@Henry Emerich: Sarkasm is your forte. Keep at it.

Kong:
1. That example won’t do Nashville Jack any good, because I’m pretty sure — thanks to his “Small-town, Church-going” ejimikayshun and all — he just plum dunno what that thair “Sa-hay’rah Dezzurt” could be. (Probably won’t find out until we go to bomb it off the map in a few years, in case there’s any “uppity nigras” there.

Yes, I am an asshole

I’m honestly not intending to carricature all Southerners this way (You just go ten miles in any direction from where I am here, in Pennsylvania, and it’s like a freakin’ Hee-haw jamboree), but what’s next? “Kansas School districts have restricted Internet access to websites related to “evolutionary biology” and other so-called “scientific” issues.” — wouldn’t surprise me in the least, actually.

Peace out, Y’all (even you, Cletus!)

“I think Tennessee should do whats right for Tennessee. We are different here. We are not, the Village, San Francisco, or West Hollywood. We are church going, small town people. Don’t force your values on us, and we will return the favor.”

Oh, definitely, you’re “different” there. (You did real well with that “Separate but Equal” thingy.
“Church-going, small town people” have participated in some of the bloodiest chapters of this country’s history (and then sold racist postcards as souvenirs, like any good “capitalist” folks would)

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/

But you do have a point: when that Matthew Sheppard guy beat those two redneck “Straight” guys, and strung ‘em on a fence, we all learned just how super-ultra dangerous gays really are

Trust me, I know a lot of “small town, churchgoing”, provincial, bigots hearabouts, too

*BANNED*

I doubt that every single Tennesseean shares your views. America was founded on freedom of speech and freedom of religion (above all else). Nothing here has said that these ideas must be taught in the classroom. Nothing is preventing you from teaching your children the way you think they should be taught. But blocking the information at all borders very closely on the sort of mind control used in 1984 — namely, by preventing the spread of any useful information at all, people became unable to question the present situation.

The argument that making schools keep this information available to those who request it somehow pushes our morals or values into your local culture is invalid. Knowing about other viewpoints, lifestyles, religions, or anything else does not imply that you will adopt that lifestyle, religion, or what have you. It merely means you know about it. Neither I, nor anybody else, is pushing the schools to teach children morals or values. That’s the job of the parents. I, for one, am not even suggesting that the schools should have to teach about gays. I, as with this letter, am only demanding that access to this information not be blocked.

The attitude you just expressed is unfortunately illconceived. It’s been known to ostracize people for being different. It’s been known to keep new information suppressed for decades or centuries. It’s the source of much religious bigotry today. If you believe the information your child learns at school to be faulty, perhaps you should get involved and teach your children what you believe to be true. But blocking information of any sort, because you believe knowing it is dangerous, is unacceptable. I don’t care whether it’s Tennessee, Botswana, or the North Pole, access to the available information is fundamental. The internet just allows much more to be accessed, that’s all.

A good, real-world example of available information not changing lifestyles are some of the nomadic tribes bordering the Sahara desert, who have television from the cities and access to public libraries and so forth. They still choose to live a nomadic lifestyle, following islam and herding camels. Making information available to them did not change their minds or their lifestyle. Why should Tennessee not be able to do the same?

As for the last rhetorical question, there are basically three reasons why this would be true. First, the people aren’t happy, and when they learn about better lifestyles, they decide to try to adopt those lifestyles to increase their happiness. Second, they lack the pride of their native land, or the values of their people. When such a person gets information, they may or may not keep doing what they’re doing. Third, there is a logical contradiction in what’s going on. When children catch wind of logical errors, they are often much better at spotting them than adults. And they aren’t generally satisfied by “because I told you so”. (Ever seen a kid start asking “Why?” — if the parent says “because I told you so”, it utterly fails to stop the flow of questions).

The solution to the first two is to solve the root problem. Make the people happy, or teach them pride (or give them a reason to have pride, if need be). If you can’t do that, then perhaps it’s time to really think about what you’re doing. There is no solution to the third. But if you feel that learning new information might make your children not believe you, then I suspect you have worse problems than lesbians.

I’m sorry to sound so harsh, but I had to say something.

It is the job of the parents to make children immune to questionable content.

However, instead of talking to their children, parents work 9 to 5 then watch TV.