They are all our children. Not!

[Marener]

Nobody is forbidden to use the word gay and the word does not appear anywhere in Florida's or anybody elses law on this. What is forbidden is overt or tacit sexualization and grooming of young children.

It’s precisely clear what the bill intended.

It’s to erase gay people. Here’s an example.

Tallahassee mom makes case that 'I am Billie Jean King' book 'infringes' on parents' rights

Leon County mom says book "I am Billie Jean King" should be removed from elementary schools due to reference of King being gay. A school district representative disagreed.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[BlindBoo]

Biden is incapable of quoting anybody re anything. I listened to his speech in its full context. The phrase is still chilling given the Democrat's track record on education.

"You know, I’ve often say — and you’re tired of hearing me saying it, probably, but — children are the kite strings — they’re not somebody else’s chi- — they’re all our children — are the kite strings that lift our national ambitions aloft, and you hold those strings. You hold those strings. And our job is to make sure you have what you need to do what you do best."

Not the nasty Neo-GOP political talking point you have in your OP.

"-imposes and approves that unacceptable curriculum, imagery, entertainment for even young children.
--pushes and promotes content that indoctrinates children more than it educates.
--pushes for children to be able to get abortions, to transgender, etc. without the parents being notified.
--increasingly discourages parental involvement in the choices of their children or the content they are being taught.
--increasing demonization of parents who show up at school or school board meetings to protest what they consider unacceptable content even to the point the DOJ investigates or labels them as terrorists if they use strong language in their protest."

 

[Foxfyre]

It’s precisely clear what the bill intended.

It’s to erase gay people. Here’s an example.

Tallahassee mom makes case that 'I am Billie Jean King' book 'infringes' on parents' rights

Leon County mom says book "I am Billie Jean King" should be removed from elementary schools due to reference of King being gay. A school district representative disagreed.

www.tallahassee.com

I am not saying there are no homophobes. There are. But one or several persons demanding something is not law. The vast majority of those on the right have no problem with Billie Jean King or anybody else being gay. What they object to is the overt or tacit grooming of children via school curriculum and sexualized content should be for older children, not young ones.

 

[Foxfyre]

"You know, I’ve often say — and you’re tired of hearing me saying it, probably, but — children are the kite strings — they’re not somebody else’s chi- — they’re all our children — are the kite strings that lift our national ambitions aloft, and you hold those strings. You hold those strings. And our job is to make sure you have what you need to do what you do best."

Not the nasty Neo-GOP political talking point you have in your OP.

"-imposes and approves that unacceptable curriculum, imagery, entertainment for even young children.
--pushes and promotes content that indoctrinates children more than it educates.
--pushes for children to be able to get abortions, to transgender, etc. without the parents being notified.
--increasingly discourages parental involvement in the choices of their children or the content they are being taught.
--increasing demonization of parents who show up at school or school board meetings to protest what they consider unacceptable content even to the point the DOJ investigates or labels them as terrorists if they use strong language in their protest."

I stand by my post that you have yet to refute in any way.

You call it nasty. I call it necessary for good and honorable people to step up and object to curriculum that is nothing more than indoctrination of young minds and to government policy at any level that takes power from parents.

 

[Marener]

I am not saying there are no homophobes. There are. But one or several persons demanding something is not law. The vast majority of those on the right have no problem with Billie Jean King or anybody else being gay. What they object to is the overt or tacit grooming of children via school curriculum and sexualized content should be for older children, not young ones.

The law enables the homophobes. It was very specifically the intent. It doesn’t matter if the vast majority have no problem, the vast majority now has to comply with the demands of the fringe.

 

[Foxfyre]

The law enables the homophobes. It was very specifically the intent. It doesn’t matter if the vast majority have no problem, the vast majority now has to comply with the demands of the fringe.

Only on the left.

 

[Marener]

Only on the left.

Not at all. The don’t say gay law definitely gives this homophobe a course of action specifically because the book says gay.

That was absolutely the intention of the law. They tried changing the language to make it about sexualization but that wasn’t allowed.

 

[Rawley]

Hey, man, if the parents want them drinking bourbon and smoking dope at 6 years old, who are we to judge?

Screw face painting, real, loving, parents let their kids get face tattoos.

 

[Rawley]

Not at all. The don’t say gay law definitely gives this homophobe a course of action specifically because the book says gay.

That was absolutely the intention of the law. They tried changing the language to make it about sexualization but that wasn’t allowed.

You support teaching grade school kids proper techniques for giving blowjobs?

 

[Mac1958]

Y'know, it really doesn't have to be only one or the other.

 

[Marener]

You support teaching grade school kids proper techniques for giving blowjobs?

I support telling kids that gay people exist and its no big deal.

 

[westwall]

I try hard not to project. Accusing question? Really? I can answer that question without even thinking about it.

Non pervs can.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not at all. The don’t say gay law definitely gives this homophobe a course of action specifically because the book says gay.

That was absolutely the intention of the law. They tried changing the language to make it about sexualization but that wasn’t allowed.

There is no 'don't say gay' law. That's a dishonest label the left put on it. There is no state prohibiting sexualization of young children that uses the term 'gay'. Again that some homophobes protest ANY content referencing that in the school libraries does not make it law. The extremely few schools that would bow to that are rare and misguided. But young children should be allowed the innocence of childhood and not be subjected to content re sexual orientation or transgendering or ridiculous pronouns.

I think any intelligent and honorable person, straight or gay, would agree with that. Very young children are not going to be reading the biography of Billie Jean King.

 

[Marener]

Again that some homophobes protest ANY content referencing that in the school libraries does not make it law. The extremely few schools that would bow to that are rare and misguided.

They’re not misguided. They’re reading the Florida law which prohibits the mention of sexual orientation.

Such as a book about Billie Jean King that says she was gay which means she was attracted romantically to women.

Schools are rightly worried about being in violation of the law. The chilling effect is extremely real.

You can claim it’s not a “don’t say gay” law but that’s how it works. It doesn’t have anything to do with sexualization of minors. It has everything to do with protecting bigots.

 

[Foxfyre]

They’re not misguided. They’re reading the Florida law which prohibits the mention of sexual orientation.

Such as a book about Billie Jean King that says she was gay which means she was attracted romantically to women.

Schools are rightly worried about being in violation of the law. The chilling effect is extremely real.

You can claim it’s not a “don’t say gay” law but that’s how it works. It doesn’t have anything to do with sexualization of minors. It has everything to do with protecting bigots.

The Florida law prohibits teaching ANY sexual content, heterosexual, sexual orientation, transgendering, manipulating pronouns, etc. to young children. It is a good law. Every state should have one like it.

Children naturally figure out almost by osmosis the difference between boys and girls and which bathrooms are proper for them to use. Other than that they need to learn their colors and to read and write and expand their imaginations and creativity to make it easier for them to learn ore and more later on.

Do you think young children should be groomed? Sexualized? Taught materials far better suited to older children and adults? Or do you think they should be allowed the innocence of childhood as generations of us were?

 

[Marener]

The Florida law prohibits teaching ANY sexual content, heterosexual, sexual orientation, transgendering, manipulating pronouns, etc. to young children. It is a good law. Every state should have one like it.

No one is going to sue because a book mentions a heterosexual marriage. The law is clearly intended to marginalize gay people.

Saying that gay people exist isn’t sexual content. There’s no need to outlaw it unless you’re trying to make gay people disappear.

 

[Foxfyre]

No one is going to sue because a book mentions a heterosexual marriage. The law is clearly intended to marginalize gay people.

Saying that gay people exist isn’t sexual content. There’s no need to outlaw it unless you’re trying to make gay people disappear.

There is no reason for young children to even be thinking about sexual orientation or any other sexualized content.

Why is that so important to you?

 

[Marener]

There is no reason for young children to even be thinking about sexual orientation or any other sexualized content.

Why is that so important to you?

Sexual orientation isn’t socialized content. It’s life.

They have parents, don’t they?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sexual orientation isn’t socialized content. It’s life.

They have parents, don’t they?

So you won't answer the question. Have a nice day.

 

[Marener]

So you won't answer the question. Have a nice day.

Your question has a flawed premise. Sexual orientation isn’t sexualized content. A kid having two parents is exposed to their sexual orientation. No one would think we need to hide that from them because it’s not sexualization.

It’s important to me that we reflect that gay people exist and are normal. If we don’t, we are permitting bigotry.