Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill
-
It has nothing to do with party loyalty.
I am against teaching kids things they are too young to understand.
As for Putin, you people support open borders, except when Putin does it. Also, your beloved St Obama and Biden didn't care the last time Putin invaded Ukraine.
-
@raphjd said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
It has nothing to do with party loyalty.
It has everything to do with party loyalty, along with a little transphobia, as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread.
I am against teaching kids things they are too young to understand.
And if anyone were actually doing that, you might have a point. They aren't, and you don't. Again, this legislation is not only completely unnecessary, as witnessed by the fact that none of you can actually come up with any real problem that the legislation solves, it is harmful to the LGBTQ community and to the very children you are claiming that you are "protecting."
As for Putin, you people support open borders, except when Putin does it.
ROFL.... This may well be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. What Putin is doing has jack shit to do with "open borders." And nobody in either party wants a fucking invasion. Get real.
-
It looks as though Republicans are trying desperately to change the subject and to go on the attack after the uproar caused by this ridiculous bill. On Laura Ingraham's show, the chyron text was:
Liberals are sexually grooming elementary students
and
Dems happy to run on pro-grooming platform
Get used to this, as it's pretty clear that they will be coming after us this election season and likely again in 2024.
It's interesting that the single best example of "cancel culture" is coming from the Republican Party. It would be amusing if it weren't for the harm they are causing, and will continue to cause.
-
The problem with this bill is that it (like so many other "social engineering" attempts) solves a problem that either doesn't exist at all, or is already handled by other means.
Let's be clear about this bill though:
- the PRIMARY FOCUS of the bill is not to ban the teaching of LBGTQ+ concepts to grades K-3... no, that's a no-brainer, and a false-flag designed to disguise the real "meat" of the legislation - which is to empower parents to sue school districts over the teaching of LGBTQ+ positive messages.
This is not unlike the Texas law that empowered pro-lifers to sue abortion providers independently and separately as a method of driving them out of business.
Even so - what, exactly, is a Florida Kindergarten teacher supposed to do next year when 5 y/o Billy draws his family - with himself, his dog, and his two mommies?
Oh, and I want to lend my support to those who correctly identify the "grooming" concepts being touted by some in the media (and the Governor his idiot-self) as being anti-Science (like that's new for them) and fear-mongering at its worst!
You cannot "learn" to be homosexual - but you CAN learn to accept homosexuality as a natural occurrence! One seen in nature far beyond humans and other primates!
-
@bi4smooth said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
You cannot "learn" to be homosexual - but you CAN learn to accept homosexuality as a natural occurrence! One seen in nature far beyond humans and other primates!
I would amend your statement to: You cannot learn to be homosexual, but you can learn to be empathetic. Empathy comes from understanding. Understanding comes from exposure and experience. This Bill is an attempt to use State Power to prevent children from being taught empathy toward homosexuals.
I'm reminded of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, where Shylock, a Jew, is trying to explain to Solanio and Salarino that a minority is not much different than the majority.
"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?"
He's trying to explain to them that Jews are not so different than Christians, and if the Christians would only focus on the commonalities, not the differences, then they would have peace. This Bill is trying to make sure that children cannot be taught that homosexuals are really not that different than heterosexuals.
Also, ignorant assholes like Florida's governor only think of homosexuals in terms of our sexual activity. Homosexuals are, in their minds, defined by the act of shoving cock up assholes. Homosexuality is purely the act of sex between two men or two women. Homosexuality is not companionship, emotional support, or love. In fact, I bet if you asked this Bill's backers if homosexuals are truly capable of loving each other, they'd answer no. I've talked to enough ignorant Southerners and Bible-thumpers to know that a large plurality (if not majority) of them don't actually believe in homosexual "love." Homosexuality is merely deviant lust, not love. And they don't want children taught about anything derivative of deviant lusts.
Also, it's not a mistake that these laws are cropping up now when they are. Anti-gayness has always been a good replacement for the old Southern Strategy, now that open and blatant race-baiting and racism is no longer acceptable. Getting out the vote means triggering people's biases, and there's still a lot of homophobia to motivate voters.
Also, these laws are the product of projects such as Project Blitz, which is responsible, in part, for all of the anti-abortion laws being pushed simultaneously. The idea behind Project Blitz is to insidiously entrench Judeo-Christian laws into America by re-branding them in more palatable forms. For example, don't tout a bill that allows discrimination against LGBT+ individuals directly...instead, either rebrand it a "religious freedom" bill or brand it as protecting something like "children" or "parental freedom."
For those interested:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blitz](link url)
-
Maybe there's a way to bypass the partisanship on this issue by asking a simple question? What, and at what age, should we tell children about sexual orientation?
