The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rama Set on January 22, 2022, 05:45:33 PM

Title: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2022, 05:45:33 PM
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/590838-house-committee-in-florida-passes-dont-say-gay-bill

Holy shit. Why are the GOP such fucking snowflakes?  Haven’t they figured out yet that kids can’t catch the gay?  Teaching kids about the existence of sexual orientation and non binary gender identity is crucial for the mental health of kids who might identify as LGBTQ+  It leads to a significant reduction in suicide among them. It also just fosters an open mind about people and any sort of deviation from mainstream identity in areas like disability, ethnicity, etc…

TX SB8 has opened such a Pandora’s box because it guarantees that vocal but small minority will be able to inhibit the education system. A true conservative principle would be to encourage the people who don’t want to participate in public education, to not rely on the government to fix their problems, but instead they are asking these bigoted fucktards to become a bigger burden on the government by tying up the legal system in pointless litigation and drain school coffers through payments of damages. The GOP sucks big donkey balls.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on January 22, 2022, 06:18:44 PM
A true conservative principle would be to encourage the people who don’t want to participate in public education

That's exactly what this is, though.

Quote
According to the bill, parents may take legal action against their child’s school district and be awarded damages if they believe any of its policies infringe on their “fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.”

Quote
Other advocates have criticized the language of one of the Florida bill’s provisions, which would require educators and administrators to effectively “out” known LGBTQ+ students to their parents without their consent.

It's requiring the state to report and concede power to the parents. Public schools should be beholden to a parents' wishes. The government shouldn't have the ultimate say in what your children are taught and it definitely shouldn't withhold information from parents.

Of course pro-government entities are framing this in "it's hateful against the gays!" because that pushes all your correct moral buttons. Convincing people their side is the moral high ground is paramount in ensuring you maintain control over them. It's what makes organized religion so powerful; it's what makes political parties so powerful; it's why you make these "righteous indignation" posts. "We must protect 'the oppressed' from 'the man' by telling 'the man' to oppress the people." is really a hot take coming from you.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2022, 06:46:46 PM
A true conservative principle would be to encourage the people who don’t want to participate in public education

That's exactly what this is, though.

No. If people don’t like what is being taught then withdraw your kids from public education instead of wasting government resources.



Quote
It's requiring the state to report and concede power to the parents. Public schools should be beholden to a parents' wishes. The government shouldn't have the ultimate say in what your children are taught and it definitely shouldn't withhold information from parents.

If you think unqualified parents should dictate the curriculum compared to educational professionals, then we will never agree on this. If parents think they can provide a better education, then they should withdraw their kids and do it themselves and not litigate their beliefs wasting government resources.
 
Quote
Of course pro-government entities are framing this in "it's hateful against the gays!" because that pushes all your correct moral buttons. Convincing people their side is the moral high ground is paramount in ensuring you maintain control over them. It's what makes organized religion so powerful, it's what makes political parties so powerful and it's why you make these "righteous indignation" posts about how we simply must protect 'the oppressed' from 'the man' by telling 'the man' to oppress the people.

Ok snowflake. There is nothing oppressive about having knowledge taught. Do these parents not have a strong enough tie with their kids to indoctrinate them in to their preferred world view? People who feel threatened by dissemination of knowledge about sexual orientation and gender identity are sad little cave people. These cave people have options available to them already to avoid this, but the GOP, in their effort to try and remain socially relevant (they aren’t, pretty much every social issue has the more liberal view favored by a majority of Americans), they want to empower the losers that are scared of the gays to sue people. There is nothing conservative about this. The only reason they are passing these litigation-style bills is to try and end around the constitution because they know it’s nonsense that would never survive a challenge.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2022, 07:31:19 PM
The constitution doesn't say anything about this. It leaves education up to the states to decide, and this one did.

Sex Ed is already optional in most public schools. Parents can choose to opt out on a form to approve sex ed for their children and they won't be put into those courses. I don't see how this LGBT+ education is any different than Sex Ed.

I would prefer that school teachers not try to brainwash children into thinking what may be an arguable mental disorder for some people is normal. Obviously their goal is to normalize it, not just to inform and educate. If their goal was really education they would save it for later years. But no, it needs to be forced onto young children as well.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2022, 07:42:41 PM
This bill is blatent fear mongering.
And its going to fuck up alot of teenagers. 
See teachers are often a source of advice for teens who, for reasons we all should remember, don't want to discuss things with our parents.  And the next option is google.
But now teachers can't for fear of being sued.
"Mr. Jackson... I need some advice if I should join the football team.."
"Sorry Scott, I'm not allowed to give you advice in case it upsets your parents."



And god help the schools when the first 'my kid is being taught evolution instead of God's truth' comes down the pipe.

In fact... What happens if two parents sue over opposing view points?  Like in theory this bill could be used to sue a school for NOT teaching LBGT+ stuff as well as suing for teaching it.



The constitution doesn't say anything about this. It leaves education up to the states to decide, and this one did.

Sex Ed is already optional in most public schools. Parents can choose to opt out on a form to approve sex ed for their children and they won't be put into those courses. I don't see how this LGBT+ education is any different than Sex Ed.

I would prefer that school teachers not try to brainwash children into thinking what may be a debatedly mental disorder for some people is normal. Obviously their goal is to normalize it, not just to inform and educate. If their goal was really education they would save it for later years. But no, it needs to be forced onto young children as well.

Agreed.  I mean, no child alive now would know the word 'gay' let alone ever hear about homosexuality in conversation, news, tv programs, etc ..  nope, totally impossible without a teacher to teach it....
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2022, 07:52:38 PM
LGBT+ includes a wide range of behaviors and is simply not settled science. Schoolteachers are not qualified to tell children that being asexual is normal. It may be related to health conditions, lack of nutrition, experience, or poor environment.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 22, 2022, 07:57:25 PM
Holy shit. Why are the GOP such fucking snowflakes?  Haven’t they figured out yet that kids can’t catch the gay?  Teaching kids about the existence of sexual orientation and non binary gender identity is crucial for the mental health of kids who might identify as LGBTQ+ 
Discussing homosexuality with children is a gateway to child sexual abuse. Such discussions should only be instigated by parents. Teachers should not be talking to children about sex - especially gay sex. Why would you want a 40 year old man that you barely know, talking to your little boy about gay sex? Yet another example of liberal ideology over practicality.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2022, 08:19:16 PM
I’m not sure what Tom and Thork think early childhood sex ed consists of, but they clearly don’t have any idea of what actually happens. My son has really only learned that people are diverse and that it’s not abnormal to have feelings for people of the same sex. He is in grade 5. Nothing about being transgender and nothing about the mechanics of sex of any variety.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 22, 2022, 08:29:37 PM
My son has really only learned that people are diverse and that it’s not abnormal to have feelings for people of the same sex. He is in grade 5.
So before he has even begun puberty, you are ramming ideas about being queer into his head. Poor little guy. He is likely interested in Fortnite and playing outside with his friends. Now he wondering why a large hairy man would have feelings for him.

Its not right. You know it isn't right. In all of human history, no people's taught their kids that growing up to be gay was a good idea. But of course you and your frothy mouthed cohort of do-gooders know best as usual.  ::)

You are busy thinking about yourself and what makes you happy. Not what is best for your son.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2022, 08:49:33 PM
My son has really only learned that people are diverse and that it’s not abnormal to have feelings for people of the same sex. He is in grade 5.
So before he has even begun puberty, you are ramming ideas about being queer into his head. Poor little guy. He is likely interested in Fortnite and playing outside with his friends. Now he wondering why a large hairy man would have feelings for him.

Its not right. You know it isn't right. In all of human history, no people's taught their kids that growing up to be gay was a good idea. But of course you and your frothy mouthed cohort of do-gooders know best as usual.  ::)

You are busy thinking about yourself and what makes you happy. Not what is best for your son.

Pretty sure the greeks thought it was ok.
Oh and English theater had only men for centuries.  So those steamy kissy scenes were two dudes.

And being taught facts about human life isn't wrong.  As long as the teacher doesn't try to convince their students that they ARE gay, its fine.

Its like being taught that there are homophobic people in the world. 
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2022, 08:55:16 PM
LGBT+ includes a wide range of behaviors and is simply not settled science. Schoolteachers are not qualified to tell children that being asexual is normal. It may be related to health conditions, lack of nutrition, experience, or poor environment.
....

You do know that asexual means a lack of sexual attraction or low interest in sex of any kind.  Right?  And yes, it could be related to other health conditions, such as depression.  Or its just asexuality.  Either way, its also ok.  Its ok to be depressed.  Its ok to ask for help.  If you are depressed and suffer from depression, that does not make you a freak or any less human. 

That is what "Its ok" means.  Not "You don't need to get help" but "Its ok to be sick if you're sick."

Tho in this case, not having sexual attraction is also perfecty fine.  Some people just are.  But if other shit is going on, then maybe see a doctor.  Otherwise, who the fuck cares?

See Education is about learning what is or isn't there and knowing what is or isn't ok.
Being gay?  That's ok.  Some people are.
Being Asexual, bisexual, trans?  Also ok.  Some people are.
Being an asshole?  Racist?  Homophobic?  Not ok.  Some people are and those people usually lash out and attack the people they hate.


Remember what Yoda teaches us.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2022, 08:58:41 PM
Not "You don't need to get help" but "Its ok to be sick if you're sick."

That's terrible advice for people who are sick.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 22, 2022, 09:02:20 PM
Pretty sure the greeks thought it was ok.
No, they didn't. Provide a source.


Oh and English theater had only men for centuries.  So those steamy kissy scenes were two dudes.
And children didn't go to the theatre.  ::)

And being taught facts about human life isn't wrong.  As long as the teacher doesn't try to convince their students that they ARE gay, its fine.
Teachers are encouraging children to be gay. Telling them to consider it. They likely never have until that point.

Its like being taught that there are homophobic people in the world.
Good job men like you are around to talk to young children about gay sex.  ::)


Your formative years are just that. Formative. You aren't born having any sexuality. You aren't thinking about sex until you hit puberty. Now in the same way as a serial killer might become so because of a childhood experience killing small animals for fun, being gay is the same. If a teacher suddenly starts inserting ideas about how you can be together with someone of the same sex, as a kid you are going to think "What me and my best friend? Great, we can play playstation together forever. Maybe me and John should be gay. He's my best friend. I'll ask equally confused John if he wants to hold hands." And the second that happens the teacher is saying how good they both are and that the class should clap them and accept them. That's a formative moment. Now maybe your kid should kiss John. People wildly approve. And that will ruin your kid's life.

I wouldn't wish being gay on anyone.

The myth that they get married and live happily ever after. No they don't they all get left on their own once they lose their looks and no one wants to f*ck them in the arse anymore.
The myth that they will be happy. No, you'll have no family and you'll be on your own.
The myth that there is no risk. Its highly risky and every new sexual encounter brings the risk of assault or disease.
The myth that it is all about love. No, its about hedonism and lust and if you won't let the guy you just met shove his fist up your backside to appease his every titillation, he'll move on and find someone who will.

Being gay is awful. Why liberals keep lying about this and saying how its exactly the same and just great is only in their heads. I know a bunch of gays, now in their mid-40s and they are all miserable. Utterly invisible to other gays now they are older and they are all depressed. You should make sure your child's formative sexual moments are all about hetronormal relationships with mommies and daddies and babies. And not with leather clad perverts in the toilets of a filthy bar in your city.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2022, 11:20:30 PM
Not "You don't need to get help" but "Its ok to be sick if you're sick."

That's terrible advice for people who are sick.
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

I mean, except for you.
If you're sick like with the flu, you shouldn't be sick.  Its completely unacceptable for YOU to ever be sick.  Should you be sick, even a sniffle, you should be shunned from society like the filthy, disease ridden human you are.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2022, 11:45:42 PM
Pretty sure the greeks thought it was ok.
No, they didn't. Provide a source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

Quote
Oh and English theater had only men for centuries.  So those steamy kissy scenes were two dudes.
And children didn't go to the theatre.  ::)
Not sure your point.  They did and they saw it.  They knew it was two guys and as you can see, all of England didn't become gay.

