curme Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Austin, Texas ? After an alternately comic and fiery debate ? punctuated by several lawmakers waving pompons ? the state House on Tuesday approved a bill to restrict ?overtly sexually suggestive? cheerleading to more ladylike performances.The bill would give the state education commissioner authority to request that school districts review high school performances. ?Girls can get out and do all of these overly sexually performances and we applaud them and that's not right,? said Democratic Representative Al Edwards, who filed the legislation. Mr. Edwards argued bawdy performances are a distraction for students resulting in pregnancies, dropouts and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Ribald performances are not defined in the bill. ?Any adult that's been involved with sex in their lives, they know it when they see it,? he said. The bill passed on a 65-56 vote. It still must be approved by the Senate and signed by Republican Governor Rick Perry. One critic questioned the legislation's priorities. ?Have we done anything about stem cell research to help people who are dying and are sick advance their health? No,? said Democratic Representative Senfronia Thompson. ?Have we done anything about the mentally ill, school finance or ethics?? The American Civil Liberties Union said the measure was unnecessary because state law already prohibits public lewdness by students on or near a school campus. Globe and Mail Next, wom:rolleyes: wearing veils. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 I fixed your image, they weren't allowing hotlinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Yep, can't tell off extremist islamists when you're doing that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 This is nothing the state needs to be involved in. It's the parents responsibility, if they don't like their child dancing in these ways then they should take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+chorpeac MVC Posted May 4, 2005 MVC Share Posted May 4, 2005 This is nothing the state needs to be involved in. It's the parents responsibility, if they don't like their child dancing in these ways then they should take action. 585873081[/snapback] Yep, totally agree... (Y) this is stupid...don't we have better things to worry about?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Mr. Edwards argued bawdy performances are a distraction for students resulting in pregnancies, dropouts and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. :rolleyes: Who needs other words, really... but it's a shame this is what passes for enlightenment, in the second most populated state in the U.S. But it was, somewhat thankfully, 5 votes away from not passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb815 Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Oh Jesus, Texas is one screwed up state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted May 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 4, 2005 Amazing what these legislators waste time on. Here in my state there was news about the Governor signed the bill making the "some kinda green tree frog blah blah" officially the State frog. Someone had to spend time drafting the bill and the chief public servant took time to sign some stupid act about naming a frog. It joined the list of some 40 items designated as The Offcial State [whatever]. :pinch: Anyway, with out the girlies shaking their pom-poms, what are we supposed to do during halftime? Listen to the band?! (N) Bring It On (oh, it's already been broughten!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 I have a good feeling that this "law" will be repealed in the near future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted May 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 4, 2005 This is nothing the state needs to be involved in. It's the parents responsibility, if they don't like their child dancing in these ways then they should take action. 585873081[/snapback] Exactly. Once again the government feels some kind of need to do the job of lazy parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 I have a good feeling that this "law" will be repealed in the near future 585873324[/snapback] It's not law yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoufo51 Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Oh Jesus, Texas is one screwed up state. 585873182[/snapback] Yeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw! You'd think they'd worry about their schools instead of the dumb girls dancing around them but nooooooooo. Oh well. Texas and the rest of the South will just have to continue to rot. By the way, anybody noticed the preacher guy in the first post looks like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 What a screwed up state. Someone can correct me if this has changed but it wasn't that long ago that strippers could start applying their trade at the tender age of 17 in the great state of Texas. So them lawmakers don't want their daughters acting like strippers if they aren't actually striping? LOL When John Kennedy was approaching Dallas on that fate full morning, he made a comment about landing in the state of the "nut cases". That statment looks like it still applies to their governing body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suren Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 My faith in humanity restored :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 ?Girls can get out and do all of these overly sexually performances and we applaud them and that's not right,? said Democratic Representative Al Edwards, who filed the legislation. i