You are embarrassing yourself by talking gibberish.
Disney
- Thread starter LowerLevelSeatA
- Start date
- Status
You can't legislate morality or homosexuality as the GOP would like to happen. They offer no other way to improve your life and it sticks with the base so it definitely will continue.
I wish that was true.
Purposefully dull. Strawman after strawman. Ridiculous.
So you are saying homosexuality is immoral?
I'm not going that far, I just don't think sex should be a discussion amongst young children with government employees. That is the parent's job.
Who's actually talking to young kids about sex? This is a solution to a nonexistent problem with the purpose of riling up antigay bigots, that will threaten the mere recognition of gay people's existence.
Everything you support is evil. Is it intentional or are you just gullible?
Mental illness shouldn't be normalized in the classrooms of young children.
Well, that’s settled.
Bring out the slides so these kindergarteners can see some Pride parades with dildos.
Sure. Here is the exact text from the law.
"prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner"
"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 for students in accordance with state standards."
So my issue with this it does not define what "classroom discussion" or "classroom instruction" is and seems to conflate the two terms. It also mentions a ban on that discussion from grades K-3, but also adds in "age appropriate" and "developmentally appropriate", both of which are also not defined. What one parent views as age appropriate won't be the same as what another parent views as age appropriate. The bill is written in a way that makes it very vague exactly what it is disallowing and when certain topics are allowed to be introduced into classrooms.
I think reasonable people would agree that teaching grades K-3 sexual explicit material is not appropriate. But there are large questions about exactly what this bill is trying to prevent, and the way it is written does not specify. Its proponents claim it is to protect children from being sexually groomed (and I think we can all agree that if that is happening it must stop), but not once does that term appear in the bill.
There is a known tactic called the Chilling Effect where laws are written to suppress speech. One way to accomplish that is to write laws that are extremely vague so people don't exactly know what is disallowed. This makes people who want to express free speech not express it because they're worried it is illegal. In other words, the threat of it being illegal is just as effective as making it actually illegal.
People are concerned this law will have a chilling effect on the LGTB community. The bill is so vague that just the threat of a gay teacher mentioning their spouse being illegal will suppress them mentioning their spouse, whether it's actually illegal or not.
The most charitable interpretation of this law is that it is extremely vague because it was clumsily written. The most cynical interpretation is that it is extremely vague on purpose to have a chilling effect on LGBTQ expression and speech.
Last edited:
Point noted. I should have said no reasonable person agrees with it. You can have legitimate issues with this bill without being someone who supports child grooming.
All I know is, some here evidently got the memo to start overusing the word "groom". Holy ****, everyone, meet the newest buzz word of 2022.
For everyone trying to lie about this bill being about bigotry, I present exhibit A
Unfortunately, that was not the approach the left took. They chose to lie about the bill and give it a media name (the media acts like others are calling it the “don’t say Gay” bill, but the leftist media puts that name is the fist paragraph of every article it writes) that is a fiction in order to irrelevantly stir passions, rather than discuss the bill openly and honestly.
if I’m a middle or high school English teacher do I think twice about teaching a book or showing a movie that includes a gay character? That is the risk of this law, and that is scary IMO. Because it creates the impression that being gay is wrong or taboo.
Seriously? It doesn’t give that impression at all. Two very smart gay men I respect both have read the bill and agree with it. How is it you came to that conclusion about a bill that does not even mention a particular sexual orientation?
So you don't think any kids have ever been exploited?
Jeez, that is one dense opinion.
Also,
Thanks. Yes, I would agree, seems a bit vague. I guess I agree with the premise of not teaching sex Ed for K-3. Could have been written to be more specific. Outside of that I find it fairly benign, and it appears to have no effect on my life. So I guess good luck to all you democrats vs republicans arguing about stupid **** again and everyone be thankful that these are the things you’re apparently worried about, life must be good!
This is about as ignorant as if someone pointed out Disney is against this bill bc they are pro grooming and pedophilia/child/human trafficking.
Another false narrative. Are you a liberal attorney? The Florida Bar is among the most left wing groups in our state and of course they are going to come after it. That was expected . But it is the law of our state and will remain the law.