Quote
And being taught facts about human life isn't wrong.  As long as the teacher doesn't try to convince their students that they ARE gay, its fine.
Teachers are encouraging children to be gay. Telling them to consider it. They likely never have until that point.
Pretty sure they aren't.  Not unless a student comes to them and say "I'm fantasizing about my same sex classmate... am I gay?"  But I'd be happy to see your source for that one.

Quote
Its like being taught that there are homophobic people in the world.
Good job men like you are around to talk to young children about gay sex.  ::)
We've talked to my 7 year old son about it.  Saying that some people's "partner" (The word for boyfriend and girlfriend in norwegian is the same: kjæreste) are sometimes the same gender.  And that's ok.

Quote
You aren't born having any sexuality.
You are, actually.  Or rather the hardwired bits are in your brain already, waiting to be activated.  Children gender identify fairly early.
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx


Quote
You aren't thinking about sex until you hit puberty. Now in the same way as a serial killer might become so because of a childhood experience killing small animals for fun, being gay is the same. If a teacher suddenly starts inserting ideas about how you can be together with someone of the same sex, as a kid you are going to think "What me and my best friend? Great, we can play playstation together forever. Maybe me and John should be gay. He's my best friend. I'll ask equally confused John if he wants to hold hands." And the second that happens the teacher is saying how good they both are and that the class should clap them and accept them. That's a formative moment. Now maybe your kid should kiss John. People wildly approve. And that will ruin your kid's life.
.... Do you think people choos to be gay?  Do you think its as simple as just getting enough social acceptance or likes on facebook and suddenly you're gay?  Tell me, when did you decide you were straight and not gay?  Did your mom and day say "Son... remember, you aren't gay, ok?  You like girls."
Probably not.  (I mean, I dunno... you could have been told that.)
Being Gay is hardwired.  Just like being straight is.  If I paid you a billion pounds to have sex with a man, would that make you gay?  No.  If I told you to enjoy it, could you?  Nope.  You're not gay(as far as I know).  You have no desire to be with men (far as I know).  And no amount of pressure or social acceptance is going to change that.  For you, it'll always feel wrong. Weird.  Unusual.

In your example, you assume that you and John enjoy it.  They like it.  It feels natural.
It won't.  Formative years can do alot of things, such as force you to suppress such feelings.  Force you to find a woman, get married, have kids... all the while fantasizing about John while you fuck her.  Because its wrong to be gay and if you're gay you're sick, a freak of nature, immoral, etc....
But it doesn't make those feelings go away.  You just keep them buried.  Buying quickies in the mens room while you help pass laws to make being gay illegal.


Quote
I wouldn't wish being gay on anyone.
Good thing you can't make someone gay with a wish then.

Quote
The myth that they get married and live happily ever after. No they don't they all get left on their own once they lose their looks and no one wants to f*ck them in the arse anymore.
The myth that they will be happy. No, you'll have no family and you'll be on your own.
The myth that there is no risk. Its highly risky and every new sexual encounter brings the risk of assault or disease.
The myth that it is all about love. No, its about hedonism and lust and if you won't let the guy you just met shove his fist up your backside to appease his every titillation, he'll move on and find someone who will.

Being gay is awful. Why liberals keep lying about this and saying how its exactly the same and just great is only in their heads. I know a bunch of gays, now in their mid-40s and they are all miserable. Utterly invisible to other gays now they are older and they are all depressed. You should make sure your child's formative sexual moments are all about hetronormal relationships with mommies and daddies and babies. And not with leather clad perverts in the toilets of a filthy bar in your city.

Who the hell do you talk to?  Being gay is no different than being straight when it comes to relationships.  How many single mid-40s men do you see being happy?  Hell, how many married mid-40s men are happy?  Haven't you ever heard of a mid-life crisis?  Geeze...
Literally everything you wrote applies to any couple of any configuration.  gay, bi, lesbian, moron harem, BDSM relationships, etc...

Fuck... how many men, straight men, expect the woman to put out or they'll walk away?  Answer: Depends on how despirate said man is but most if not all hope.  God... it's like you assume being straight has none of those exact same things happen.

Well sorry to burst your bubble, but they do.  Alot.  42% alot, in fact.  So maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones at everyone else's glass house while you're inside your own eh?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 12:11:24 AM
This thread is a perfect example of why people need educating about LGBTQ+ issues. Tom and Thork sound like every misconception that has been left behind by medicine and sociology about 40 years ago.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2022, 12:52:38 AM
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

"It's okay to be bi-polar... but also... it's not, get help."

I'm sure you are an excellent authority figure for children.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 01:59:16 AM
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

"It's okay to be bi-polar... but also... it's not, get help."

I'm sure you are an excellent authority figure for children.

Indeed you will find that it’s beneficial to one’s mental health not to shame them for things out of their control. Once your algorithm progresses you will understand.

Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2022, 02:13:14 AM
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

"It's okay to be bi-polar... but also... it's not, get help."

I'm sure you are an excellent authority figure for children.

Indeed you will find that it’s beneficial to one’s mental health not to shame them for things out of their control. Once your algorithm progresses you will understand.

I actually didn't say anything about shaming them.

Dave could simply say: "You're bi-polar? I grew up with several mental conditions myself, probably worse than you. Psychotherapy was a big help for me. You should ask your parents."

No need to lie to them.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 02:15:59 AM
Oh. Sorry Dave he didn’t LARP the whole scenario for you there, Bom. He was clearly talking about destygmatizing. But yes, running a script by you is super important for the future.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on January 23, 2022, 02:58:26 AM
No. If people don’t like what is being taught then withdraw your kids from public education instead of wasting government resources.

Binary and boring thought processes lead to that response. Put more effort in or be doomed to talk only to Tom and Thork forever and ever.

There is nothing oppressive about having knowledge taught.

That depends entirely on what you think constitutes 'knowledge' and 'oppression'.

Do these parents not have a strong enough tie with their kids to indoctrinate them in to their preferred world view?

Why should a public school the parents fund with their own money be opposed to their worldview in the first place?

People who feel threatened by dissemination of knowledge about sexual orientation and gender identity are sad little cave people.

Emotional gibberish.

These cave people have options available to them already to avoid this, but the GOP, in their effort to try and remain socially relevant (they aren’t, pretty much every social issue has the more liberal view favored by a majority of Americans), they want to empower the losers that are scared of the gays to sue people. There is nothing conservative about this. The only reason they are passing these litigation-style bills is to try and end around the constitution because they know it’s nonsense that would never survive a challenge.

The GOP is putting up bills that they think their voters want. They might be correct. Acting upset that representatives are representing their voters is quite silly.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 06:56:54 AM
Binary and boring thought processes lead to that response. Put more effort in or be doomed to talk only to Tom and Thork forever and ever.

Smugness in place of an actual rebuttal. Not surprising.

Quote
That depends entirely on what you think constitutes 'knowledge' and 'oppression'.

Are you trying to sound smart? It’s not working.

Quote
Why should a public school the parents fund with their own money be opposed to their worldview in the first place?

Because the government shouldn’t support bigotry, obviously.

Quote
Emotional gibberish.

You’re scared of homosexuals. It’s ok. They don’t steal your soul.

Quote
The GOP is putting up bills that they think their voters want. They might be correct. Acting upset that representatives are representing their voters is quite silly.

It’s not good when the bill’s only good outcome is to cost the government money in court damages and waste the court’s time. There is nothing to try and effect change. It’s not good to represent bigotry in your bills either. I wouldn’t support segregation being legalized even if a majority of Floridians thought it was nifty because bigotry is immoral.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2022, 07:06:29 AM
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

"It's okay to be bi-polar... but also... it's not, get help."

I'm sure you are an excellent authority figure for children.

Indeed you will find that it’s beneficial to one’s mental health not to shame them for things out of their control. Once your algorithm progresses you will understand.

I actually didn't say anything about shaming them.

Dave could simply say: "You're bi-polar? I grew up with several mental conditions myself, probably worse than you. Psychotherapy was a big help for me. You should ask your parents."

No need to lie to them.

Rama said it quite well.

You, however, just marginized their suffering.  Just... Wow...
"Probably worse than you" is the equivilent of saying 'suck it up'.  You, as a person not experiencing their issues, should never say 'I had it worse than you' because you don't know how they have it and probably never will.

But since you have issues with understanding concepts like acceptance, let me help.

Acceptance means not having to hide.  Doesn't mean we want you to keep being sick.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 23, 2022, 08:25:47 AM
This thread is a perfect example of why people need educating about LGBTQ+ issues. Tom and Thork sound like every misconception that has been left behind by medicine and sociology about 40 years ago.
Isn’t this bill simply about making sure it’s done in an age appropriate way? Which it should be. Obviously that is open to interpretation, but as a principle it seems pretty sound.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 23, 2022, 09:27:33 AM
Discussing homosexuality with children is a gateway to child sexual abuse.
I’m sure you have excellent evidence of that over and above your own bigotry

In all of human history, no people's taught their kids that growing up to be gay was a good idea.
“In all of human history, no people’s (sic) taught their kids that slavery was wrong”
-1790’s Thork
Holy shit, you’re making it sound like kids are being actively encouraged to be gay. I’m sure you have excellent evidence of that over and above your own bigotry.

Your formative years are just that. Formative. You aren't born having any sexuality.
I’m sure you have excellent evidence of that over and above your own bigotry.
This is demonstrable bullshit. If you bother to talk to any gay person you’ll know that they often always knew they were gay.
(On being asked when he knew he was gay)
“Oh, I’ve always known. As soon as I came out of my mother I looked up and thought ‘I’m not going up one of those again!’”.
- Stephen Fry
You know this is not true from your own experience. Unless you’re saying that as a teenager you thought
“Well, I like a bit of cock, but I kinda like pussy too. Think I’ll go with pussy”.
No one has that experience.
A friend of mine “came out” to me and in the ensuing conversation she said that in some ways she wishes she wasn’t gay as her life would be a lot easier. But you can’t control who you are attracted to.

Kids should obviously be taught that being gay is a thing. They shouldn’t be taught it’s “good” or that it’s “bad”. It’s just a thing and it’s a thing for a significant enough percentage of the population that kids will probably know gay couples. Just not talking about stuff like that has worked out horribly for previous generations. But it should obviously be done in an age appropriate way, which is what this bill is apparently about.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 11:43:41 AM
Discussing homosexuality with children is a gateway to child sexual abuse.
I’m sure you have excellent evidence of that over and above your own bigotry
Define grooming for me.

Holy shit, you’re making it sound like kids are being actively encouraged to be gay.
This is what I fear, yes. Been going on for decades. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gay-lessons-promote-homosexuality-children/dp/0948859105

Your formative years are just that. Formative. You aren't born having any sexuality.
I’m sure you have excellent evidence of that over and above your own bigotry.
This is demonstrable bullshit. If you bother to talk to any gay person you’ll know that they often always knew they were gay.
Absolute horseshit. Not a person alive remembers being born. No one remembers being 4 months old. In fact you have very few memories of before you were 3 years old if any. You aren't gay as a new born baby. In fact you've just opened your eyes and decided the first thing you looked at must be your mother. She's a source of food and protection. You aren't deciding that screwing people of the same sex might be fun. Your sexuality will develop as you grow. I don't need a liberal professor to bullshit me into believing that people are born gay. It is obvious that they are not and I don't care that gay people want to romanticise it "I was born this way". No ... you turned out that way. Its very different.

(On being asked when he knew he was gay)
“Oh, I’ve always known. As soon as I came out of my mother I looked up and thought ‘I’m not going up one of those again!’”.
- Stephen Fry
You realise that was a joke. You know ... haha ... a joke. Its funny because we know a newborn baby isn't thinking about sex. haha. Come on ... with me ... one two three ... hahahaha!  :D

You know this is not true from your own experience. Unless you’re saying that as a teenager you thought
“Well, I like a bit of cock, but I kinda like pussy too. Think I’ll go with pussy”.
No one has that experience.
No, your formative years will define your sexuality. If you have a new age parent that likes to dress you as a drag queen so you can express yourself at the age of 4 ... you might well turn out gay. Which will delight your awful parents but ruin your life.

