Don't Say Gay?

[Sled21]

(03-23-2022, 08:16 PM)treee Wrote: Legislating against a problem that doesn't exist for cheap political points. A tale as old as time. Red meat for the base.

If it's a problem that doesn't exist, why is the left so upset about it?????

[Sled21]

(03-28-2022, 05:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Shouldn't this just incentivize people to send their kids to schools that agree with their timetable of when it is right to tell kids whatever it is they deem to be right?

So you think the vast majority of people can just pick and choose where their kids go to schools??? Maybe they could if we could get school vouchers passed.

[Sled21]

(03-28-2022, 05:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: My parents had 0 college degrees between them and had regular jobs and managed to send my sister and I to a private school.  If stuff like this is a game-changing factor in education, you can find a way to get it done.

It's not a luxury, it's a priority.  You don't need to worry how woke the government gets on you if you don't rely upon the government to educate your kids.  Desantis should pretend this gay agenda is a deadly pandemic or a mass shooting so he can just ignore it.

When someone equates gay with this bill, it's a case of "tell me you didn't read it without telling me you didn't read it."

[Sled21]

(03-29-2022, 08:33 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: These "You can't teach this" bills, the people who submit them always have one or two examples of an individual teacher whose curriculum was out of line and they use that as justification to try and make blanket statements around what can and cannot be taught in school.

I think it's just typical fear mongering behavior. A lot of conservatives already believe that college "brainwashes" their teenage/young adult children into leftism, so it's not going to be a far leap for them to believe that grade school is being used to radicalize children into....accepting non cishet people?

This ties perfectly into the conservative ethos that more people are trans now because liberals are "convincing" people to be trans. Like it's a trend or something. They seem to believe that humans are so weak minded that hearing anything that isn't their parents' beliefs will instantly turn their children against them in one way or another.

I have no faith that the conservatives in Florida did this out of the concern for children or their well being and just see it as yet another anti-LGBTQ bill formed around misunderstanding and/or hatred. I also don't think it will have that much of an impact on anything, as kindergarten to 3rd grade is pretty young. In my experience, no one even mentioned sex or the differences between boys and girls until 5th grade. So I'm not too bothered by the law, overall.

If kids are being taught about gender or sex from kindergarten to 3rd grade, however, I'm not sure why it's okay to teach them about heterosexual sex but not homosexual sex. I'd say it should be either both or neither.

Again, if they weren't doing this they wouldn't be so upset about the bill telling them they can't do it. Some of you need to get it through your thick skulls we are talking about a non-family member discussing genitalia, gender and sex with KINDERGARDNERS. If you think that is ok, there is something wrong with you. It is called grooming. That's what sex predators do. They have no business discussing sex with young children, they should be teaching ABC's. If I found a teacher doing this to my kids when they were that young, they wouldn't have to worry about not being able to say gay, because they wouldn't be able to say anything.

[CJD]

(03-29-2022, 09:30 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Again, if they weren't doing this they wouldn't be so upset about the bill telling them they can't do it. Some of you need to get it through your thick skulls we are talking about a non-family member discussing genitalia, gender and sex with KINDERGARDNERS. If you think that is ok, there is something wrong with you. It is called grooming. That's what sex predators do. They have no business discussing sex with young children, they should be teaching ABC's. If I found a teacher doing this to my kids when they were that young, they wouldn't have to worry about not being able to say gay, because they wouldn't be able to say anything.

So there a ton of examples of them teaching explicit gay/ gender identity/ sexual orientation stuff to kindergarteners?

I'm interested in knowing the details of these cases.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2022, 09:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So there a ton of examples of them teaching explicit gay stuff to kindergarteners?

I'm interested in knowing the details of these cases.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

I know this wasn't directed at me.  But if it isn't happening already then why the uproar about the law?  Are we really claiming that not teaching homosexuality and transgenderism to children in third grade and under is an attack on the LGTBQ community?  If it is, then maybe we all need to rethink our support for the current iteration of that movement?  And I say this as a person who's been on the "right" side of this issue well before the Democratic party.

[treee]

(03-29-2022, 09:12 PM)Sled21 Wrote: If it's a problem that doesn't exist, why is the left so upset about it?????

Because it's coming from the republican party which often opposes anything other than heteronormative society. They certainly haven't earned themselves the benefit of the doubt as acting in good faith when it comes to issues facing LGBT people.

[Sled21]

(03-29-2022, 09:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So there a ton of examples of them teaching explicit gay/ gender identity/ sexual orientation stuff to kindergarteners?

I'm interested in knowing the details of these cases.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

I don't care if it's gay or straight, they have no right to discuss that stuff with 6 year olds....

[Sled21]

(03-29-2022, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know this wasn't directed at me.  But if it isn't happening already then why the uproar about the law?  Are we really claiming that not teaching homosexuality and transgenderism to children in third grade and under is an attack on the LGTBQ community?  If it is, then maybe we all need to rethink our support for the current iteration of that movement?  And I say this as a person who's been on the "right" side of this issue well before the Democratic party.

