What is more important to be taught in school - Gay themes or the Constitution?

Hahahaha..

Gays already have civil rights... and they too study the Constitution at C of C..

 

The point is the anger over making teaching the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence mandatory. It should be mandatory.

 

Constitution should be mandatory learning material

 

Whats a gay right? I believe everyone should have the same rights

 

It is.. Read the article.

They study the Constitution at C of C..

- - - Updated - - -

It means that Gays, Blacks and women ALL have rights under the US Constitution .......... Duh.

 

Am I surprise that you do not understand the Constitution ? No at all. Our education system is pathetic in relation to teaching the ideas that underlie the Constitution.

I am happy to educate you however. The bill of rights includes the terms "Life Liberty and Pursuit of happiness". These terms are used in the context of personal freedom; that one should be free to do what one wishes so long as that action is not harming others.

This right extends to a persons choice of sexual preference and is intended to protect individuals from puritan religious folk who wish to force their religious beliefs on others through force.

 

Hate to tell you but I don't think you should teach anyone anything. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.

 

The 17th-century cleric and philosopher Richard Cumberland wrote that promoting the well-being of our fellow humans is essential to the "pursuit of our own happiness".[21] Locke never associated natural rights with happiness, but his philosophical opponent Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made such an association in the introduction to his Codex Iuris Gentium.[22] William Wollaston's The Religion of Nature Delineated describes the "truest definition" of "natural religion" as being "The pursuit of happiness by the practice of reason and truth".[23] An English translation of Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui's Principles of Natural and Politic Law prepared in 1763 extolled the "noble pursuit" of "true and solid happiness" in the opening chapter discussing natural rights.[24] Historian Jack Rakove posits Burlamaqui as the inspiration for Jefferson's phrase.

wiki

 

Good, but is it mandatory nationwide?

And you missed the point. No such thing as a gay right, black right, or woman right duh. Civil rights and the constitution covers everyone (which actually does not mention sexual preference, but the 14th amendment covers everyone based on race or country or origin)
Nobody deserves special rights, or more rights. The term gay rights, or women rights is a political ploy and all that needs to be said is equal rights for all. A vast majority of politicians, and Americans want just that and support the constitution, whether you believe in their ideology, or not

 

I say teach the gay agenda because nobody pays any attention to the Constitution any more. Get with the times, people!

 

I hate to tell you but the USDI is the foundation for the bill of rights.

 

Women, Blacks and Gays did not always have civil rights.. Or have you forgotten that?

 

There you go again. The USDI is the heart of the Nation, the Constitution is the law. The bill of rights are just amendments to the law and still do not include "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

So I still suggest you don't try and teach anyone anything.

 

Don't blame your lack of understanding of the foundation on which the bill of rights was formed on me.

 

SCOTUS determined all segregation laws unconstitutional and there is an amendment to cover women and slavery. Plus we are not talking about the 1860's, or 1920's, or even 1960's. It is 2014 in case you forgot. We are saying that the law should cover everyone equally.
No need to say gay right, woman right, black right, or anything else. Equal rights for all, as the constitution says should occur. To say gay rights, or women's rights, or black rights can give the impression that you want special rights for a certain group, whether that's the intent of the message, or not.

 

I get it, you can't admit when you are wrong. Lots of self obsessed too proud people are like that.

 

The "politically correct" solution would be to teach a "Gay Constitution", a Constitution starting with the words

is still too neutral about the matter. But you can always read it with an odd voice ...

 

How about.

 

How the Constitution is taught is what's important. Remember Obama supposedly graduated from Harvard with a degree in the constitutional law (which requires US History), even claims to have taught law in Chicago for 10 years, but has shown me very little historical knowledge of its meaning.

As to teaching "Gay Themes", maybe I'm confused but understand it's a generic driven desire, like favorite ice cream. If so, that would be called indoctrination, not teaching.

If you REALLY want to understand the Constitution, you might want to read the "Federalist Papers", which gives you an insight to the people who wrote the "C".

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_federalist_paper_10_about?#slide=1


As for rights, regardless of the right, most all have limitations. While it's generally thought blacks never had rights, free blacks in most States had the same rights as whites and women of both races were limited.

 

Demonizing the messenger will not change the fact that the USDI, Constitution, and Bill of rights are interconnected.

Nit picking away will not change this fact either.

 

How about "Reading, Writing and Arithmetic"? Along with reading will come the history of our country and the Constitution. Once children learn that and graduate they have the brain power to make their own decisions about what they need to know about life. .

 

There really are no limitations to rights. The only legitimate limitations are not limitations at all but laws passed to punish those that have used a right to infringe another right. For instance, you can be prosecuted for yelling fire in a crowded theater (basically causing a disturbance that can have dire consequences). That means you endanger other's rights, the right to life and the right to property so are punished for violating others rights. Some think this is a limitation on freedom of speech but it is not since naturally it is not a right used properly if it oppresses another right. With rights come responsibilities and some ignore the later.

 

Who is demonizing the messenger? You made an erroneous statement and I pointed it out so either man up or shut up.

 

Better, but that would requite to have a USFN [United States Fabulous Navy] a USFAF [United States Fabulous Air Force] ,,, and so on.

Humor a part, the matter, being seriously, calls for a base reasoning.

To give educational importance to gay themes means to give more importance to a social identity [not giving the same importance to other social identities]. Is this constitutionally correct? When US Constitution [and all the honest constitutions around the world] talk about social equality?

Now sexual orientation [which, btw, according to Italian privacy laws is private, not public for schools ...], what next? Classes of Islam? Classes of Yoga? Classes of smoking weed? Classes of Catholicism? Classes of Communism? Classes of vegetarianism? Classes of "everythingism"?

 

President Obama has replaced the Constitution with the Executive Order, therefore the Constitution no longer exists and is only a subject for history books. It makes no sense whatsoever to "teach the Constitution. Use the newfound time to teach about gays.