A friend of mine “came out” to me and in the ensuing conversation she said that in some ways she wishes she wasn’t gay as her life would be a lot easier. But you can’t control who you are attracted to.
Of course. Being gay sucks. Lesbians have to put up with no children and lesbian bed death. We should do all that is possible to shape the formative years of a child's life with heterosexual norms. Give them the best chance at a happy and healthy life. That's good parenting.

Kids should obviously be taught that being gay is a thing.
Why? Why even put that silly notion in their heads. If they turn out gay anyway, then have the chat. Encouraging children to be gay is wicked.

They shouldn’t be taught it’s “good” or that it’s “bad”.
They shouldn't be taught anything. They should be allowed to grow up naturally without you pounding gay propaganda into their little minds.

It’s just a thing and it’s a thing for a significant enough percentage of the population that kids will probably know gay couples.
Which may well be one of the reasons through out history that homosexuality was unacceptable. So that you keep it behind closed doors and stop pushing it in front of children. Society is for everyone, not just the selfish gays who want to shape the world the way they'd like it.

Just not talking about stuff like that has worked out horribly for previous generations.
You mean the previous generations that went on to create great civilisations over thousands of years? You are one of those people that thinks everyone who lived in the past was stupid. They weren't. they figured out everything. They are the reason you are wearing clothes. Sat in a house. Using electricity. Get medicine. Able to spend money, get a job, use roads, sewers, get food whenever you need. Those people from the past figured out everything, and yet you think they were stupid and didn't know how to raise children.  ::)

But it should obviously be done in an age appropriate way, which is what this bill is apparently about.
It is none of the state's business. It is for parents to guide their children. Not a heavily lobbied education department.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 11:57:07 AM
Holy shit, you’re making it sound like kids are being actively encouraged to be gay.
This is what I fear, yes.
Why are you afraid of gays?

I don't need a liberal professor to bullshit me into believing that people are born gay. It is obvious that they are not
Nothing about human development is "obvious". If we were still basing our biology knowledge on what is "obvious", we'd still be insisting that people think with their hearts. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's quite another to assert that your made-up garbage is obviously correct.

Of course. Being gay sucks. Lesbians have to put up with no children and lesbian bed death.
As opposed to all the healthy sex you're having, you mean?

They shouldn't be taught anything.
I don't think that's really what you meant to say.

Society is for everyone, not just the selfish gays who want to shape the world the way they'd like it.
He said, without a hint of irony.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 12:05:46 PM
Holy shit, you’re making it sound like kids are being actively encouraged to be gay.
This is what I fear, yes.
Why are you afraid of gays?
I'm not afraid of gays. I'm afraid that children will be groomed by some of them. Vigilance is how you prevent terrible things from happening. 

I don't need a liberal professor to bullshit me into believing that people are born gay. It is obvious that they are not
Nothing about human development is "obvious". If we were still basing our biology knowledge on what is "obvious", we'd still be insisting that people think with their hearts. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's quite another to assert that your made-up garbage is obviously correct.
I feel the same way about made up garbage such as new born babies being gay. Just because you hope something is true, doesn't make it so.

Of course. Being gay sucks. Lesbians have to put up with no children and lesbian bed death.
As opposed to all the healthy sex you're having, you mean?
Don't be jelly. You're a big boy now. Have your own job and everything. If you want some sex, you go out and buy yourself some.

They shouldn't be taught anything.
I don't think that's really what you meant to say.
Its almost like you took that quote out of context. Well done. That's the way to win a debate.  ::)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 12:27:16 PM
I'm not afraid of gays. I'm afraid that children will be groomed by some of them. Vigilance is how you prevent terrible things from happening.
And you think the way to prevent children from being groomed is not to teach them about the realities of the world, so that when they encounter someone who wants to take advantage of them they have no idea what's going on?

Just because you hope something is true, doesn't make it so.
I'm glad you concede that point.

Its almost like you took that quote out of context. Well done. That's the way to win a debate.  ::)
I see you missed the point I was making. Very well.

As soon as you teach children something, you are imparting some sort of viewpoint on them. If you teach them about English grammar, you will impart bias regarding the Oxford comma. If you teach them about history, you will impart bias regarding the moral virtues of Oliver Cromwell. If you teach them about science, you will impart bias regarding the shape of the Earth.

Now, it stands to reason that children must be given some form of sex education. If you want to avoid teen pregnancies and the spread of STIs, you need to teach children how to have safe sex. They are going to have sex either way, so a responsible education system will help them to do it safely. And if you are giving children sex education, then you are implicitly teaching them what is okay and (whether through omission or condemnation) what is not. It is not possible to deliver sex education without addressing this issue.

So, unless you are saying you want to see 14-year-old pregnancies popping up all over the country, it's not an argument about whether to teach children or not to teach children. They just aren't being taught in the way you would like.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 12:39:01 PM
And you think the way to prevent children from being groomed is not to teach them about the realities of the world, so that when they encounter someone who wants to take advantage of them they have no idea what's going on?
Most children who are groomed, are groomed by someone in a position of power over them. Teacher is the biggest slice of the pie. Let's not make it bigger. They are the people you need to watch.
(http://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/d4f0640141d2e72f28843a7ce02dbd98-2.png)

Now, it stands to reason that children must be given some form of sex education.
And you think it should be given to them by the people most likely to sexually abuse them? How about 'no'?

If you want to avoid teen pregnancies and the spread of STIs, you need to teach children how to have safe sex. They are going to have sex either way, so a responsible education system will help them to do it safely. And if you are giving children sex education, then you are implicitly teaching them what is okay and (whether through omission or condemnation) what is not. It is not possible to deliver sex education without addressing this issue.
What has any of that to do with teaching children about 'diverse relationships'?

So, unless you are saying you want to see 14-year-old pregnancies popping up all over the country, it's not an argument about whether to teach children or not to teach children. They just aren't being taught in the way you would like.
Correct. They should not be given the gay propaganda by teachers. I don't know why this is so unreasonable.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 12:47:32 PM
Most children who are groomed, are groomed by someone in a position of power over them. Teacher is the biggest slice of the pie. Let's not make it bigger. They are the people you need to watch.
(http://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/d4f0640141d2e72f28843a7ce02dbd98-2.png)
Ignoring for a moment the fact that you have provided no source or methodology for these data, by itself this is a useless statistic. Would the overall rate of grooming increase or decrease if sex education in schools were abolished? That is the statistic you want.

And you think it should be given to them by the people most likely to sexually abuse them? How about 'no'?
I think it should be given to them by the people whose job it is to give it to them.

If you want to avoid teen pregnancies and the spread of STIs, you need to teach children how to have safe sex. They are going to have sex either way, so a responsible education system will help them to do it safely. And if you are giving children sex education, then you are implicitly teaching them what is okay and (whether through omission or condemnation) what is not. It is not possible to deliver sex education without addressing this issue.
What has any of that to do with teaching children about 'diverse relationships'?
Did you miss the word "omission" in what I said?

Correct. They should not be given the gay propaganda by teachers. I don't know why this is so unreasonable.
Imagine for a moment that you are a sex education teacher. You are teaching the syllabus of your dreams — heteronormative traditions to make the Bishop of Rome blush. A young lad timidly raises his hand and tells you he feels attracted to other boys, and asks you what to do about it.

In your fantasy world, where children are taught nothing about same-sex relations, how would you as the teacher respond?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 12:58:03 PM
Ignoring for a moment the fact that you have provided no source or methodology for these data, by itself this is a useless statistic.
It is at least some data. I almost always provide a source or some reference. You don't. How about you come back with some data showing my data to be wrong?

Would the overall rate of grooming increase or decrease if sex education in schools were abolished? That is the statistic you want.
I don't believe that data like that wouldn't be suppressed or manipulated by government. It is too political for them not to shape the narrative with bent data.

And you think it should be given to them by the people most likely to sexually abuse them? How about 'no'?
I think it should be given to them by the people whose job it is to give it to them.
Why should it be anyone's job? Children have parents and guardians. People who love them. Those are the people who should provide guidance.

Imagine for a moment that you are a sex education teacher. You are teaching the syllabus of your dreams — heteronormative traditions to make the Bishop of Rome blush. A young lad timidly raises his hand and tells you he feels attracted to other boys, and asks you what to do about it.

In your fantasy world, where children are taught nothing about same-sex relations, how would you as the teacher respond?
This absolutely wouldn't happen. Kids don't come out in the middle of class in front of all their friends. Should such a ridiculous and rare situation occur, you reply "You should tell your parents how you feel". Job done.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2022, 01:04:58 PM
Thork's reply explains alot.
He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality. 
Now I'm picturing a world a generation or two down where 'Ask your parents' goes into a loop because the parents don't know shit because they weren't taught anything because their parents didn't know anything.  So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites.  Because that'll be healthy....
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 01:14:29 PM
Thork's reply explains alot.
I do make excellent points. Thank you.

He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality. 
The vast majority of children are loved by their parents. It's a thing nature does to stop you abandoning them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

Now I'm picturing a world a generation or two down where 'Ask your parents' goes into a loop because the parents don't know shit because they weren't taught anything because their parents didn't know anything.
your parents managed to form a relationship, have sex and then produce you. The idea that they 'don't know shit' is ridiculous. A rabbit is able to set up a family. Do rabbits do sex ed? Name a single other creature that needs sex education please.

So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites.  Because that'll be healthy....
I live in a country where VPNs cost subscription money, ISPs block porn sites, browsers block porn sites, mobile phones block porn sites and search engines block porn sites. Children don't watch as much porn as your favourite tabloid newspaper might suggest.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 01:30:07 PM
It is at least some data. I almost always provide a source or some reference. You don't. How about you come back with some data showing my data to be wrong?
I didn't say your data were wrong, but I'm glad to see your reading comprehension skills haven't changed since the last time we spoke.

I don't believe that data like that wouldn't be suppressed or manipulated by government. It is too political for them not to shape the narrative with bent data.
In other words, you won't provide data to support your case. Noted.

Why should it be anyone's job? Children have parents and guardians. People who love them. Those are the people who should provide guidance.
So you're okay with children receiving a poor education, but only orphans, children whose parents are in prison, or children of busy working parents who rarely see their kids? What about children with same-sex parents? Are you okay with them being encouraged to be gay, as you put it?

This absolutely wouldn't happen. Kids don't come out in the middle of class in front of all their friends. Should such a ridiculous and rare situation occur, you reply "You should tell your parents how you feel". Job done.
No, that is not a "job done" according to you. You have just communicated for everyone in the class that the topic is inappropriate in public. That's not teaching them nothing.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2022, 01:40:13 PM
And you think it should be given to them by the people most likely to sexually abuse them? How about 'no'?
Whoah, now, nobody said anything about priests.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 02:34:34 PM
I didn't say your data were wrong
Then you must have come to the same conclusion and agree with me.

In other words, you won't provide data to support your case. Noted.
I'm saying I don't know where to find such data when I live in a post-truth age full of fake news and government narratives.

Why should it be anyone's job? Children have parents and guardians. People who love them. Those are the people who should provide guidance.
So you're okay with children receiving a poor education, but only orphans, children whose parents are in prison, or children of busy working parents who rarely see their kids?
Orphans have guardians. So do children whose parents are in prison. And yet it is you who accuses me of having poor reading comprehension.

What about children with same-sex parents?
There is no such thing. And placing children in such situations should be utterly illegal. If you chose to be gay, it means you chose not to have a family. You shouldn't be able to acquire one at the expense of a child having a normal upbringing.

Are you okay with them being encouraged to be gay, as you put it?
Absolutely not. Homosexuality should be an 18+ topic in public, just as porn is. Both are destructive to young people's perceptions of how family life should be.

No, that is not a "job done" according to you. You have just communicated for everyone in the class that the topic is inappropriate in public. That's not teaching them nothing.
I've just taught them that homosexuality is not a discussion to be had in public or in polite conversation. Go learn some manners from your family about what is and isn't appropriate. Maybe they can steer you back from your mixed ideas if it isn't too late.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 02:51:42 PM
Then you must have come to the same conclusion and agree with me.
No.

I'm saying I don't know where to find such data when I live in a post-truth age full of fake news and government narratives.
So you admit that your opinions aren't based on data? That's a bit better than providing irrelevant data, I suppose.

