow women to accuse men at will of any crime and be removed from their homes. If the cops are called to a home for a domestic situation, someone has to be removed and it is usually the man, forget the fact that there are shelters for the women, that have been paid for. the man usually has to go to jail or get a hotel room. In addition, if you are an illegal immigrant and a woman you accuse your husband and you automatically become a citizen.

Those laws have always been tilted in favor of women -- they were far worse when we were kids. Of course, women tended not to be working back when I was young (it may have changed by the time you were in school). It seems your complaint is that the laws haven't been updated enough, not about new laws being passed.

there are no facts to back up this claim. the abuse that is reported to the Department of Justice is around 1.3% so this is not factual. The Department of Justice has statistics on this so you find them and then we will talk. if 1/6 women were being raped women would not have anything to to with men ever.

I said sexual abuse, not rape, and I believe I got the stat from the government (forgive me for forgetting to link the citation). Looking now, though, I see where the CDC claims 1 in 4 women have been the victim or rape or attempted rape, and half of all women have been victims of sexual violence.

those numbers are a lie. it's what Democrats do on social justice issues. They must inflate the problem and sensationalize it inorder to get support.

No, they aren't. Talk to the women in your life -- you'll likely be surprised by what you are told.

I am for a living wage so you don't have me there.

if by health care you cutting the ball off then no. if you me general care then I am for that. so don't have me there either.

I will agree with you that no party is free of evil, but one part has more evil in it right now and seems to be trying to make evil law.

Sorry, both have issues, and neither is better. One just tries to dress itself to try and make themselves look as if they are fighting for Christians -- though, to borrow from Christ, they "are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I'm not talking about "sexually explicit" books, I'm talking about standards so loose that the Bible is considered to be a book that needs to be banned.

what loose standards are you talking about? Who is banning the bible it sounds like a progressive policy, not a conservative policy.

Some countries do that, not all. Germany has very poignant lessons on WWII and the evils of what the Nazi's did. I find it an issue where some states refuse to condemn the slavery in the history, even going so far as trying to claim that the lives of Blacks improved from being slaves (not to mention the angle that it taught them Christianity). I'm not saying to teach the views of our enemies, I'm talking about teaching an honest history where we can admit to obvious flaws -- slavery and our treatment of Native Americans as two of the things.

I don't know what books you use, but when I went to school we were taught about slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. it was not hidden. This just sounds like a Democratic talking point. it seems like emotional manipulation.

What LGBT-Trans stuff are you talking about. And you do realize that "trans" has zero to do with sexual based behavior, regardless of what other complaints can be made about it. In fact, most of what is objected to in elementary schools has zero to do with sexual behavior and, instead, is focused on not bullying or harming people that you might think are "different."

Knowing a fair amount about "trans," I'd like to see the politics -- particularly the demonizing -- stopped. It is a valid medical condition for which there are few good answers (and a lot of bad ones); I do think (beyond anti-bullying) it doesn't really belong in schools and needs to be handled by the individual suffering, the parents (if the patient is underage) and competent, well trained on the subject, doctors; where the goal has traditionally been to delay any type of "permanent" treatment for as long as possible (until the patient is an adult). I'm not happy with either side; both are flawed (as it always is when politics tries to take over).

Sex is not the issue. It is messing with a kid's identity. it is a manufactured problem in most cases. it has become popular. this is going to do serious damage to kids and it is not acceptable. We did not have this as an issue when was growing up, because it was not an issue. Why now. because it is being pushed and the kids are being experimented on and because of the inappropriate content.

Again, when standards are written to where the Bible should be banned, based on the way laws are written, it is not a principled approach.

who wants to ban the bible, the Democrats not the conservative. an apple to emotion is not going.

Two issues here. First, by this definition there is zero issues with gays, as people. Merely being attracted to the same sex is not immoral as you are defining it -- yet that is often what is being talked about.

Sex outside of Marriage between a man and a woman is inherently harmful. now there are usually 4 lines of argumentation against homosexuality of any kind.
1. You cannot propagate the species.
2. You cannot model correct behavior for the same-sex child.
3 . You cannot model correct social interaction with the opposite sex.
4. From a spiritual standpoint it is the destruction of the image of God in man.

Next, yes, everyone agrees that murder and stealing is immoral. It is not so widespread when talking about things like sexual behavior; particularly when roughly 88% of Christians aged 18-29 have had pre-marital sex.

Pre-marital sex is a sin. it is called fornication. Trying to justify one sin by pointing to someone else sin, does not make it ok. I mean both are wrong.

No, as I pointed it, the divorce laws did not come in under Carter -- they were largely changed prior to Carter -- and were supported by Republicans. Most of the divorce laws changed in the 60s and early 70s.

