• Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Torrents
    • Login

    Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved LGBT News
    46 Posts 8 Posters 260 Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • 2 Offline
      2127493739 @flozen
      last edited by

      @flozen said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:

      @2127493739 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.

      N gerggentlyG 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • N Offline
        NF16 @2127493739
        last edited by

        @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.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N Offline
          NF16 @2127493739
          last edited by

          @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.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • H Offline
            hubrys @2127493739
            last edited by

            @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.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • bi4smoothB Offline
              bi4smooth
              last edited by

              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

              gerggentlyG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • gerggentlyG Offline
                gerggently @raphjd
                last edited by

                @raphjd

                Of course not.

                😂

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • gerggentlyG Offline
                  gerggently @hubrys
                  last edited by

                  @hubrys

                  And ALEC are the well known ghost writers.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • gerggentlyG Offline
                    gerggently @2127493739
                    last edited by

                    @2127493739

                    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.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • gerggentlyG Offline
                      gerggently @bi4smooth
                      last edited by

                      @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.

                      F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • F Offline
                        flozen @gerggently
                        last edited by

                        @gerggently And I suppose Gorsuch will be the final nail in the LGBT educational coffin.

                        gerggentlyG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • gerggentlyG Offline
                          gerggently @flozen
                          last edited by

                          @flozen

                          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.

                          F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • F Offline
                            flozen @gerggently
                            last edited by

                            @gerggently Agreed re: Gorsuch -- and appreciation for reminding me of his (to me, surprising) opinion in this regard.

                            Hoping that's not a sign of early-onset penile dementia!

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • bi4smoothB Offline
                              bi4smooth
                              last edited by

                              You misunderstood my grounds for appeal.

                              I have no illusions that the Fed judiciary (still plump with Trump nominees) will fail to continue the activist intervention that led to the creation of Gay Rights under Federal Court mandate long before any actual laws were passed (much as I agreed with the politics of those rulings, they were "judicial overreach" IMHO).

                              No, the basis of the appeals in this case will be the vagueness of the law.

                              There is a principle under US Law that says, for example, you can't write a law that says "Don't do bad thing, or you'll go to jail." and "let the courts figure it out" - which is basically what the real "guts" of this new law attempts to do... No, laws have to be specific!

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0

                              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
                              • 1
                              • 2
                              • 3
                              • 3 / 3
                              • First post
                                Last post