Orphans have guardians. So do children whose parents are in prison.
Yet you just said that them having guardians should be made illegal.

There is no such thing. And placing children in such situations should be utterly illegal. If you chose to be gay, it means you chose not to have a family. You shouldn't be able to acquire one at the expense of a child having a normal upbringing.
What if there are more orphans than heterosexual couples or single parents willing to adopt? Do you think it's better for a child to have no upbringing at all than a "normal" one? Is it better for a child to be adopted by an abusive heterosexual couple than a loving homosexual one? Just how far are you willing to go to stop gay people from being happy?

Absolutely not. Homosexuality should be an 18+ topic in public, just as porn is. Both are destructive to young people's perceptions of how family life should be.
No, they're destructive to your idea of how family life should be. Remember when you said this?
Society is for everyone, not just the selfish gays who want to shape the world the way they'd like it.
You can't have it both ways. If "the selfish gays" can't force their idea of family life on kids, neither can you.

I've just taught them that homosexuality is not a discussion to be had in public or in polite conversation.
Yes, exactly. But earlier you said this:
They shouldn't be taught anything.
Are you now retracting this statement?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 03:14:00 PM
Then you must have come to the same conclusion and agree with me.
No.
Then you need to learn to interpret data.

I'm saying I don't know where to find such data when I live in a post-truth age full of fake news and government narratives.
So you admit that your opinions aren't based on data? That's a bit better than providing irrelevant data, I suppose.
I like Taylor Swift and Jaffa Cakes. Those opinions also aren't based on data. Do I need data to form all my opinions?

Orphans have guardians. So do children whose parents are in prison.
Yet you just said that them having guardians should be made illegal.
Only the same sex guardians.

What if there are more orphans than heterosexual couples or single parents willing to adopt?
There aren't. We haven't just had a major war or genocide.

Do you think it's better for a child to have no upbringing at all than a "normal" one? Is it better for a child to be adopted by an abusive heterosexual couple than a loving homosexual one?
Why would you want to place a child with either, you sicko?

You can't have it both ways. If "the selfish gays" can't force their idea of family life on kids, neither can you.
A natural family just happens. To make a gay family, you have to muck about with the natural order of things.

I've just taught them that homosexuality is not a discussion to be had in public or in polite conversation.
Yes, exactly. But earlier you said this:
They shouldn't be taught anything.
Are you now retracting this statement?
I went from you shouldn't teach about homosexuality to children to you shouldn't teach about homosexuality to children. Seems pretty consistent to me. Please try harder to read properly.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 03:54:02 PM
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t, know that he sees them as less than human? It’s truly astounding that he can project his personal discomfort on to the world as some kind of broad truth.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 04:18:26 PM
A natural family just happens. To make a gay family, you have to muck about with the natural order of things.
Sounds great! Then there's no need to restrict conversations about gay families to over-18s, because a "natural family" will just happen anyway.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: GoldCashew on January 23, 2022, 04:56:05 PM
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

"It's okay to be bi-polar... but also... it's not, get help."

I'm sure you are an excellent authority figure for children.

Indeed you will find that it’s beneficial to one’s mental health not to shame them for things out of their control. Once your algorithm progresses you will understand.

I actually didn't say anything about shaming them.

Dave could simply say: "You're bi-polar? I grew up with several mental conditions myself, probably worse than you. Psychotherapy was a big help for me. You should ask your parents."

No need to lie to them.

Rama said it quite well.

You, however, just marginized their suffering.  Just... Wow...
"Probably worse than you" is the equivilent of saying 'suck it up'.  You, as a person not experiencing their issues, should never say 'I had it worse than you' because you don't know how they have it and probably never will.

But since you have issues with understanding concepts like acceptance, let me help.

Acceptance means not having to hide.  Doesn't mean we want you to keep being sick.


Let's say you are a trans-sexual (a biological male that now identifies as a Female -- maybe you already are or aren't) and your significant other / love partner is also a trans-sexual (also a biological male that now identifies as a female Lesbian).

You both adopt a biologically male baby that has now reached the age of 19 and comes and talks to you about how He wants to now transition and identify as a Female. Obviously during that talk, your are going to be O.K. with it and give your adopted child love and acceptance.

Your 19 year old male teen (before transitioning) has been a Champion swimmer amongst all male athletes at University. Said teen comes and tells you that they are going to now compete (following their transition and hormonal treatments) in the female swimming league and ends up breaking all kinds of records.

Your straight 21 year old adopted daughter calls up her trans-sexual parents (you and your love partner), crying in despair because she feels that it's unfair competition; she's been training her whole life to be a Champion swimmer but is now (along with all swimmers competing) getting beat by her trans-sexual (biologically male) sister.

What do you tell your straight daughter in terms of acceptance?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 04:57:32 PM
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,
My brother is gay.

know that he sees them as less than human?
He himself will admit that he is a colossal pervert.

It’s truly astounding that he can project his personal discomfort on to the world as some kind of broad truth.
I'm able to come to conclusions. I'm sorry that they don't match yours. Its only, I'm not trying to make myself feel like a good person by making myself a doormat whilst others steamroller me with their 'feelings'.

A natural family just happens. To make a gay family, you have to muck about with the natural order of things.
Sounds great! Then there's no need to restrict conversations about gay families to over-18s, because a "natural family" will just happen anyway.
Assuming you aren't placing children with same sex couples and interfering ... yes. But why then would you want to have a 40 year old man talk to your child about homosexuality? Seems somewhat sinister, no?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 05:03:27 PM
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,
My brother is gay.

The plot thickens.

Quote
know that he sees them as less than human?
He himself will admit that he is a colossal pervert.

Irrelevant. Sad that you you are comfortable with this, but irrelevant.

Quote
It’s truly astounding that he can project his personal discomfort on to the world as some kind of broad truth.
I'm able to come to conclusions. I'm sorry that they don't match yours.

Apology will be accepted once you demonstrate you’re not a shitty person.

Quote
Its only, I'm not trying to make myself feel like a good person by making myself a doormat whilst others steamroller me with their 'feelings'.

This is obvious.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 05:06:26 PM
Imagine how ignorant you just be to think that the “nuclear family” is the natural order of things.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 05:12:30 PM
Imagine how ignorant you just be to think that the “nuclear family” is the natural order of things.
Imagine thinking that placing a small boy in the care of two homosexual men is a low risk endeavour. Sometimes when a couple of gay men come crying to you about love and families, you need to have the balls to stand up to them and tell them to fuck off. If you are weak, then you may condemn a child to sexual or emotional abuse. You are weak. This is why you'll do anything to be agreeable.

The plot thickens.
Blew your assumptions out of the water, I have no doubt.

Irrelevant. Sad that you you are comfortable with this, but irrelevant.
What can I do about it? He's a man in his mid 30s. He can do whatever the hell he wants. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Apology will be accepted once you demonstrate you’re not a shitty person.
I'm not trying to encourage homosexuals to talk to children about sex. You're the one under the spotlight for being a shitty person right now.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 05:15:12 PM
But why then would you want to have a 40 year old man talk to your child about homosexuality?
Because education is about teaching children about the world that exists, not the world Thork would like to exist.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 05:18:37 PM
But why then would you want to have a 40 year old man talk to your child about homosexuality?
Because education is about teaching children about the world that exists, not the world Thork would like to exist.

This is the world that exists.
(http://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/d4f0640141d2e72f28843a7ce02dbd98-2.png)

Until it doesn't ... let's not place children in high risk scenarios unnecessarily.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2022, 05:28:35 PM
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

"It's okay to be bi-polar... but also... it's not, get help."

I'm sure you are an excellent authority figure for children.

Indeed you will find that it’s beneficial to one’s mental health not to shame them for things out of their control. Once your algorithm progresses you will understand.

I actually didn't say anything about shaming them.

Dave could simply say: "You're bi-polar? I grew up with several mental conditions myself, probably worse than you. Psychotherapy was a big help for me. You should ask your parents."

No need to lie to them.

Rama said it quite well.

You, however, just marginized their suffering.  Just... Wow...
"Probably worse than you" is the equivilent of saying 'suck it up'.  You, as a person not experiencing their issues, should never say 'I had it worse than you' because you don't know how they have it and probably never will.

But since you have issues with understanding concepts like acceptance, let me help.

Acceptance means not having to hide.  Doesn't mean we want you to keep being sick.


Let's say you are a trans-sexual (a biological male that now identifies as a Female -- maybe you already are or aren't) and your significant other / love partner is also a trans-sexual (also a biological male that now identifies as a female Lesbian).

You both adopt a biologically male baby that has now reached the age of 19 and comes and talks to you about how He wants to now transition and identify as a Female. Obviously during that talk, your are going to be O.K. with it and give your adopted child love and acceptance.

Your 19 year old male teen (before transitioning) has been a Champion swimmer amongst all male athletes at University. Said teen comes and tells you that they are going to now compete (following their transition and hormonal treatments) in the female swimming league and ends up breaking all kinds of records.

Your straight 21 year old adopted daughter calls up her trans-sexual parents (you and your love partner), crying in despair because she feels that it's unfair competition; she's been training her whole life to be a Champion swimmer but is now (along with all swimmers competing) getting beat by her trans-sexual (biologically male) sister.

What do you tell your straight daughter in terms of acceptance?

Wow, what an oddly specific and very long scenario.

But ok.
1. One of the effects of estrogen treatments is to decrease muscle mass.
2. The process of transitioning takes years, which includes psychological evaluations.  Which means my 19 year old son will either be finished with college by then (and thus not compete) or be very deep into studies.  Assuming there's even a swim team here in college.  Not sure since college level sports aren't a thing here.
3. In the reality breaking situation where you described is true, again, said 19 year old would take years to transition so its not an issue.  But if I had to say something I'd say 'There is nothing he can do that you can't do as well.  Or better.'

Because your essentially complaining that X person is better than me.






He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality. 
The vast majority of children are loved by their parents. It's a thing nature does to stop you abandoning them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
And yet child abuse is a thing...
As for a good understanding of sexuality:  maybe because they had sex ed?  Like, are pimples good or bad?  When can I get a girl pregnant?  Can you get pregnant from oral sex?

Quote
Now I'm picturing a world a generation or two down where 'Ask your parents' goes into a loop because the parents don't know shit because they weren't taught anything because their parents didn't know anything.
your parents managed to form a relationship, have sex and then produce you. The idea that they 'don't know shit' is ridiculous. A rabbit is able to set up a family. Do rabbits do sex ed? Name a single other creature that needs sex education please.
Rabbits are not humans and don't have complex societies.  They also have mating seasons, while humans do not.  They also are mature ,sexually, after 6 months of living.  And their behavior is hormone driven.  Imagine if people were purely hornome driven.  It would be like teenagers but without any filters.

Quote
So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites.  Because that'll be healthy....
I live in a country where VPNs cost subscription money, ISPs block porn sites, browsers block porn sites, mobile phones block porn sites and search engines block porn sites. Children don't watch as much porn as your favourite tabloid newspaper might suggest.
I do not live in a country like that. USA isn't like that. But my point wasn't that they'd go looking for porn, my point was that porn would be what they found most when searching for answers. 

And unless kids today have become far more wholesome.... Porn was big when I was a teenager.  Clearly your teen days were more... Tame.



But why then would you want to have a 40 year old man talk to your child about homosexuality?
Because education is about teaching children about the world that exists, not the world Thork would like to exist.

This is the world that exists.
(http://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/d4f0640141d2e72f28843a7ce02dbd98-2.png)

Until it doesn't ... let's not place children in high risk scenarios unnecessarily.
So ban teachers, got it.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 05:29:27 PM
This is the world that exists.
(http://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/d4f0640141d2e72f28843a7ce02dbd98-2.png)
You already posted that image. Do you want me to point out that you have provided no source or methodology for a second time?

Until it doesn't ... let's not place children in high risk scenarios unnecessarily.
Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you believe a 40-year-old man explaining homosexuality to children is placing them at higher risk than a 40-year-old man explaining heterosexuality to children?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 05:35:33 PM
Imagine how ignorant you just be to think that the “nuclear family” is the natural order of things.
Imagine thinking that placing a small boy in the care of two homosexual men is a low risk endeavour. Sometimes when a couple of gay men come crying to you about love and families, you need to have the balls to stand up to them and tell them to fuck off. If you are weak, then you may condemn a child to sexual or emotional abuse. You are weak. This is why you'll do anything to be agreeable.