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the following:
6 and below: Nothing. They really have no need to know. We have no right to burden young children with this.
7 - 10: Maybe mention, briefly and without undue emphasis, that a couple who are romantically in love, could be two men or two women as much as it could be opposite sexes, and that that's perfectly fine.
11: Basic education about reproduction, plus mentioning that sex can be for mutual pleasure as well, and same-sex sex is perfectly fine too. Mention age of consent prominently and counsel that the information being taught is just for information at this point.
13 or 14: Somewhat more detailed information with emphasis on safety, consent, and taking one's time and not feeling pressured. Again mention age of consent prominently.
16: A little more of the above, again with a focus on safety, consent, mutual respect, and counseling that there is no need to be promiscuous and it's fine to explore slowly or not at all.
Do children really need much more than that?
-
You're trying to solve a "problem" that simply does not exist. Any set of guidelines you can come up with is going to be either too complicated, as your example is, or so ambiguous as to be absolutely worthless, other than to be used as a cudgel against anything LGBTQ related, as is the case with the Florida law.
There is no way to bypass the partisanship on this issue because it originated as a purely partisan issue, not as a problem that needed a solution.
Edited to add that the real bipartisan solution here would be to abandon this harmful nonsense and instead focus on real problems, of which there is no shortage these days.
-
@NF16 I think you have a point, although it's worth pointing out that the partisanship goes both ways. The left sees early teaching about sexuality / gender as an opportunity to advance leftwing narratives just as much as the right sees restricting such teachings as politically advantageous.
But it was a genuine question: If we were designing an education system, what would we put in it about sexual orientation, if anything? My age-based proposal was just a starting point.
-
@2127493739 said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
11: Basic education about reproduction...
13 or 14: Somewhat more detailed information...
16: A little more of the above...
Do children really need much more than that?
Yes, children really need much more than that.
The age of puberty has been edging downward for generations. My friend's son, 13, got a girl, 14, pregnant and she carried the child to term. A far from unique story these days. They have entire TV shows on trash channels where the teen parents are thismuch older than the example above.
Your narrative begins on-topic with sexual orientation, but soon swerves off into a lot of mentions about consent, and a nod toward safety. Is that safe sex? And is that central to "Don't Say Gay"?
By adding all these other discussion items, you ended up in the weeds.
As a last note, on your age scale, I would say that everything from 13 up needs to be broadened and moved earlier by about 2 to 3 years. "A little more" of whatever by age 16 is hopelessly late in today's society -- they need to be fully educated before then.
-
@flozen said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
Yes, children really need much more than that.
The age of puberty has been edging downward for generations. My friend's son, 13, got a girl, 14, pregnant and she carried the child to term. A far from unique story these days. They have entire TV shows on trash channels where the teen parents are thismuch older than the example above.
Your narrative begins on-topic with gender identity, but soon swerves off into a lot of mentions about consent, and a nod toward safety. Is that safe sex?
And as we've traveled far from the focus on sexual orientation, when is detailed info on contraception? Once you left the original, narrow topic and begin adding more (but far from all) aspects of sexuality, you ended up in the weeds.
As a last note, on your age scale, I would say that everything from 13 up needs to be broadened and moved earlier by about 2 to 3 years. "A little more" of whatever by age 16 is hopelessly late in today's society -- they need to be fully educated before then.
Goodness I do feel old-fashioned hearing that! However, I'm not entirely persuaded that more sex education is the answer to the hyper-sexualised world you describe young people living in today. Perhaps as adults we might try to equip children with the moral character to ignore that part of the culture and focus on the things by which they will flourish. Hard as that is, it might well be worth it.
-
@2127493739 said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
The left sees early teaching about sexuality / gender as an opportunity to advance leftwing narratives
I'm sorry, but I cannot let this pass. This is just nonsense. Who, specifically, is saying anything even remotely like this? And who, specifically, is doing anything like this?
This is not a "both sides" issue. This is strictly a partisan Republican issue, just as all of the anti-gay stuff has been for pretty much my entire life.
-
@2127493739 said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
Perhaps as adults we might try to equip children with the moral character to ignore that part of the culture
That has been tried many times, with abstinence programs and various "purity" notions. It has been well established, repeatedly, that none of that works. At all.
I also reject your premise that teaching about sex is in any way contributing to a "hyper-sexualised world," nor that this is what flozen described. This is your notion, not his. And if you're going to claim this notion, you'll have to do a much better job defending it.
-
@2127493739 said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
What, and at what age, should we tell children about sexual orientation?
I reject your conflating or confounding talking about sexual orientation and sexual education/reproduction. They are NOT the same thing. Orientation is a set of sexual, emotional, romantic, or cultural patterns. Hetero-normative behavior is taught to children just as much as homo-normative behavior. Again, I reference you back to the Berenstain Bears book for 4-year olds I linked earlier. It teaches them how heterosexual households and family dynamics work.