Again, it's not just homosexuality/ transgenderism, it's ANY discussion of sex.

[Sled21]

Turn the news on and then tell me the teaching profession does not have it's problems with sex predators. Hardly a month goes by you don't hear of some teaching raping their students. Heck, we even had a Ben-Gal arrested for it, albeit he was a high school student, but the point remains. If you have a problem with teachers not being allowed to discuss sex with 6-9 year olds away from their parents, there is simply something wrong with you.

[basballguy]

I swear, I think some of y'all would rather just read your own comments over and over rather than be educated by the the comments of other people in these threads.

Half of you would have nothing to say if you just took 5 minutes to read the thread history

[*Nately120*]

(03-29-2022, 09:25 PM)Sled21 Wrote: When someone equates gay with this bill, it's a case of "tell me you didn't read it without telling me you didn't read it."

My point is if you actually take the time to send your kid to a school with which you agree you don't need to worry about public school teachers telling your kids about sex, or CRT, or Islam, or whatever sort of thing you don't want them to hear.

Sure, I'm being hyperbolic here, but politically speaking public schools have been equated with "the left" and private schools have been equated with "the right."  Why would anyone who isn't an ultra liberal send his kids to public school? Republicans have been the champions of charter schools for the past 15+ years, haven't they?

[CJD]

(03-29-2022, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know this wasn't directed at me.  But if it isn't happening already then why the uproar about the law?  Are we really claiming that not teaching homosexuality and transgenderism to children in third grade and under is an attack on the LGTBQ community?  If it is, then maybe we all need to rethink our support for the current iteration of that movement?  And I say this as a person who's been on the "right" side of this issue well before the Democratic party.

I think it's a matter of normalization. While I don't think sex or gender or anything of that nature should be discussed in any structured format with children because, you know, they're children, legislating it in such a way has the implication of "you can talk about normal stuff like heterosexual relationships, but don't talk about the gross gays" you know what I mean? Or, alternatively, the implication would be "being gay is weird and we don't want to expose children to weird stuff too early because it will warp their minds."

There is more to homosexual love than just sex, after all. Children are exposed to heterosexual relationships from the second they are read books or watch children's movies. So it's not like the nature of a man and a woman being attracted to each other is off limits for little children to see. I think that same level of normalization should be afforded for gay relationships too.

And while 3rd grade is young, it's not too young for children to have innocent crushes on other children. This could lead to little boys who may feel like they might be gay thinking there is something wrong with them because their teachers, explicitly or implicitly, are either not willing or unable to teach them about what normal human relationships are like. Or, what if a boy asks a teacher if it's normal to like another boy and the teacher says "yes, in fact, boys liking boys is very normal and there's nothing wrong with it." Is that in violation of this bill? Or is it only regarding structured curriculums? What if that boy's parents found out the teacher told the boy it's okay to like other boys and is now suing the school?

This bill doesn't seem to really get into details like that so it would be left up to the legislators and courts to hash out situations like this and, given that it's Florida, I don't have high hopes that the courts would be understanding and conciliatory. 

We'll see how this bill is actually implemented and if it changes anything. And, if it does, will it be for better or for worse?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-29-2022, 09:46 PM)treee Wrote: Because it's coming from the republican party which often opposes anything other than heteronormative society. They certainly haven't earned themselves the benefit of the doubt as acting in good faith when it comes to issues facing LGBT people.

Reminded me of something I saw a bit ago...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

Quote:Republicans, who have consistently been the party group least in favor of same-sex marriage, show majority support in 2021 for the first time (55%).

The other part of that article I thought was really interesting was...

Quote:A small minority of Americans (27%) supported legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages in 1996, when Gallup first asked the question.

So at the turn of the century, neither of your parties supported gay and lesbian marriages. The Democrats didn't actually have a majority support for gay and lesbian marriages until 2004. That's just 18 years. The youngest Democrats to vote for a President? They were born before the majority of Democrats supported gay and lesbian marriages.

iPhones are only 3 years younger than Democrat majority support for gay and lesbian marriages.

Both of your parties suck and only adopt groups when it becomes convenient to get votes or create a rallying cry against the "other" party. The sooner everyone can realize this, the better.

[treee]

(03-30-2022, 05:40 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Reminded me of something I saw a bit ago...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx


The other part of that article I thought was really interesting was...


So at the turn of the century, neither of your parties supported gay and lesbian marriages. The Democrats didn't actually have a majority support for gay and lesbian marriages until 2004. That's just 18 years. The youngest Democrats to vote for a President? They were born before the majority of Democrats supported gay and lesbian marriages.

iPhones are only 3 years younger than Democrat majority support for gay and lesbian marriages.

Both of your parties suck and only adopt groups when it becomes convenient to get votes or create a rallying cry against the "other" party. The sooner everyone can realize this, the better.