Homosexuals do not abuse children at a higher rate than heterosexuals. In fact, rates of pawdophikoa are higher among heterosexuals than homosexuals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/

This is you, once again, beginning with a fantasy and forming real world opinions based on that. Be better.

Quote
The plot thickens.
Blew your assumptions out of the water, I have no doubt.
Meh
Quote
Irrelevant. Sad that you you are comfortable with this, but irrelevant.
What can I do about it? He's a man in his mid 30s. He can do whatever the hell he wants. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You could treat him like he isn’t subhuman. I doubt you’re capable though.

Quote
Apology will be accepted once you demonstrate you’re not a shitty person.
I'm not trying to encourage homosexuals to talk to children about sex. You're the one under the spotlight for being a shitty person right now.

I actually never said that.  See? You start from a fantasy and proceed as if it has some bearing on the real world. Stop forming opinions on your fantasies.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: GoldCashew on January 23, 2022, 05:52:35 PM
No... its not.
mental illness is a styigma.  If someone has say... Bipolar disorder, and you tell them "Its not ok that you have bipolar.  You should stop being bipolar" well... that's terrible advice.  But accepting that they have Bipolar and that it's ok they have it, and encouraging them to get help is also good.

"It's okay to be bi-polar... but also... it's not, get help."

I'm sure you are an excellent authority figure for children.

Indeed you will find that it’s beneficial to one’s mental health not to shame them for things out of their control. Once your algorithm progresses you will understand.

I actually didn't say anything about shaming them.

Dave could simply say: "You're bi-polar? I grew up with several mental conditions myself, probably worse than you. Psychotherapy was a big help for me. You should ask your parents."

No need to lie to them.

Rama said it quite well.

You, however, just marginized their suffering.  Just... Wow...
"Probably worse than you" is the equivilent of saying 'suck it up'.  You, as a person not experiencing their issues, should never say 'I had it worse than you' because you don't know how they have it and probably never will.

But since you have issues with understanding concepts like acceptance, let me help.

Acceptance means not having to hide.  Doesn't mean we want you to keep being sick.


Let's say you are a trans-sexual (a biological male that now identifies as a Female -- maybe you already are or aren't) and your significant other / love partner is also a trans-sexual (also a biological male that now identifies as a female Lesbian).

You both adopt a biologically male baby that has now reached the age of 19 and comes and talks to you about how He wants to now transition and identify as a Female. Obviously during that talk, your are going to be O.K. with it and give your adopted child love and acceptance.

Your 19 year old male teen (before transitioning) has been a Champion swimmer amongst all male athletes at University. Said teen comes and tells you that they are going to now compete (following their transition and hormonal treatments) in the female swimming league and ends up breaking all kinds of records.

Your straight 21 year old adopted daughter calls up her trans-sexual parents (you and your love partner), crying in despair because she feels that it's unfair competition; she's been training her whole life to be a Champion swimmer but is now (along with all swimmers competing) getting beat by her trans-sexual (biologically male) sister.

What do you tell your straight daughter in terms of acceptance?

Wow, what an oddly specific and very long scenario.

But ok.
1. One of the effects of estrogen treatments is to decrease muscle mass.
2. The process of transitioning takes years, which includes psychological evaluations.  Which means my 19 year old son will either be finished with college by then (and thus not compete) or be very deep into studies.  Assuming there's even a swim team here in college.  Not sure since college level sports aren't a thing here.
3. In the reality breaking situation where you described is true, again, said 19 year old would take years to transition so its not an issue.  But if I had to say something I'd say 'There is nothing he can do that you can't do as well.  Or better.'

Because your essentially complaining that X person is better than me.






He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality. 
The vast majority of children are loved by their parents. It's a thing nature does to stop you abandoning them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
And yet child abuse is a thing...
As for a good understanding of sexuality:  maybe because they had sex ed?  Like, are pimples good or bad?  When can I get a girl pregnant?  Can you get pregnant from oral sex?

Quote
Now I'm picturing a world a generation or two down where 'Ask your parents' goes into a loop because the parents don't know shit because they weren't taught anything because their parents didn't know anything.
your parents managed to form a relationship, have sex and then produce you. The idea that they 'don't know shit' is ridiculous. A rabbit is able to set up a family. Do rabbits do sex ed? Name a single other creature that needs sex education please.
Rabbits are not humans and don't have complex societies.  They also have mating seasons, while humans do not.  They also are mature ,sexually, after 6 months of living.  And their behavior is hormone driven.  Imagine if people were purely hornome driven.  It would be like teenagers but without any filters.

Quote
So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites.  Because that'll be healthy....
I live in a country where VPNs cost subscription money, ISPs block porn sites, browsers block porn sites, mobile phones block porn sites and search engines block porn sites. Children don't watch as much porn as your favourite tabloid newspaper might suggest.
I do not live in a country like that. USA isn't like that. But my point wasn't that they'd go looking for porn, my point was that porn would be what they found most when searching for answers. 

And unless kids today have become far more wholesome.... Porn was big when I was a teenager.  Clearly your teen days were more... Tame.



But why then would you want to have a 40 year old man talk to your child about homosexuality?
Because education is about teaching children about the world that exists, not the world Thork would like to exist.

This is the world that exists.
(http://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/d4f0640141d2e72f28843a7ce02dbd98-2.png)

Until it doesn't ... let's not place children in high risk scenarios unnecessarily.
So ban teachers, got it.


According to the US Collegiate NCAA here in America, the process of transitioning takes only 1 year or so. Such has been with the latest controversy associated with the Penn swimmer who was competitive as a male in College, transitioned to a "female" and is now breaking all sorts of female Collegiate records as a biological male.

So, my scenario is not too far fetched from being a realistic one.

"There is nothing he can't do that you can't do as well" is also flawed. First, your trans-sexual biological son that now identifies as female would be offended that you named her as a "he". Second, if your straight female daughter said, "great, I want to be a Champion female swimmer at my College"; you would then have to say something like "well that might not be possible for now, as long as your biologically male sister is breaking all kinds of records".
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2022, 05:56:35 PM
Fun fact: I don't live in America. Sooooo not realistic for me. :P
And while the hormone therapy may only take 1-2 years, you still need to diagnose said person and develop a plan for transition. And pay for it.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 05:57:13 PM

He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality. 
The vast majority of children are loved by their parents. It's a thing nature does to stop you abandoning them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
And yet child abuse is a thing...
As for a good understanding of sexuality:  maybe because they had sex ed?  Like, are pimples good or bad?  When can I get a girl pregnant?  Can you get pregnant from oral sex?
But as my little pie chart shows ... abuse from teachers is way more common. They are the number one perpetrators.

Rabbits are not humans and don't have complex societies.  They also have mating seasons, while humans do not.  They also are mature ,sexually, after 6 months of living.  And their behavior is hormone driven.  Imagine if people were purely hornome driven.  It would be like teenagers but without any filters.
Imagine thinking that humans are different to all other creatures ... but only after the 1960s at which point sex education needed to be delivered.

So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites.  Because that'll be healthy....
I live in a country where VPNs cost subscription money, ISPs block porn sites, browsers block porn sites, mobile phones block porn sites and search engines block porn sites. Children don't watch as much porn as your favourite tabloid newspaper might suggest.
I do not live in a country like that. USA isn't like that. But my point wasn't that they'd go looking for porn, my point was that porn would be what they found most when searching for answers. 
Then lobby your government for some parental controls on the internet instead of lobbying them to mandate that teachers talk to your kids about gay sex.  ::)

And unless kids today have become far more wholesome.... Porn was big when I was a teenager.  Clearly your teen days were more... Tame.
Porn in my teens was finding a soggy torn up magazine in the woods and trying to put the pieces back together to reveal a fat middle aged woman smothered in cream.

I was a teenager from 1991-1997. No one was on the internet back then. I shudder to think how long it would take to download a 240p 5 min video on AOL dial up.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Trotman/publication/245025696/figure/fig2/AS:669472566296576@1536626106108/Number-of-Internet-users-between-1990-and-2010-Based-on-numbers-published-by-the-World.png)

So ban teachers, got it.
Almost, but you are getting there. Just ban teachers from teaching children about homosexuality. They can still teach them English, Maths and Science. You know, subjects that might help them get a job one day. The actual reason we send children to school in the first place. We don't send them to talk to middle aged men about being gay.

You already posted that image. Do you want me to point out that you have provided no source or methodology for a second time?
It has a url. You can follow that to the source.

Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you believe a 40-year-old man explaining homosexuality to children is placing them at higher risk than a 40-year-old man explaining heterosexuality to children?
Yes. Heterosexual men are less likely to commit sex crimes per capita.

Quote from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.
Being as you like scientific data ... pick the bones out of that.

Homosexuals do not abuse children at a higher rate than heterosexuals. In fact, rates of pawdophikoa are higher among heterosexuals than homosexuals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
Your own linked study shows it does.

This is you, once again, beginning with a fantasy and forming real world opinions based on that. Be better.
You misread a scientific study to back your opinions.

You could treat him like he isn’t subhuman. I doubt you’re capable though.
I treat him like the wretched little shit stabber that he is. And that seems fair.

Apology will be accepted once you demonstrate you’re not a shitty person.
I'm not trying to encourage homosexuals to talk to children about sex. You're the one under the spotlight for being a shitty person right now.

I actually never said that.  See? You start from a fantasy and proceed as if it has some bearing on the real world. Stop forming opinions on your fantasies.
You want teachers talking to children about same sex couples. Some teachers will be homosexual. Ergo you are encouraging homosexuals to talk to children about sex.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 05:59:23 PM
Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you believe a 40-year-old man explaining homosexuality to children is placing them at higher risk than a 40-year-old man explaining heterosexuality to children?
Yes. Heterosexual men are less likely to commit sex crimes per capita.
I'm sorry, what? How is the sexual orientation of the teacher remotely relevant? Do you think it's impossible for a straight teacher to talk about gay sex, or vice versa?

Truly wonderful, the mind of a Thork is.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: GoldCashew on January 23, 2022, 06:03:32 PM
Fun fact: I don't live in America. Sooooo not realistic for me. :P
And while the hormone therapy may only take 1-2 years, you still need to diagnose said person and develop a plan for transition. And pay for it.


But, that's now how the US Collegiate NCAA interprets time-lines for transitioning.

So I guess you would just tell your biologically male daughter "great job" and your biologically female daughter "oh well"?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 06:06:41 PM
Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you believe a 40-year-old man explaining homosexuality to children is placing them at higher risk than a 40-year-old man explaining heterosexuality to children?
Yes. Heterosexual men are less likely to commit sex crimes per capita.
I'm sorry, what? How is the sexual orientation of the teacher remotely relevant? Do you think it's impossible for a straight teacher to talk about gay sex, or vice versa?

Truly wonderful, the mind of a Thork is.
I don't think any teachers should talk to children about gay relationships.

I really don't think peadophiles should talk to children about gay sex.
Next, I don't think gay men should.
Next, regular men shouldn't.
Finally women shouldn't.
Leave it to parents.

That is in the order of risk to children.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 06:10:04 PM
I don't think any teachers should talk to children about gay relationships.
That wasn't the topic of conversation you're responding to, but I assume you know that and just don't want to answer my question, so I'll chalk this up as another running-away thread.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 23, 2022, 06:14:51 PM
I don't think any teachers should talk to children about gay relationships.
That wasn't the topic of conversation you're responding to, but I assume you know that and just don't want to answer my question, so I'll chalk this up as another running-away thread.
If you've moved the goalposts so far from the OP that I've now no idea what you are talking about, that's you running away, not me.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2022, 06:20:43 PM
Homosexuals do not abuse children at a higher rate than heterosexuals. In fact, rates of pawdophikoa are higher among heterosexuals than homosexuals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
Your own linked study shows it does.

Did you read the very last sentence?