Children start learning about sexual orientation long before they start learning about sexual reproduction. Toddlers begin being able to identify things as male/masculine vs. female/feminine as early as 18 months old. In university studies questioning 9-year olds (which would be Grade 3-4), 75%+ of them understood questions about sexual orientation, with approximately 1% of them already self-identifying as LGBT.
The moment children start being exposed to hetero-normative imagery, ideas, mores, norms, etc., that's when they start learning about sexual orientation. There is no way you can create a school curriculum to teach children without some form of sexual orientation material creeping in. How can kindergarteners learn about George and Martha Washington without them picking up on the husband/wife element of that narrative? The level of abstraction that would be required to remove all references to sexual orientation would render the material incomprehensible to children.
-
OK, so Florida is the State that I have lived in for 54 of my 58 years... born & raised here in the Sunshine State (and, sadly, home of everyone's favorite nutball, "Florida Man")...
Most of you are falling into the deliberate trap that is being set for you:
- Banning the "teaching" of LGBTQ issues in K-3 isn't the "crux" of the bill - it's a lightening rod to draw attention away from the other part of the bill... the part that empowers individual parents to sue schools and school personnel over perceived inappropriate instruction.
As to the other crap you've found digging around the intentional rabbit-hole (rabbit-trap?):
- Anti-Grooming implies that LGBTQ issues are "learned" - a very 1950's way of thinking, and provably wrong. You can't teach kids to be gay any more than you can "straight camp" teach them to be straight! BUT by making such preposterous claims, the LGBTQ activists are focused on that statement, instead of the empowerment of the radical, religious right who wants to ensure that our schools "teach Christian values" to our children!
- There are tens of thousands of K-3 teachers in this State, and some of them are BAD at their jobs. What the hell do you expect for a job that requires a college degree and pays only $36k/yr! - You're NOT going to get the "best and brightest", and you're absolutely going to attract people (and hire them - out of desperation!) who have "ulterior motives" to being teachers.... whether that's power-hungry bullies, or child molesters, or other bad intentions... they're there, and at those wages, we're stuck trying to weed them out AFTER they've been hired!
- There is no widespread "curriculum" where teachers are "instructing" K-3 (5-10 y/o kids) in LGBTQ issues... but what is the Kindergarten teacher supposed to do NOW when Billy draws HIS family - like all the other kids in the class, and he has himself, his little sister, the dog, the cat, the goldfish... and his 2 dads?
IMHO, this is a "play on socially divisive issues" campaign (those LGBTQ people are "training" our kids and "recruiting" them so they can be molested by those pedo-loving LGBTQ people later!) that is also hoping to leverage the same tactic the TX religious right is using to attack abortion: kill them with lawsuits from individuals, not the State!
What's more, the language in this bill is so vague, it is sure to be struck down in the courts...
Just my observations... from the front lines
-
-
And ALEC are the well known ghost writers.
-
It is only be educating children about sex and sexuality that they can be fully informed when those situations arise as they grow up.
I had the upbringing where I was never even given 'the talk'. I learned, unofficially, about sex through books and friends/peers and, officially, at aged 13 in school.
I will not subject my children to that ignorance. I never, for example, refer to genitalia as 'willy'. They've known since they could talk that a penis is a penis and a vulva is a vulva. No bullshit. They've known what a condom is since they were about 6/7, and the boys have been taught about periods and what young girls will have to deal with someday.
It is only by educating our children that they can deal with issues as they arise, even up to a worst case scenario where that includes an abuse.
If my children are ever abused they will be able to articulate to an investigator exactly what happened to them, they will not feel odd talking about their experience and will be able to refer to intimate body parts without embarrassment or hesitation.
Education is empowering, suppressing is perpetuating abuse and driving that widespread abuse underground, completely the opposite of this bill's supposed purpose which is to deal with 'groomers'. What fucking bullshit.
-
@bi4smooth said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
What's more, the language in this bill is so vague, it is sure to be struck down in the courts...
Not a chance, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Coney-Barrett will see to it being upheld if it gets that far.
-
@gerggently And I suppose Gorsuch will be the final nail in the LGBT educational coffin.
-
You're more likely to be right than wrong, it could also include Roberts, too.
The thing is, Gorsuch has already written an amazing opinion defending the rights of trans people. The language in it was strident, I was in disbelief reading it as a I recall. Watching the Federalist Society losing their minds in response to it was worth his nomination.
If he does join, it might be on a narrow ruling, which would be welcome, but with their supermajority, and a clear signal of intent to overrule any precedent they see fit, it would not surprise me to see him reverse himself with the court.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login