03-28-2022, 10:27 PM
(03-28-2022, 10:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't really think that is true. Maybe for some children with very attentive parents. But even then not also for all their friends and schoolmates that will pass on what they saw and experienced. Not every child is thoroughly shielded from all things TV or internet. And this will only increase.
Well, I could totally understand if a society decides that there shouldn't be a lesson plan around sexual orientation. I don't know if that necessarily has to happen through a law, but fine. My issue with this law as written would be that it is not sharply focused on things like that, where I'd agree, some things are not for children of young age to learn about. You just, maybe with merit, read it as focused on these issues. But in theory, this law also can be seen as declaring it illegal to talk about Sarah's two daddies. Which always can - and will by some at least - be seen as talking about homosexuality, so sexual orientation.
And imho, that's what many on the the other side see in this law, and I can not really blame them for it.
We'll just have to disagree on the first part. :)
Regarding what I bolded above, this is actual language in the bill:
Quote:Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate
I think that draws a fine line between "instruction" and "discussion".