“This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.”
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 23, 2022, 06:26:46 PM
If you've moved the goalposts so far from the OP that I've now no idea what you are talking about, that's you running away, not me.
No. I asked you a direct question that you are refusing to answer.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2022, 06:29:08 PM
Fun fact: I don't live in America. Sooooo not realistic for me. :P
And while the hormone therapy may only take 1-2 years, you still need to diagnose said person and develop a plan for transition. And pay for it.


But, that's now how the US Collegiate NCAA interprets time-lines for transitioning.

So I guess you would just tell your biologically male daughter "great job" and your biologically female daughter "oh well"?

Truthfully?  I'd tell my trans daughter not to compete as its going to cause issues for all trans folks.  Especially since records and such are meaningless in the grand scheme of life.  Unless you're a pro-swimmer after college.




He assumes every child is loved by their parents and have a good understanding of sexuality. 
The vast majority of children are loved by their parents. It's a thing nature does to stop you abandoning them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
And yet child abuse is a thing...
As for a good understanding of sexuality:  maybe because they had sex ed?  Like, are pimples good or bad?  When can I get a girl pregnant?  Can you get pregnant from oral sex?
But as my little pie chart shows ... abuse from teachers is way more common. They are the number one perpetrators.
Do you know who has the most contact with children?  Teachers.  So your data is basically saying "the group who spends the most time with the most children is also the group that has the most abusers.
Also, i'd love to see how many of those abusers were health teachers and not, say... Any ither kind.  Because it seems to be you're trying to say that teachers who teach sex ed are somehow more likely to abuse children vs other types of teachers.  Which is odd, all things considered.  Especially since sex ed is like... A week of class.

Quote
Rabbits are not humans and don't have complex societies.  They also have mating seasons, while humans do not.  They also are mature ,sexually, after 6 months of living.  And their behavior is hormone driven.  Imagine if people were purely hornome driven.  It would be like teenagers but without any filters.
Imagine thinking that humans are different to all other creatures ... but only after the 1960s at which point sex education needed to be delivered.
Imagine thinking a problem didn't exist until someone tried to solve it.



So said parent goes 'Ask your teacher'.
Then kids end up using google and get nothing but porn sites.  Because that'll be healthy....
I live in a country where VPNs cost subscription money, ISPs block porn sites, browsers block porn sites, mobile phones block porn sites and search engines block porn sites. Children don't watch as much porn as your favourite tabloid newspaper might suggest.
I do not live in a country like that. USA isn't like that. But my point wasn't that they'd go looking for porn, my point was that porn would be what they found most when searching for answers. 
Then lobby your government for some parental controls on the internet instead of lobbying them to mandate that teachers talk to your kids about gay sex.  ::)
[/Quote]
Why?  I'm ok with them talking about gay sex.  As mentioned previously.  Dunno how norwegian sex ed is, tho.

Quote
And unless kids today have become far more wholesome.... Porn was big when I was a teenager.  Clearly your teen days were more... Tame.
Porn in my teens was finding a soggy torn up magazine in the woods and trying to put the pieces back together to reveal a fat middle aged woman smothered in cream.

I was a teenager from 1991-1997. No one was on the internet back then. I shudder to think how long it would take to download a 240p 5 min video on AOL dial up.
I was a teenager from 1996-2002.  I was on the internet well before then and let me tell you... There was porn.  I know, I've seen it.  I remember it.  Tho I usually read sex stories. 

Quote
So ban teachers, got it.
Almost, but you are getting there. Just ban teachers from teaching children about homosexuality. They can still teach them English, Maths and Science. You know, subjects that might help them get a job one day. The actual reason we send children to school in the first place. We don't send them to talk to middle aged men about being gay.
Nor should we ask a teacher to not help a student if they ask for advice.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 23, 2022, 09:10:16 PM
This is what I fear, yes. Been going on for decades. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Oh cool. So you're not the only bigot and therefore you're right.
Is that what you're going with?

Absolute horseshit.
Wow. In two words you dismiss the lived experience of gay people and reams of nature/nurture scientific study. Bravo.
And Stephen Fry wasn't joking. I mean, obviously he expressed what he wanted to say in his typical amusing fashion, but his point was that for as long as he was aware of such things, he knew what his sexuality was. Whether it's something you're born with or something which you develop is debatable, but the point is no-one "chooses" to be gay. Unless you can tell me you chose to be heterosexual, which is obviously not the case.

Quote
If you have a new age parent that likes to dress you as a drag queen so you can express yourself at the age of 4 ... you might well turn out gay.
That's what happened to your brother, is it? How come you managed to escape this awful fate?

Quote
Being gay sucks.
In large part because of people like you. Thankfully people like you aren't so common these days, so it doesn't suck as much as it used to. It's a shame you are continuing to be part of the problem. As for same sex couples having children - either through adoption or, surrogacy or sperm donor, my gut feeling is that a child is best raised by a mother and father but, actually, the literature doesn't really bear that out
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
Obviously you'll dismiss that because it doesn't back up your bigotry, but I don't think I can help you with that.

Quote
Why?

Because it is a thing. Part of a child's education should be to teach them about the reality of the world around them. And now gay marriage is legal and gay adoption is legal - despite bigots like you - it will be increasingly common for children to encounter other children with two parents the same sex. Thankfully children are far more accepting of this sort of stuff than people like you. And it's perfectly possible to teach them about stuff like this in an age appropriate way without mentioning anal sex or strap-ons
Teaching them about stuff like this is not "encouraging" them to be gay, but it might help them to make sense of their feelings when they get to an age where they start thinking about stuff like that. I'd suggest that's a good thing, given the way it worked out for older generations of gay people who had to hide away - again, because of people like you.

Quote
You mean the previous generations that went on to create great civilisations over thousands of years?
Bishopian cherry picking. Yes, previous generations did lots of great things. They did slavery and the holocaust too.
And they forced people like Alan Turing, one of the geniuses who contributed to some of the stuff you laud, to undergo chemical castration when he was convicted for having relations with another man. Just because previous generations did a lot of good stuff doesn't mean it was all good and we can't move on and evolve as a society to do better. If you want to get left behind then that's up to you, but thankfully people like you will literally die out soon.

Quote
You are one of those people that thinks everyone who lived in the past was stupid.
Says the man who reckons* the earth is flat and all the giants of science were dum-dums
(*or, let's be honest with each other, pretends to for the lolz)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on January 23, 2022, 09:53:03 PM
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,
My brother is gay.

Who turned your brother gay?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 24, 2022, 10:50:04 AM
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,
My brother is gay.

Who turned your brother gay?
I'm going to guess that my father dying and my going to uni left him with just his sister and mother as role models and it turned him a bit fruity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 24, 2022, 12:53:46 PM
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,
My brother is gay.

Who turned your brother gay?
I'm going to guess that my father dying and my going to uni left him with just his sister and mother as role models and it turned him a bit fruity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lol. Have you tried asking him? 
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: xasop on January 24, 2022, 12:56:03 PM
Lol. Have you tried asking him?
I'll take "no" for $100, Alex.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Iceman on January 24, 2022, 03:26:11 PM
By Thork’s logic in this thread, his brother probably ‘turned gay’ because a teacher told him gays existed, after which there was no turning back
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on January 24, 2022, 08:46:27 PM
I wonder if Thork’s gay acquaintances, if they exist, which I’m pretty sure they don’t,
My brother is gay.

Who turned your brother gay?
I'm going to guess that my father dying and my going to uni left him with just his sister and mother as role models and it turned him a bit fruity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, I suppose if, according to you, being gay is so horrible and one is simply turned gay, why doesn't he just turn to hetero? Seems like a simple solution.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: honk on January 25, 2022, 05:55:39 AM
If prepubescent children's sexual orientation or general sexuality can be shaped so easily by external factors, then I question why we even have LGBT people at all, let alone in their current numbers. For all the reactionary grumbling about a "gay agenda" whenever something LGBT-related appears in the news, the fact is that Western society is overwhelmingly heteronormative. From the moment that kids can see and understand what's happening around them, they are bombarded with a "straight agenda." Unless they're being raised in a weird gay cloister or something, almost all the couples they read about, see on TV, or know or encounter in real life are almost all going to be a man and a woman. Does anyone really think that a kid could just tune all that out as part of the gay brainwashing from their parents or teacher or whatever?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 25, 2022, 04:10:44 PM
The Republican idea that homosexuality is a choice says that it is a choice for Republicans.
They could all turn gay at any moment.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2022, 12:51:09 AM
I guess Florida hadn’t filled up that dumb shaped hole in their heart:

https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-bill-doctors-decline-service/38890098?fbclid=IwAR2Ab9VgHtfyOuBIFbbN5c-cL2KqS4jemL2xcb5_5sIegw4-9BJfIsnqhJ8#

This is such an unbelievably stupid bill no matter your political leanings.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 01:55:09 AM
I guess Florida hadn’t filled up that dumb shaped hole in their heart:

https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-bill-doctors-decline-service/38890098?fbclid=IwAR2Ab9VgHtfyOuBIFbbN5c-cL2KqS4jemL2xcb5_5sIegw4-9BJfIsnqhJ8#

This is such an unbelievably stupid bill no matter your political leanings.

 ::)

Yeah, here's over 10,000 liberals (https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/scejd2/boston_hospital_refuses_heart_transplant_for_man/) cheering on a hospital for refusing a heart transplant for an unvaccinated man.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2022, 02:07:39 AM
I guess Florida hadn’t filled up that dumb shaped hole in their heart:

https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-bill-doctors-decline-service/38890098?fbclid=IwAR2Ab9VgHtfyOuBIFbbN5c-cL2KqS4jemL2xcb5_5sIegw4-9BJfIsnqhJ8#

This is such an unbelievably stupid bill no matter your political leanings.

 ::)

Yeah, here's over 10,000 liberals (https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/scejd2/boston_hospital_refuses_heart_transplant_for_man/) cheering on a hospital for refusing a heart transplant for an unvaccinated man.

You actually tallied up the leaning of every comment? Wow. Serious dedication in that hate boner.

Anyway, what the fuck does this have to do with what I posted? Refusing transplants to unvaccinated people is normal since they have to take immunosuppressants and they want the organ to go to person who will survive.

Now go ahead with your gotcha post, troll.



Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 02:11:39 AM
Anyway, what the fuck does this have to do with what I posted? Refusing transplants to unvaccinated people is normal since they have to take immunosuppressants and they want the organ to go to person who will survive.

So you want doctors to favor transplants based on what they think as increased organ recipient survivability, but you don't want them to favor what they think are babies for increased survivability.

How incredibly hypocritical and flawed.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2022, 02:18:06 AM
Anyway, what the fuck does this have to do with what I posted? Refusing transplants to unvaccinated people is normal since they have to take immunosuppressants and they want the organ to go to person who will survive.

So you want doctors to favor transplants based on what they think as increased organ recipient survivability, but you don't want them to favor what they think are babies for increased survivability.

How incredibly hypocritical and flawed.

I’m sure someone will translate this in to English.

What I don’t want is a doctor not to treat someone based on a non-medical issue.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: honk on January 27, 2022, 02:24:17 AM
So you want doctors to favor transplants based on what they think as increased organ recipient survivability

They already do, and have done for many years. There's nothing in this story to even raise an eyebrow at. Of course refusing to be vaccinated would disqualify you from receiving an organ transplant, along with plenty of other behaviors and practices that are seen by the medical community as destructive or dangerously unhealthy.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 02:26:19 AM
If doctors can refuse service because of what they think is a chance at increased survability, then they can refuse service to provide abortion pills for increased survivability of what they think as a baby.

Please explain why you are not an utter hypocrite for thinking otherwise. You are picking and choosing which doctor can choose what services he wants to ethically provide.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2022, 02:31:07 AM
If doctors can refuse service because of what they think is a chance at increased survability, then they can refuse service to provide abortion pills for increased survivability of what they think as a baby.

Please explain why you are not an utter hypocrite for thinking otherwise. You are picking and choosing which doctor can choose what services he wants to ethically provide.

Nice strawman. You brought up abortion, no one else.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 02:41:33 AM
If doctors can refuse service because of what they think is a chance at increased survability, then they can refuse service to provide abortion pills for increased survivability of what they think as a baby.