If you are talking about State laws, like in CA then yes, but nationally it was Carter. you are wrong. you need to back this up with facts. I will not take your word for it.

It is also worth noting that the only divorced Presidents (unless I'm missing one) have been Republicans (both Reagan and Trump). You can claim Clinton was a philanderer, but the same can also be claimed about Trump (who is documented to have paid off at least two inappropriate content stars to keep quiet about their affairs with Trump). Also, don't forget the "immorality" of Republican Congresspersons -- you have a Congresswomen engaged in vaping and heavy petting during a musical, a Congressman with evidence of having sex with underage teens (with questions of illegal acts), not to mention the Congressman who has completely lied about his past and allegedly has committed various financial crimes. Let's not hold up Republicans as bastions of morality -- they use it, when convenient, to score political points but their record is no better.

what is the point of this? They are sinning. Democrat sin and Republican Sin is still sin. the problem is Democrats don't think anything they do is sinful. They think it is good.

No, the hippies didn't start the "drug culture." And, to be honest, if you go back, it seems the initial fight against marijuana was largely racial in nature (marijuana being easy to grow and cultivate, so used by the poor). I won't claim to know the full history of opiates, but I do know the drug culture started earlier than the hippies -- at a minimum with the Beatniks of the 50s and early 60s. And, honestly, opium abuse goes back to the 18th century (Ben Franklin used opium at an older age), and even heavier use after the Civil War (10 million opium pills were given to soldiers) and later, where it as used for a number of ailments (causing addiction), including women's menstrual cramping.

this is just dishonest. the popularization of recreational drugs took place in the 60's. I know I was there, I am from SF Bay area. it was considered fringe before that. Acid, LSD, cocaine, and Speed all became popular in that period, before that it was very rare that people did that. Then it became widespread

If you have to go back 60 years to make a point, and that point is pretty questionable, then I can't see it as a valid complaint about a political parties views today.

showing a lack of awareness and a weakness in the argument. The things of today are the direct consequence and result of the policies of yesterday. It is a cause-and-effect relationship.

As I stated, it is up to the people in those "states" to vote in better prosecutors; and to be clear, it is not the states but local District attorneys, as a general rule, that are not properly enforcing the law. I'm not aware of any laws being changed and, apparently, neither are you. Though, to be honest, I see the some of the similar things happening in Republican areas -- such as having been



Which is a subject all on its own and fiercely debated on this forum. The fact remains, the typical Republican "position" is no abortions, ever, for any reason; and yes,

that is not the majority of the republican position and it is not my view. Just got a poll today saying 77% of people think that abortion should be outlawed just before the baby feels pain. that is at 20 weeks. I personally that 13 -15 weeks should be the limit.

the typical Democratic "position" has been no limits on abortion before the birth of the child. The facts are, most Americans (including Republicans) support having abortion rights while, at the same time, most Americans (to include Democrats) support limits on abortion -- despite the "official" position of both parties.

just received a poll on this today/

I'm sorry, that opinion is just that -- no claims about what Democrats support, instead merely talking about arguments lawyers are making when supporting teenage pregnant girls seeking abortions, and how he finds those "devil's advocate" arguments wrong. He does not talk about any actual support by any party to actual lower age of consent laws, nor even any realistic movement to lower the age of consent. Again, the actual legislation being passed, predominately in Democratic states, is to raise age of consent and the age for marriage.

the fact that we are having that conversation is a problem. This is how it began, like the forced vax, it was mere talk, and then it became reality. The trans issue, mere talk, is now a reality. It is part of a bigger trend of no boundaries in sex, no restraint, no limits. Predatory behavior will become the norm, as described in the scripture. They will become like Sodom and Gomorrah, with no boundaries, no restraint, no limits, and completely worthless. That is what is part of this problem.

Those laws have always been tilted in favor of women -- they were far worse when we were kids. Of course, women tended not to be working back when I was young (it may have changed by the time you were in school). It seems your complaint is that the laws haven't been updated enough, not about new laws being passed.



I said sexual abuse, not rape, and I believe I got the stat from the government (forgive me for forgetting to link the citation). Looking now, though, I see where the CDC claims 1 in 4 women have been the victim or rape or attempted rape, and half of all women have been victims of sexual violence.



No, they aren't. Talk to the women in your life -- you'll likely be surprised by what you are told.



Sorry, both have issues, and neither is better. One just tries to dress itself to try and make themselves look as if they are fighting for Christians -- though, to borrow from Christ, they "are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

 

[SimplyMe]

what loose standards are you talking about? Who is banning the bible it sounds like a progressive policy, not a conservative policy.

It is based on the laws being passed by conservatives, particularly since the Bible contains, "misogyny, violence, sexual conduct, rape, incest, animal cruelty, abuse, anti-Semitism, anti-science and indoctrination." In Utah a school "district placed the Bible under review and ultimately decided to remove it from elementary and middle school libraries for containing "vulgarity or violence.""