If people have an issue with it they can lie about it, put out false narratives and act like liberal Democrats do, but it is law and it is supported by more than 50% of Democrats and I would imagine the GOP Gay Club too. The actions of some teachers in our K-3rd grades required our State Legislature do something.
The law has nothing to do with middle or high school English teachers and you throw that out as a false narrative just as the Florida Bar will be alleging it is anti gay. Nothing could be further from the truth. But you know that
Opt-in activities that parents can take their kids to that aren't in schools, let alone in school instruction, has exactly nothing to do with a bill censoring teachers.
Another false narrative. Not allowing teachers to transgender a child without the parent knowing it is not censor. It is common sense. And you know and every liberal on this message board knows that is the issue.
January Littlejohn of Leon County can fill you in and will be glad to. It happened to her child without her knowledge.
Showing 2 men as a couple is not made illegal by this bill. The irony of the so-called "don't say gay" bill is that saying gay isn't actually made illegal at all. The bill bans attempts that are far more aggressive than that. I won't google for you what they are trying to teach 5 year olds but I will say this. If you were to approach a 5 year old on a playground and actually read to them from one of the material they are pushing, you would go to jail. If you can't have that conversation with a 5 year old anywhere, then you shouldn't have it in a school setting either.
This is not true. The law states the prohibited topics apply to grades K-3 OR if the are not age or developmentally appropriate. And it does not define the mechanism to determine if something is age or developmentally appropriate or who determines that. One of the bill's sponsors specifically mentioned that topics could be restricted at grades four and above.
This is silly. The word gay is literally not in the bill. How can the bill ban something that is never discussed. BTW you can't give heterosexual perverts access to 5 year olds either. This bill does nothing but give parents control over what type of material is appropriate for their children.
The slippery slope argument, ironically enough used against gay marriage in the past.
I’m actually a republican lawyer, but I am well educated and live in the real world. If I read that some teacher somewhere in our large state taught some inappropriate information to kids (or “groomed” them) I don’t automatically think that a state law should be passed to deal with that isolated incident.
This is obviously a “red meat” law designed to rile up people like Shawnee Cat. It is copying what seemed to work in the. VA gubernatorial election.
This is obviously a “red meat” law designed to rile up people like Shawnee Cat. It is copying what seemed to work in the. VA gubernatorial election.
You are talking about the text of a law where words matter and this is written in a vague manner. It is the job of a lawyer to think about the ways that the language can be interpreted.
Do words matter in law anymore, especially this type? I mean, we do have someone going through Supreme Court nomination who wouldn’t define woman.
Likely brilliant SC nominee cannot define woman…but we want k-3 teachers explaining sexual orientation/gender identity to children. Lol
Gotcha, I interpreted your post as saying “Well what’s next? Will 8th grade teachers not be allowed to talk about gay book characters?” Just sounded like all the “well what’s next, will people be able to marry animals?” narrative.
You said no one was trying to talk to kids about sex.
Teacher: “Sounds great everyone! Glad you had a great weekend. Time to get started with our lesson!”
WTF is hard about this?
liberals. they don't hide it anymore.
everything you disagree with is bigotry. sexualizing children, you are ok with. you are not hiding it either. sick
The outrage from the left on this bill is completely over the top. Nowhere in the bill does it mention any one specific sexual or gender orientation. Anyone trying to teach these kids about heterosexuality would be breaking the law just as much as any teacher that is teaching them about homosexuality. It's a simple, straightforward don't teach my kids about sexual orientation or identity in grades k-3. Why is that so hard to agree on?
Because some people apparently believe 6 year olds need to talk about sex with government employees.
You seem to be confused. You didn't provide any examples of people talking to kids about sex.
SOunds like some snow flakes need to toughen up if they are upset over this news.
Can you blame them? First, they had to SAVE THE CHILDREN from the severe abuses of masks and now they must SAVE THE CHILDREN from the trans community/the media/libs/teachers/woke culture/GROOMING/etc. There's a segment of the population who has made it their make believe job to be the guardians of the country. I didn't hear this much about grooming and pedophilia when the Catholic Church was busy doing their daily rapings. It's just silly to me, all of it; both sides. Just silly. The left's reaction, the right's reaction. Silly. And you know what? We'll move on to another bit of silliness next month.
it is extremely disturbing the people here who are defending the sexualization of 5 yr olds. It is obvious none of you have children.
- Status