Please explain why you are not an utter hypocrite for thinking otherwise. You are picking and choosing which doctor can choose what services he wants to ethically provide.

Nice strawman. You brought up abortion, no one else.

The article you linked says that the bill is advocating for doctors to choose to provide service based on their conscience:

Quote
But what about their conscience?

"Another way that conscience has been defined is that inner voice that someone uses to distinguish between right and wrong," Republican Florida House Rep. John Snyder said.

You say this is wrong. So you need to defend that.

Why shouldn't they be able to decline providing abortion pills if they can decline to provide heart transplants for the unvaccinated?

Why should doctors be forced to provide services to do something they think is unethical?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2022, 02:46:55 AM
A doctor putting their personal beliefs above the medical needs of a patient is not fulfilling their oath as a doctor. It’s simple.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 03:46:11 AM
A doctor putting their personal beliefs above the medical needs of a patient is not fulfilling their oath as a doctor. It’s simple.

It's not a personal belief that fetuses are living. It's a medical fact. The doctor took an oath to protect life. The doctor refuses to give abortion pills. Why is he or she wrong?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: rooster on January 27, 2022, 04:41:45 AM
A doctor putting their personal beliefs above the medical needs of a patient is not fulfilling their oath as a doctor. It’s simple.

It's not a personal belief that fetuses are living. It's a medical fact. The doctor took an oath to protect life. The doctor refuses to give abortion pills. Why is he or she wrong?
This argument is dumb. The doctors giving abortions or prescribing abortion pills are already fine with doing it. No one is forcing them to work at the clinics.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 05:21:11 AM
There are clinics who provide more services than just giving out abortions and abortion pills.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/05/23/primary-care-abortion-medication-pills

Quote
Dr. Kerry Pound, a Salem pediatrician on the board of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, says medication abortions may appeal to some doctors because they take effect in the privacy of a patient's home.

"But I do think, at the end of the day, most physicians are a little uncomfortable with abortion," she says, "because we go into medicine to really support life and patient health, and at the end of the day, there is a life that's being ended."

And for some, she says, it could be hard even to work in a practice where medication abortions are offered.

"I think I, myself, as a pro-life physician, that would be very difficult for me," she says. "To think that my patients may go over to another doctor in order to obtain an abortion would probably be a deal-breaker for me to work in that practice, to be honest."

Two doctors work in the same clinic. One hands out abortion pills and the other doesn't.

The one who doesn't says that she took an oath to protect life, etc.

Why should the law force doctors who don't want to provide abortion pills compromise their ethical beliefs as a doctor?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: rooster on January 27, 2022, 05:29:00 AM
lol she's not even okay with a patient going to a different doctor for the pills.

Again, no one is actually forcing them to stay at that clinic. Miss Uptight implied she'd leave the practice.

No force is happening.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 06:24:27 AM
Rama Set insists that doctors should be forced to provide medical services regardless of their conscientious or ethical beliefs. Why should a doctor be forced to provide abortion pills when they feel it goes against their oath as a doctor?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2022, 06:38:43 AM
Rama Set insists that doctors should be forced to provide medical services regardless of their conscientious or ethical beliefs. Why should a doctor be forced to provide abortion pills when they feel it goes against their oath as a doctor?

If a cashier at an alcohol shop feels its unethical to sell alcohol, what should they do?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 06:46:05 AM
Rama Set insists that doctors should be forced to provide medical services regardless of their conscientious or ethical beliefs. Why should a doctor be forced to provide abortion pills when they feel it goes against their oath as a doctor?

If a cashier at an alcohol shop feels its unethical to sell alcohol, what should they do?

I don't think the law should force anyone to sell alcohol if they don't want to. Nor should the alcohol store be obligated to hire them.

In this case the clinic is fine with hiring a doctor who won't prescribe abortion pills. The argument is whether the law should force doctors to provide medical services regardless of their personal beliefs. Why should the law get involved to force the doctor to provide abortion pills?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2022, 10:03:11 AM
Rama Set insists that doctors should be forced to provide medical services regardless of their conscientious or ethical beliefs. Why should a doctor be forced to provide abortion pills when they feel it goes against their oath as a doctor?

Nope. You’re showing your delusion again. I’ve never mentioned abortion, except referencing your pathetic trolls.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 27, 2022, 10:28:12 AM
And another thread derailed...
Really need to stop feeding this troll.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 10:32:50 AM
Rama Set insists that doctors should be forced to provide medical services regardless of their conscientious or ethical beliefs. Why should a doctor be forced to provide abortion pills when they feel it goes against their oath as a doctor?

Nope. You’re showing your delusion again. I’ve never mentioned abortion, except referencing your pathetic trolls.

You posted an article called "Florida bill would allow doctors to decline services based on their conscience" and said "This is such an unbelievably stupid bill no matter your political leanings" as well as "A doctor putting their personal beliefs above the medical needs of a patient is not fulfilling their oath as a doctor. It’s simple." and "What I don’t want is a doctor not to treat someone based on a non-medical issue. "

But now you don't want to talk about doctors denying abortion pills based on their conscience.

How unsurprising that you can't defend examples of your bad argument.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2022, 10:39:38 AM
And another thread derailed...
Really need to stop feeding this troll.

We're actually still talking about a GOP Florida bill. If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread I would suggest not posting.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2022, 11:01:03 AM
Rama Set insists that doctors should be forced to provide medical services regardless of their conscientious or ethical beliefs. Why should a doctor be forced to provide abortion pills when they feel it goes against their oath as a doctor?

Nope. You’re showing your delusion again. I’ve never mentioned abortion, except referencing your pathetic trolls.

You posted an article called "Florida bill would allow doctors to decline services based on their conscience" and said "This is such an unbelievably stupid bill no matter your political leanings" as well as "A doctor putting their personal beliefs above the medical needs of a patient is not fulfilling their oath as a doctor. It’s simple." and "What I don’t want is a doctor not to treat someone based on a non-medical issue. "

But now you don't want to talk about doctors denying abortion pills based on their conscience.

How unsurprising that you can't defend examples of your bad argument.

Are you claiming that being against abortion is solely a personal choice and has no basis in medical science? Unless you are doing that, then you’re simply parroting GOP wedge issues and not engaging with what I said.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2022, 12:37:39 PM
Rama Set insists that doctors should be forced to provide medical services regardless of their conscientious or ethical beliefs. Why should a doctor be forced to provide abortion pills when they feel it goes against their oath as a doctor?

If a cashier at an alcohol shop feels its unethical to sell alcohol, what should they do?

I don't think the law should force anyone to sell alcohol if they don't want to. Nor should the alcohol store be obligated to hire them.

In this case the clinic is fine with hiring a doctor who won't prescribe abortion pills. The argument is whether the law should force doctors to provide medical services regardless of their personal beliefs. Why should the law get involved to force the doctor to provide abortion pills?
You never answered the question.
What.  Should.  The.  Cashier.  Do?
Its a pretty simple question.  He either sells it, doesn't sell it, or quits his job.  Those are his choices.  And if you have moral issues selling alcohol... Why did you apply for a job that would require you to do it?

As for the clinic...
Did the clinic know before hand?  Is it a clinic that handles abortion based medical services? 
Basically: is there a possibility that abortion pill prescription would come up at this clinic when said doctor applied for the job?


Also: if he doesn't do his job, the clinic should be allowed to fire him.  Just like every other job if someone refuses to do a legal part of it.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2022, 11:26:00 AM
Are you claiming that being against abortion is solely a personal choice and has no basis in medical science? Unless you are doing that, then you’re simply parroting GOP wedge issues and not engaging with what I said.

Okay, so you concede. You think that doctors shouldn't be forced to provide abortion drugs.

Now can you tell us why a doctor should be forced to prescribe anything they don't feel is ethical to prescribe? Why should the law force them to do anything?

Euthanasia drugs, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, drugs the doctor feels is inappropriate; why should they be forced by the law to provide it?

Quote
You never answered the question.
What.  Should.  The.  Cashier.  Do?
Its a pretty simple question.  He either sells it, doesn't sell it, or quits his job.  Those are his choices.  And if you have moral issues selling alcohol... Why did you apply for a job that would require you to do it?

As for the clinic...
Did the clinic know before hand?  Is it a clinic that handles abortion based medical services?
Basically: is there a possibility that abortion pill prescription would come up at this clinic when said doctor applied for the job?

Also: if he doesn't do his job, the clinic should be allowed to fire him.  Just like every other job if someone refuses to do a legal part of it.

This scenario isn't analogous to this bill. Employees are generally hired at the discretion of the employer. The employer generally has the power of buying (hiring) what they like, just like you have the power of buying the things that you like. You have the power of going to another employer, like the employer has the power of hiring someone else. The employer can fire the worker refusing to sell alcohol, I agree. If the markets weren't free enough to where you didn't have the power of going to another employer, and we were all forced to work for Safeway and Costco, there might be enough support for a law against employers requiring workers to sell alcohol and other vices, and the company would have to make alcohol checkout lanes or sell it online.

In this case the bill was about the law forcing doctors to provide services that they didn't want to provide, which is different than the requirements of an employer in a free market.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2022, 11:47:17 AM
Are you claiming that being against abortion is solely a personal choice and has no basis in medical science? Unless you are doing that, then you’re simply parroting GOP wedge issues and not engaging with what I said.

Okay, so you concede. You think that doctors shouldn't be forced to provide abortion drugs.

Now can you tell us why you think a doctor should be forced to prescribe anything they don't feel is ethical to prescribe? Why should the law force them to do anything?

Euthanasia drugs, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, drugs the doctor feels is inappropriate; why should they be forced by the law to provide it?

The biggest reason is because you are a troll. Why would I discuss this with you when you simply ignore everything?.



Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on January 28, 2022, 05:22:16 PM
Now can you tell us why a doctor should be forced to prescribe anything they don't feel is ethical to prescribe? Why should the law force them to do anything?

Euthanasia drugs, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, drugs the doctor feels is inappropriate; why should they be forced by the law to provide it?

Why should they be forced by law to provide it...A curious contradiction...

Florida teacher at center of ivermectin lawsuit dies of COVID; husband says 'name a law after her' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/11/17/florida-teacher-center-ivermectin-lawsuit-dies-covid-19/8648543002/)

Tamara Drock, 47, of Loxahatchee, Florida, died 12 weeks after being admitted to Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center for treatment. Her husband, Ryan Drock, sued the hospital last month in an attempt to require it to administer ivermectin, a drug approved by the FDA only to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms but not COVID-19.

I guess with a bill such as this, the hospital wouldn't get sued for not administering Ivermectin, or it would simply be dismissed. Right?

In any case, who is forcing doctors to prescribe/administer euthanasia drugs, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, abortion pills, etc.?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2022, 06:27:07 PM
Why should they be forced by law to provide it...A curious contradiction...

Florida teacher at center of ivermectin lawsuit dies of COVID; husband says 'name a law after her' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/11/17/florida-teacher-center-ivermectin-lawsuit-dies-covid-19/8648543002/)

Tamara Drock, 47, of Loxahatchee, Florida, died 12 weeks after being admitted to Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center for treatment. Her husband, Ryan Drock, sued the hospital last month in an attempt to require it to administer ivermectin, a drug approved by the FDA only to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms but not COVID-19.

I guess with a bill such as this, the hospital wouldn't get sued for not administering Ivermectin, or it would simply be dismissed. Right?

The bill is pretty clear that it doesn't apply to life threatening emergency situations, so if the court determines that the hospital is purposely denying life saving drugs to people they should be held accountable:

https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-bill-doctors-decline-service/38890098?fbclid=IwAR2Ab9VgHtfyOuBIFbbN5c-cL2KqS4jemL2xcb5_5sIegw4-9BJfIsnqhJ8#


Quote from: stack
In any case, who is forcing doctors to prescribe/administer euthanasia drugs, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, abortion pills, etc.?

The bill wants to uphold the right of the doctor to use their conscience to treat patients.

I've been asking Rama Set and others who disagree with the bill for the reasoning of forcing doctors to provide services they believe is unethical, but there is a resounding silence here.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on January 28, 2022, 06:27:50 PM
Why should they be forced by law to provide it...A curious contradiction...