You can argue that the intention was not to have the Bible banned and that it is liberals who are putting the challenges on the Bible, at the same time, the Bible does actually meet the standards for being removed under the law (just that because of Christian influence the Bible is getting an "exception").

I don't know what books you use, but when I went to school we were taught about slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. it was not hidden. This just sounds like a Democratic talking point. it seems like emotional manipulation.

So you learned about the Trail of Tears in school? I'll admit that I did learn about that one but because it was a well known subject in the area. What I didn't learn about, despite living within roughly an hour of where these events happened, I never learned about Black Wall Street or the Tulsa Race Riot, nor about the murders of Indians for oil money, which is the subject of the current "Killers of the Flower Moon" book and movie. This despite the fact that I had a couple of great history teachers growing up -- my high school history class taught, rather than just dates, the ideas behind historical events. After attending the first couple of classes of my university history class (at a highly rated university), I realized that the lectures were worthless, so I had my parents send my notebooks from my high school class and ended with an A in the class, all from just re-studying what I learned in high school.

At the same time, you apparently aren't keeping up with school trends that have been talked about here. For example, Florida is promoting the idea in schools that, "some Black people benefited from slavery because it taught them useful skills." There was an excerpt from a Louisiana textbook which features a story from a Civil War era White woman, complaining about having to flee to Texas, to avoid the war, and losing her "property" -- which in this context is talking about how she lost her slaves, and making her a victim, because of the Civil War and emancipation.

As for Texas, there are plenty of complaints about how Texas treats history, including how one Texas schoolbook talked about Black slaves as "workers." The same textbook also described Mexican Americans as "lazy." She goes on about how Blacks, who were an important part of Texas history (including how free Blacks were in Texas prior to Steven S Austin), were completely omitted from the history she was taught. She also looked at what "current" (books printed in 2016) taught on the topic.

And before you say, "that is just Florida and Texas", here is another complaint about the history taught in Texas schools who notes (which you can find plenty of other references about), that mentions, " For publishers, it was not economically viable to write one book to appease campaigners in Texas and a different version to sell elsewhere. The result: Students across the country got books that told U.S. history from the perspective of a small group of White, God-fearing, conservative Texans." Texas and Florida are large states and, as such, the textbooks they approve tend to be the ones available to other states.

Sex is not the issue. It is messing with a kid's identity. it is a manufactured problem in most cases. it has become popular. this is going to do serious damage to kids and it is not acceptable. We did not have this as an issue when was growing up, because it was not an issue.

If you mean that we didn't have that issue because it was hidden and never allowed to be talked about, that is true. Girls who got pregnant typically were no longer at school, often shipped off to a distant relatives house to hide the "shame." Of course, many gays tended to commit suicide, due to the stigma, such as a football player at my school.

Why now. because it is being pushed and the kids are being experimented on and because of the inappropriate content.

Sorry, no, just not happening. I'll agree that information is more available to kids -- whether you ban it in schools or not. The crazy thing is that I remember reading "banned books" when I was in school -- I remember Catcher in the Rye being talked about and Fahrenheit 451 actually being part of a class reading in 9th grade. This was not in any liberal area, again, this was Oklahoma.

But what you are talking about is not happening as part of school's curriculums, other than maybe some solitary school districts in a place like California (small minorities even there); if it is even happening there. If you want to blame TV and culture, I can accept that -- but I'm not sure how you propose to fix that.

who wants to ban the bible, the Democrats not the conservative. an apple to emotion is not going.

I'm not claiming anyone is wanting to ban the Bible, I'm stating that based on the laws being passed, most of them "require" the Bible to be banned based on the wording of the laws.

Sex outside of Marriage between a man and a woman is inherently harmful. now there are usually 4 lines of argumentation against homosexuality of any kind.
1. You cannot propagate the species.
2. You cannot model correct behavior for the same-sex child.
3 . You cannot model correct social interaction with the opposite sex.
4. From a spiritual standpoint it is the destruction of the image of God in man.

Pre-marital sex is a sin. it is called fornication. Trying to justify one sin by pointing to someone else sin, does not make it ok. I mean both are wrong.

And that is your belief. As I point out, plenty of other Christians disagree. I recall hearing from kids that went to another church in my home town that talked about their Youth Pastor claiming sex was okay prior to marriage -- with the caveat that the couple needed to be committed to each other. I'm not talking about my views because it is not a topic I want to get into a debate about. My point is merely that many disagree with you, including many Christians (including some who believe homosexuality is okay in committed relationships) -- and why should the law reflect your beliefs and not those of other Christians, or Muslims -- or, a different way, why should others have their freedoms restricted because of your beliefs?