find it pretty amusing that a democrat proposed the bill. The bill would give the state education commissioner authority to request that school districts review high school performances. i dont see what the big deal is anyway. most of you are saying that the state is going down the drain but yet to even care to see the grass on the other side. yes, its a parents responsibility to teach and discipline their young, but in no way are they capable of controling their children outside their supervision. besides, most of you dont know what spurred the proposal of the bill in the first place. most games ive seen when i was in high school didnt have any "suggestive" dancing that would cause such a bill to appear in the house, but i could imagine whatever it was it must of been pretty bad. on the otherhand i do agree that more time could be invested in other issues which have far more importance than this particular bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted May 5, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 5, 2005 Yeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw! You'd think they'd worry about their schools instead of the dumb girls dancing around them but nooooooooo. Oh well. Texas and the rest of the South will just have to continue to rot. By the way, anybody noticed the preacher guy in the first post looks like... 585874667[/snapback] Ahem, that is because it is John Lithgow (in both pictures)? :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 T -12 years until United Theocracy of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 By the way, anybody noticed the preacher guy in the first post looks like... 585874667[/snapback] I hope so, they're the same guy. That first image is from Footloose, with John Lithgow, Kevin Bacon, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 And thank god! IMO all that are against the ban are a bunch of perverts, they should have some decency instead of looking at little girls/underaged lolitas. I don't want to live in a world where promiscuous children are encouraged to do just that. I'm not religious, or an old man looking down (I am in my late teens) or anything like that, I just have standards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 It's not law yet. 585873654[/snapback] haha you know what I mean...It'll die out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted May 5, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 5, 2005 He complained of cheerleaders "shaking their behinds, breaking it down," but the proposal does not define what constitutes suggestive cheering. so there are no clear guidelines, which makes identification, enforcement, and reprimand arbitrary. Democratic state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, also of Houston, said the bill was a waste of valuable time."I think the Texas Education Agency has enough to do making sure our kids are better educated, and we are wasting our time with 'one two three four, we can't shake it any more?"' Thompson told legislators. i think most of us agree, there are more pressing matters at hand. you know my stance from the previous thread on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 And thank god!IMO all that are against the ban are a bunch of perverts, they should have some decency instead of looking at little girls/underaged lolitas. I don't want to live in a world where promiscuous children are encouraged to do just that. I'm not religious, or an old man looking down (I am in my late teens) or anything like that, I just have standards! 585876110[/snapback] Want some more vaseline, so that your stick doesn't itch that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoufo51 Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Ahem, that is because it is John Lithgow (in both pictures)? :rofl: 585875714[/snapback] Oh wow, never seen Footloose so I would have no idea. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 And thank god!IMO all that are against the ban are a bunch of perverts, they should have some decency instead of looking at little girls/underaged lolitas. I don't want to live in a world where promiscuous children are encouraged to do just that. I'm not religious, or an old man looking down (I am in my late teens) or anything like that, I just have standards! 585876110[/snapback] They should be able to do whatever they want...They are fully clothed and not breaking any laws. Let the school or cheerleading coach decide what is and isn't appropriate. Besides that how are they going to enforce such a dumbass thing. What is "suggestive"????? Maybe next they take away the uniforms and make them wear jeans and sweaters because they aren't so "suggestive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 The school is allowed to decide what's appropriate. It's just that if the school's idea doesn't match the government's, the government is not going to pay for it anymore. The government does not have to provide funding for sexually suggestive dance programmes. I do not understand the hostility towards this. If you want to go out and shake your tail feather like you're in a Sisqo video, GO DO IT, but i don't want my taxes to subsidise it. Having said that, the thing in the article about suggestive dances causing pregnancy and STDs is complete garbage. And i'm not familiar with Texas law, but if there's already a law preventing lewd conduct on school campuses, then i agree with the ACLU that the law was redundant. But, in any case, the general idea of the bill -- that the government should not fund schools that organise squads of teen-agers to engage in sexually provocative poses -- is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts