April 7, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, toolg said: Perhaps that's not what the writers of the bill imply, but it will be an unintended consequence. Some parent will complain that little Johnny's Kindergarten book has a character with two dads and is going to cite this bill why it cannot be allowed. The bill is so unspecific teachers don't know what they are and what they are not allowed to teach. I agree, the bill is unnecessary and it just creates more problems. Yeah, some idiot parents will complain. What’s new there?
April 7, 20223 yr Just now, DrPhilly said: Yeah, some idiot parents will complain. What’s new there? The purpose of all these laws to stop things that are actually not the problem they are presented to be, is all window dressing. Look at this victory!! Will this make kids safer? Smarter? No. It placates some Karens who are only happy when in somebody else's business.
April 7, 20223 yr 20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: It still isn't discrimination. If they were allowed to discuss "why Timmy has a dad and a mom" but not discuss "why Amy has two dads" then yeah but that's not what the bill implies. Also, nothing in the bill prevents a book with gay characters being taught. What's banned is discussing the character's sexual orientation. Those gay characters are just as normal as the straight characters in books so not sure why the character's sexual orientation or gender has to come into play for a 5yr old. Stupid bill. Shouldn't be in play. We can start by agreeing on that. Probably don't need to go further actually. Just get rid of it. It's absolutely what the bill is going to result in. No one is asking about heterosexual couples because that's what they already know. Gay families make up about 1% of parents so of course there are going to be questions of they have a classmate, family member or see a character in a book. The ACLU has come out very strongly against it as they should. The bill isn't coming from a place of "oh well gay people are just regular folks so there's no reason to talk about it further with kids". C'mon man.
April 7, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Yeah, some idiot parents will complain. What’s new there? Right. So why give them more ammo with a law they can use as backup? Idiot parents don't need any more support.
April 7, 20223 yr 12 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Yeah, some idiot parents will complain. What’s new there? It's not just mere complaining. Per the language of the law, they can literally sue the district you F'ing idiot.
April 7, 20223 yr Everybody arguing about nott being able to teach sexuality to Childeren in grades K-3, (you know allowing kids to be kids) But overlooking the fact that, in grade 4 they can. So whats the harm in delaying that conversation to a later age? It's not like they banned it from schools altogether. I dont get the harm of this bill, never will, I guess some just want kids to lose their innocence at a younger age today? Cant we let kids be kids?
April 7, 20223 yr Author 5 minutes ago, Ipiggles said: Everybody arguing about nott being able to teach sexuality to Childeren in grades K-3, (you know allowing kids to be kids) But overlooking the fact that, in grade 4 they can. So whats the harm in delaying that conversation to a later age? It's not like they banned it from schools altogether. I dont get the harm of this bill, never will, I guess some just want kids to lose their innocence at a younger age today? Cant we let kids be kids? This bill has really been an eye-opener. Kind of shocking how many in here want public school teachers to teach gender theory and sexuality to kids 8 and under. As usual, though, CVON is out of touch with the rest of the country, where, despite non-stop lying of mainstream news outlets about the bill, it's actually supported by a majority of people.
April 7, 20223 yr Just now, mr_hunt said: Yes, but only Florida is taking steps to confront the HUGE issue of teachers forcing kids to be gay without parental consent.
April 7, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, DrPhilly said: No one is being discriminated by not discussing sexual orientation with a 5yr old. It is a ridiculous position to take. You can say it is unnecessary or you can say there is some stupid virtue signaling or whatever. But there is no discrimination whatsoever occurring toward those kids simply because a school doesn’t discuss sexual orientation with them at those young ages. Problem is sexual orientation is taught, passively, everytime you talk/teach about core family. Think the Barney song, its a valuable lesson to teach kids that different family types are normal.
April 7, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Problem is sexual orientation is taught, passively, everytime you talk/teach about core family. Think the Barney song, its a valuable lesson to teach kids that different family types are normal. Plus, avoiding these subjects does not make them go away. Nor does it stop child predators. Nor will it stop a gay kind from being gay. Didn't just about all of us grow up with a kid that, looking back, it was obvious they were gay?
April 7, 20223 yr 23 minutes ago, Kz! said: This bill has really been an eye-opener. Kind of shocking how many in here want public school teachers to teach gender theory and sexuality to kids 8 and under. As usual, though, CVON is out of touch with the rest of the country, where, despite non-stop lying of mainstream news outlets about the bill, it's actually supported by a majority of people. There is a majority in here, who are very left leaning progressive liberals. Reminder: They only believe what the media tells them. (Russian collusion, the Steel dossier, Hunter Bidens Laptop was disinfo, The Magahat kid, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc...) They fall hard for every single one of these because it is confirmation bias. Remember it is easier to get them to believe a lie, then it is to get them to believe they have been duped. Under the age of 8 I know I did not care or need to here about my teachers sexuality. It never even enetered my mind. Below 8 years old, I am more focused on learning how to read, tie my shoes, etc... The last thing on an 6 year old mind is LGBTQ. I said it before and ill say it again, if the bill is unneccessary, then why the back lash?
April 7, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Plus, avoiding these subjects does not make them go away. Nor does it stop child predators. Nor will it stop a gay kind from being gay. Didn't just about all of us grow up with a kid that, looking back, it was obvious they were gay? No one is avoiding it. They are saying that we should wait until the child is just a wee bit older before you can discuss such mature concepts with them in a public school. The crazy thing is, no one is saying you cant have these conversations with them at home as a parent, in fact, thats what they are advocating for. This is the parents call, not the schools.
April 7, 20223 yr Author 12 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Plus, avoiding these subjects does not make them go away. Nor does it stop child predators. Nor will it stop a gay kind from being gay. Didn't just about all of us grow up with a kid that, looking back, it was obvious they were gay? Yes, great point! Now, statistically, 1 of 5 kids are gay. But that just happens normally and naturally with no outside influence at all. Weird how nature be like that.
April 7, 20223 yr 47 minutes ago, toolg said: Right. So why give them more ammo with a law they can use as backup? Idiot parents don't need any more support. I agree hence why I think the bill should be sheet canned. I also agree on the potential for idiots to try to misuse it. It is a complete waste of energy and just a political play.
April 7, 20223 yr 15 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Didn't just about all of us grow up with a kid that, looking back, it was obvious they were gay? Yeah for sure though not at age 5
April 7, 20223 yr 22 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Problem is sexual orientation is taught, passively, everytime you talk/teach about core family. Think the Barney song, its a valuable lesson to teach kids that different family types are normal. Nothing in the bill stops the teaching of core families that have other make ups beyond straight couple led families. You don’t have to address the subject of sexual orientation to teach diverse family makeup. The Barney song is a perfect example. The song doesn’t discuss orientation or gender and and it wouldn’t be banned under the bill. In fact, the song should be extended with a few other examples.
April 7, 20223 yr 58 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: It's absolutely what the bill is going to result in. No one is asking about heterosexual couples because that's what they already know. Gay families make up about 1% of parents so of course there are going to be questions of they have a classmate, family member or see a character in a book. The ACLU has come out very strongly against it as they should. The bill isn't coming from a place of "oh well gay people are just regular folks so there's no reason to talk about it further with kids". C'mon man. No it won’t. There is a ton of material in all our media these days with all sorts of diversity. Plus we all agree there is no issue since orientation isn’t being taught to kids of that age. 1 hour ago, Toastrel said: The purpose of all these laws to stop things that are actually not the problem they are presented to be, is all window dressing. Look at this victory!! Will this make kids safer? Smarter? No. It placates some Karens who are only happy when in somebody else's business. Agreed. The bill should be dumped in the sheeter.
April 7, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No it won’t. There is a ton of material in all our media these days with all sorts of diversity. Plus we all agree there is no issue since orientation isn’t being taught to kids of that age. Sorry but I think you're being incredibly naive if you don't think that's the explicit reason behind this bill. But you seem pretty dug in so I guess I'll drop it.
April 7, 20223 yr 30 minutes ago, Ipiggles said: No one is avoiding it. They are saying that we should wait until the child is just a wee bit older before you can discuss such mature concepts with them in a public school. The crazy thing is, no one is saying you cant have these conversations with them at home as a parent, in fact, thats what they are advocating for. This is the parents call, not the schools. When are such subjects being discussed? When you were in school, when were such subjects discussed by teachers? If there are teachers who discuss sex with 5 years old, fire them. However, I believe this is a made up problem with a solution that opens the door for children to be mistreated, as I stated in my post regarding what I objected to in the bill.
April 7, 20223 yr 21 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Nothing in the bill stops the teaching of core families that have other make ups beyond straight couple led families. You don’t have to address the subject of sexual orientation to teach diverse family makeup. The Barney song is a perfect example. The song doesn’t discuss orientation or gender and and it wouldn’t be banned under the bill. In fact, the song should be extended with a few other examples. Sorry but the language is pruposely amibguous. It is more than enough stand on for getting teachers fired over the two daddies book. the whole thing is a trap for moderates to allow discrimination through the backdoor back into classrooms.
April 7, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, DEagle7 said: That's kind of what half the letters in that acronym stand for. How are they going to address anything lgb without at least discussing sexual orientation? And again kids aren't being taught the intricacies of gays or straight sex in school. What this does is prevent teachers from answering when a kid asks "why does Timmy have 2 dads?". Or using any teaching material that has gay characters in it. Pretending as if this is going to be equally effect the heterosexual and homosexual population is wildly naive. Quote The bill’s sponsors, Sen. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, and Rep. Joe Harding, R-Williston, amended the bill in the hopes of making it clear it would only be restricting lessons related to those subjects. Conversations between students and teachers about, for example, a child’s two mothers, would still be allowed under the bill, the sponsors said. Here's an idea - go learn more about the actual bill instead of just regurgitating what MSNBC and Ron Perlman tell you to say
April 7, 20223 yr Author 14 minutes ago, Toastrel said: When are such subjects being discussed? When you were in school, when were such subjects discussed by teachers? If there are teachers who discuss sex with 5 years old, fire them. However, I believe this is a made up problem with a solution that opens the door for children to be mistreated, as I stated in my post regarding what I objected to in the bill. Except there's video evidence of teachers teaching that and openly bragging about it on social media. This isn't that hard to find. Elementary schools have even had gay pride marches and, again, posted video on social media openly.
Create an account or sign in to comment