That's good to see but doesn't negate my point. A slim majority of republicans supporting gay marriage now doesn't undo the christian fundamentalists (by far their largest voting block) who fought tooth and nail to prevent it from becoming the law of the land state by state before the supreme court ruling. Hopefully it keeps trending in the right direction but I stand by my statement that the mistrust is well earned on their part.

[*Nately120*]

(03-30-2022, 05:40 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Reminded me of something I saw a bit ago...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx


The other part of that article I thought was really interesting was...


So at the turn of the century, neither of your parties supported gay and lesbian marriages. The Democrats didn't actually have a majority support for gay and lesbian marriages until 2004. That's just 18 years. The youngest Democrats to vote for a President? They were born before the majority of Democrats supported gay and lesbian marriages.

iPhones are only 3 years younger than Democrat majority support for gay and lesbian marriages.

Both of your parties suck and only adopt groups when it becomes convenient to get votes or create a rallying cry against the "other" party. The sooner everyone can realize this, the better.

Good point.  But another thing to keep it mind is that our country is only so receptive to social liberalism. Post 1960 during our cultural revolution era other than the overly popular JFK and Obama, democrats were only able to get a Texan in LBJ and southern Baptist guys like Carter and Clinton elected while the Republicans had Reagan from Hollywood and NYC Trump who both flipped from D to R and catered to the christian vote.

Obama and JFK were the only blue state democrats over a span of 50+ years and their religious  membership was a huge wedge issue for both.  Even when people want a Democrat in office they have an easier time if he has a southern accent and he's talking about god.   

[Bengalzona]

(03-24-2022, 11:21 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: I worked with a gay guy in a produce department. He was telling a story to a boss and I about helping a customer, which he hated customer interaction, and how he helped a lady with two things outside of our department. I looked at him and said "Jerrod, that's mighty ***** of you." He laughed . . . my boss went off and I got called into the HR office. It took a third boss to come into the room to explain to them that what I said was . . . "That's mighty odd of you" and was just making a play on words, which was pretty much what I was telling them.

Jerrod thought it was hilarious never complained but I was going to be punished if the third boss didn't come in and verify my explanation. The more you know.

edit - - LOL I guess it's not allowed here either.

If you take the first two letters of QUit and use them the replace the p in pEER, you can 'figger' out what is blocked above

I remember one day around lunch time, a small group of us lieutenants were standing around deciding where we were going to meet up for lunch. We were a mixed group: male, female, black, white, etc. While we were standing there, this white female LT from another unit walks up and starts lashing out at this black male LT from our group about some work he was supposed to have done and some agreement they had. Not satisfied with his responses, she declared "You reneger!!!" and stormed off.

You could have heard a pin drop.

We all just sort of stood there thinking the same thing: "Wait! What? Did she just call him a.... No! Couldn't be! But she said... Am I supposed to get mad over this? Is that even a word?!?!?!"

Eventually after a minute or so of silence, The black LT turned to us and said, "Well, how about Wendy's?"

Of course, the funny part of the whole story was the silence.

[CJD]

(03-30-2022, 07:18 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I remember one day around lunch time, a small group of us lieutenants were standing around deciding where we were going to meet up for lunch. We were a mixed group: male, female, black, white, etc. While we were standing there, this white female LT from another unit walks up and starts lashing out at this black male LT from our group about some work he was supposed to have done and some agreement they had. Not satisfied with his responses, she declared "You reneger!!!" and stormed off.

You could have heard a pin drop.

We all just sort of stood there thinking the same thing: "Wait! What? Did she just call him a.... No! Couldn't be! But she said... Am I supposed to get mad over this? Is that even a word?!?!?!"

Eventually after a minute or so of silence, The black LT turned to us and said, "Well, how about Wendy's?"

Of course, the funny part of the whole story was the silence.

Renege and Niggardly are two words to tread lightly around haha, especially when you're using them towards a black person.

[*Nately120*]

(03-30-2022, 08:10 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Renege and Niggardly are two words to tread lightly around haha, especially when you're using them towards a black person.

I do some sniggering when people accuse a black person of being niggardly or a renegger.

[Sled21]

(03-29-2022, 10:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: My point is if you actually take the time to send your kid to a school with which you agree you don't need to worry about public school teachers telling your kids about sex, or CRT, or Islam, or whatever sort of thing you don't want them to hear.

Sure, I'm being hyperbolic here, but politically speaking public schools have been equated with "the left" and private schools have been equated with "the right."  Why would anyone who isn't an ultra liberal send his kids to public school?  Republicans have been the champions of charter schools for the past 15+ years, haven't they?

Do you have any inkling of what it costs to send a kid to private school? It is simply beyond the means for a great many parents who live paycheck to paycheck. Heck, it's more than a lot of people even make. Sure, it would be nice to be able to send your kid to a school that you like, and that performs well on assessments regarding educating kids. That's why Trump was pushing for school vouchers, so parents could choose where they wanted to send their kids. Of course, the left and the Teachers Unions made sure that parents did not get that choice.