If you are talking about State laws, like in CA then yes, but nationally it was Carter. you are wrong. you need to back this up with facts. I will not take your word for it.

Umm... no. The easy answer to that is divorce, like marriage, is based on state laws. There was no "national law" that made divorce legal nationwide, it was controlled by the states. It is one of the reasons why Nevada, back in the day, was known not only for quick marriages but also for quick divorces. As for this being some type of "Democrat" issue, I should point out that New York was the last state to allow for "no fault" divorces, they didn't allow it until 2010.

what is the point of this? They are sinning. Democrat sin and Republican Sin is still sin. the problem is Democrats don't think anything they do is sinful. They think it is good.

The point is, we don't legislate based on what people believe is "sin."

this is just dishonest. the popularization of recreational drugs took place in the 60's. I know I was there, I am from SF Bay area. it was considered fringe before that. Acid, LSD, cocaine, and Speed all became popular in that period, before that it was very rare that people did that. Then it became widespread

Umm... if you are 52 (which is what you claim in a previous post), you would have been born about 1971 -- so not sure how you would have been around in the 60s. If you want to talk about illegal drug use really only becoming a political rallying cry in the 60's, I might buy that, but drug use has been rampant in the US since around the Civil War -- just that most drug laws didn't start coming into existence until the start of the 20th Century.

showing a lack of awareness and a weakness in the argument. The things of today are the direct consequence and result of the policies of yesterday. It is a cause-and-effect relationship.

Great, but you showed nothing tying it to a political party. Your claims, even if true, only ties it to "hippies" which had about as many problems with the Democrats as they did with Republicans, particularly since it had been Democratic presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) which put American soldiers on the front lines in Vietnam and then kept sending more.

that is not the majority of the republican position and it is not my view. Just got a poll today saying 77% of people think that abortion should be outlawed just before the baby feels pain. that is at 20 weeks. I personally that 13 -15 weeks should be the limit.

But it is the position Republican lawmakers tend to try to legislate, whether you agree or not. Thirteen states, all controlled by Republicans, have passed total bans on abortion -- and the current Speaker of the House would like to pass a national ban.

just received a poll on this today/

the fact that we are having that conversation is a problem. This is how it began, like the forced vax, it was mere talk, and then it became reality. The trans issue, mere talk, is now a reality. It is part of a bigger trend of no boundaries in sex, no restraint, no limits. Predatory behavior will become the norm, as described in the scripture. They will become like Sodom and Gomorrah, with no boundaries, no restraint, no limits, and completely worthless. That is what is part of this problem.

Let me be clear on this, the "trans issue" should not be a moral one. The Bible is quiet on the "trans issue," at best you can point to how God created them male and female and then claim that God doesn't make mistakes. Of course, if someone then asks if God created a child with club feet, or a heart defect, or any number of other birth defects, they quickly shift the goalposts to how we live in a "fallen world." I might also mention that the closest subject to what we currently talk about gender assignment surgery today is "eunuchs," which were not condemned by Christ or the Bible; Christ even talking about those that were 1) eunuchs by birth, 2) people who were made eunuchs by men, and 3) people who choose to live as eunuchs for the kingdom’s sake.

From the evidence I've seen, from reading studies and talking with transsexuals for decades, it would appear that transsexualism is likely a birth defect -- with some very early evidence that suggest that it may also have a genetic cause. I've written posts on this elsewhere, citing many of the studies. This is a real, medical condition; though one that we need better testing to detect (which is where the problems you are talking about sometimes come from). Again, my issue is with the politicization of "trans," by both sides. I have multiple issues with many of the alleged "advocates" on the left, just as I am equally against the various laws and "morality" being pushed by the right.

 

[KCfromNC]

what? this is nonsense.

Most Americans don't view the Bill of Rights as "nonsense", but there's always room for minority opinions on the subject. One does wonder how well informed those opinions are, though, given posts like these in lieu of anything resembling a well thought out and reasoned argument.

 

[DaisyDay]

not a valid argument.

Your disagreement with it doesn’t render it invalid.

…sexual behavior is off-limits for minors.

They do it anyway, mostly with each other

the queers want to make that ok.

Minor girls are molested far more than are minor boys - and it’s not by lesbians (for the vast majority of times). So who is doing this? Not gay guys…

They are teaching children sexual behavior through those books.

A couple of points: 1) as I have stated before, there is a vast difference between a toddler and a teenager yet both are referred to as “children” and 2) books are better than the old fashioned way of learning by doing in the alleys and basements.

Sexuality is part of life - when the hormones kick in, it’s better that they be prepared to deal with it all.

That is a crime.

If it is, it shouldn’t be. Even if you want them to wait until their wedding night for the experience, they are still better off if they know what to expect. Books are a pretty good way to learn stuff you need to know.