Florida teacher at center of ivermectin lawsuit dies of COVID; husband says 'name a law after her' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/11/17/florida-teacher-center-ivermectin-lawsuit-dies-covid-19/8648543002/)

Tamara Drock, 47, of Loxahatchee, Florida, died 12 weeks after being admitted to Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center for treatment. Her husband, Ryan Drock, sued the hospital last month in an attempt to require it to administer ivermectin, a drug approved by the FDA only to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms but not COVID-19.

I guess with a bill such as this, the hospital wouldn't get sued for not administering Ivermectin, or it would simply be dismissed. Right?

The bill is pretty clear that it doesn't apply to life threatening emergency situations, so if the court determines that the hospital is purposely denying life saving drugs to people they should be held accountable:

https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-bill-doctors-decline-service/38890098?fbclid=IwAR2Ab9VgHtfyOuBIFbbN5c-cL2KqS4jemL2xcb5_5sIegw4-9BJfIsnqhJ8#

    "If I went into an ER, and someone felt like they, for some reason, didn't want to provide me a service, because it went against their conscience, is that a possibility?" Hope asked.

    "Absolutely not. There's again, very clear guidance that talks about the duty for a health care provider to act in an emergency situation," Snyder said.

Who said Ivermectin was "life saving"? And who said the scenario was an "emergency situation"?

And from the article, this is decidedly disturbing:

Snyder is sponsoring a Florida bill he said better protects the medical conscience of health care providers and insurance companies.

"This will allow a health care payer or provider to decline to participate in any health care service that violates their conscience," Snyder said Tuesday at a committee meeting.


Since when do insurance companies have a conscience?

Quote from: stack
In any case, who is forcing doctors to prescribe/administer euthanasia drugs, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, abortion pills, etc.?

The bill wants to uphold the right of the doctor to use their conscience to treat patients.

I've been asking Rama Set and others who disagree with the bill for the reasoning of forcing doctors to provide services they believe is unethical, but there is a resounding silence here.

You didn't answer the question. Who is "forcing" these physicians to do things that go against their conscience?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 28, 2022, 06:56:22 PM
Who said Ivermectin was "life saving"? And who said the scenario was an "emergency situation"?

That's the purpose of the case in the link to determine.

Quote from: stack
You didn't answer the question. Who is "forcing" these physicians to do things that go against their conscience?

I'm not aware of any law forcing doctors to do things against their conscience. The bill upholds their current right to decline from providing services they believe is unethical. Rama Set disagrees with the bill and wants to force doctors to do things which go against their conscience. Can you tell me why he's right and why doctors should be compelled by the law to provide what they believe to be unethical services?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2022, 07:01:03 PM
against their conscious…. against their conscious.

Doctor’s should make decisions based on the best medical science and evidence, not their personal feelings. What if it’s against their personal ethics to let republicans get the best care available. This bill allows that, even though every sane person would say that’s idiotic. If you are following your personal ethics over evidence when evidence is clear then you shouldn’t be a doctor, clearly.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2022, 07:10:50 PM
I want this bill to pass so anti-vaxxers are legally denied care because

"It is unethical to provide care for someone who clearly has no desire to afford themselves protection."
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on January 28, 2022, 07:24:52 PM
Who said Ivermectin was "life saving"? And who said the scenario was an "emergency situation"?

That's the purpose of the case in the link to determine.

The case was thrown out.

Quote from: stack
You didn't answer the question. Who is "forcing" these physicians to do things that go against their conscience?

I'm not aware of any law forcing doctors to do things against their conscience.

So Dr's aren't forced to do things against their conscience. Got it.

The bill upholds their current right to decline from providing services they believe is unethical. Rama Set disagrees with the bill and wants to force doctors to do things which go against their conscience. Can you tell me why he's right and why doctors should be compelled by the law to provide what they believe to be unethical services?

As you stated, there is no law forcing Dr's to do things against their conscience. That being the case, what law (that doesn't exist) are you referring to that compels Drs to do things they believe to be unethical? Why is this bill even necessary? Why do Drs need this law to protect them from a law that doesn't exist?

And are you ok with the bill allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based upon their "conscience"?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2022, 03:23:34 AM
against their conscious…. against their conscious.

Doctor’s should make decisions based on the best medical science and evidence, not their personal feelings. What if it’s against their personal ethics to let republicans get the best care available. This bill allows that, even though every sane person would say that’s idiotic. If you are following your personal ethics over evidence when evidence is clear then you shouldn’t be a doctor, clearly.

Wow, you are making disparaging assumptions and comments, when you didn't even bother to read much about the bill. The bill does not allow doctors to reject people based on their patient's beliefs:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-01-bill-florida-doctors-ability-based.html

"This bill does not allow a health care provider the right to cancel a patient because of who they are as a person or the beliefs they hold," said the measure's sponsor, Rep. John Snyder, R-Stuart. "It simply gives that provider the ability to decline to perform a specific function or procedure or prescription."

Does it sound like the bill is allowing doctors to reject people based on political beliefs?

I am reminded of the trope of when you point a finger, you have three pointing back to you.

So Dr's aren't forced to do things against their conscience. Got it.

The bill upholds their current right to decline from providing services they believe is unethical. Rama Set disagrees with the bill and wants to force doctors to do things which go against their conscience. Can you tell me why he's right and why doctors should be compelled by the law to provide what they believe to be unethical services?

As you stated, there is no law forcing Dr's to do things against their conscience. That being the case, what law (that doesn't exist) are you referring to that compels Drs to do things they believe to be unethical? Why is this bill even necessary? Why do Drs need this law to protect them from a law that doesn't exist?

And are you ok with the bill allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based upon their "conscience"?

Nowhere have I argued that there is a law forcing doctors to do things against their conscience. You are making up arguments.

The bill upholds the right of doctors to decline to make prescriptions which goes against their conscience. I think that it's a good bill.

Please let us know why it is a bad bill and why doctors should be forced to make prescriptions they think are unethical.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2022, 04:17:16 AM
Wow, you are making disparaging assumptions and comments, when you didn't even bother to read much about the bill. The bill does not allow doctors to reject people based on their patient's beliefs:

It absolutely does.  You've already admitted as much.  You have done it in this exact post:

The bill upholds their current right to decline from providing services they believe is unethical.

Quote
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-01-bill-florida-doctors-ability-based.html

"This bill does not allow a health care provider the right to cancel a patient because of who they are as a person or the beliefs they hold," said the measure's sponsor, Rep. John Snyder, R-Stuart. "It simply gives that provider the ability to decline to perform a specific function or procedure or prescription."

Does it sound like the bill is allowing doctors to reject people based on political beliefs?

Yes.  Yes it does.

How does, "It simply gives that provider the ability to decline to perform a specific function or procedure or prescription." address whether or not a doctor can deny service based on their ethical beliefs?  It doesn't

Quote
I am reminded of the trope of when you point a finger, you have three pointing back to you.

Ok boomer.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on January 30, 2022, 05:40:06 AM
So Dr's aren't forced to do things against their conscience. Got it.

The bill upholds their current right to decline from providing services they believe is unethical. Rama Set disagrees with the bill and wants to force doctors to do things which go against their conscience. Can you tell me why he's right and why doctors should be compelled by the law to provide what they believe to be unethical services?

As you stated, there is no law forcing Dr's to do things against their conscience. That being the case, what law (that doesn't exist) are you referring to that compels Drs to do things they believe to be unethical? Why is this bill even necessary? Why do Drs need this law to protect them from a law that doesn't exist?

And are you ok with the bill allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based upon their "conscience"?

Nowhere have I argued that there is a law forcing doctors to do things against their conscience. You are making up arguments.

The bill upholds the right of doctors to decline to make prescriptions which goes against their conscience. I think that it's a good bill.

Please let us know why it is a bad bill and why doctors should be forced to make prescriptions they think are unethical.

Who is currently forcing Drs to make prescriptions they think are unethical? The only thing I’ve seen is patients suing hospitals for not giving Covid patients ivermectin. I guess the view is that it is against the conscience, unethical, to prescribe a drug that hasn’t been shown to work. So this bill would prevent these ivermectin suits and such.

Why is it bad? Because it’s way too broad and ambiguous. Even in the article you cited, R’s & D’s both acknowledged that this is very subjective:

"Would you agree or disagree that morality and ethics can be subjective? That everyone can define their own morals and ethics?" Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, asked Snyder at one point.

"... Yes, it is subjective," Snyder said. "There is no debating that."


That seems really dangerous. For instance would you be ok if a dr refused to treat your non-emergency Covid infection symptoms based upon his/her conscience that it is unethical in their belief for you to be unvaxxed?

And you never addressed this: Are you ok with the bill allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based upon their "conscience"?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 09:28:43 PM
https://youtu.be/tmQQj5f9ByY
So, this applies to pre-K through 3 grade.
Some people like 'em real young round these parts.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 10, 2022, 10:03:42 PM
So, this applies to pre-K through 3 grade.
Some people like 'em real young round these parts.

I think where people are taking issue is the broader part. The bill states:

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.

It's this bit: "...or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." No one seems to know what this means and what the latitude is.

I guess another part is is this bill necessary? I can't seem to find out out why it even exists. Something about parents should be able to choose what their kids learn in school? I'm not sure how this would even come up as a discussion with K-3. Maybe a teacher says to his/her 2nd grade class, "Make sure to have your Mom & Dad come to the play you are all in this evening..." Little Timmy says, "I have two Dads, can they come?" Discussion of sexual orientation ensues?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 11, 2022, 12:41:21 AM
So, this applies to pre-K through 3 grade.
Some people like 'em real young round these parts.

I think where people are taking issue is the broader part. The bill states:

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.

It's this bit: "...or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." No one seems to know what this means and what the latitude is.

I guess another part is is this bill necessary? I can't seem to find out out why it even exists. Something about parents should be able to choose what their kids learn in school? I'm not sure how this would even come up as a discussion with K-3. Maybe a teacher says to his/her 2nd grade class, "Make sure to have your Mom & Dad come to the play you are all in this evening..." Little Timmy says, "I have two Dads, can they come?" Discussion of sexual orientation ensues?
Do you want anyone other than you, as a parent, talking to your children about sexual orientation or gender issues when they are pre-K through 3rd grade age?

You are aware of developmental milestones of a human as they progress toward maturation?

I guess if educators are not smart enough to figure out what that language means, it sort of calls into question why they are teaching in the first place, uh?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Iceman on March 11, 2022, 01:26:49 AM
As a parent, I want kids to have access to ask difficult questions, or things they don’t feel comfortable about with their parents, to other qualified people they trust.

I hope my kids feel comfortable enough to ask me anything once they get to an age when questions start to come up. But if they don’t, I want there to be someone trustworthy, and accessible to them.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 11, 2022, 02:14:06 AM
So, this applies to pre-K through 3 grade.
Some people like 'em real young round these parts.

I think where people are taking issue is the broader part. The bill states:

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.

It's this bit: "...or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." No one seems to know what this means and what the latitude is.

I guess another part is is this bill necessary? I can't seem to find out out why it even exists. Something about parents should be able to choose what their kids learn in school? I'm not sure how this would even come up as a discussion with K-3. Maybe a teacher says to his/her 2nd grade class, "Make sure to have your Mom & Dad come to the play you are all in this evening..." Little Timmy says, "I have two Dads, can they come?" Discussion of sexual orientation ensues?
Do you want anyone other than you, as a parent, talking to your children about sexual orientation or gender issues when they are pre-K through 3rd grade age?

You are aware of developmental milestones of a human as they progress toward maturation?

I guess if educators are not smart enough to figure out what that language means, it sort of calls into question why they are teaching in the first place, uh?

All I'm conveying is:

A) What does "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" mean?
B) Is any of this really an issue that government needs to create laws, mandates, and penalties around? Is there actually an issue around Teachers talking about sexual orientation to K-3 kids? As in, does it happen?

For someone who is anti-goverment reach, let alone overreach, I'm surprised you've sided with government so decidely.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 11, 2022, 05:31:01 AM
So, this applies to pre-K through 3 grade.
Some people like 'em real young round these parts.

I think where people are taking issue is the broader part. The bill states:

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.

It's this bit: "...or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." No one seems to know what this means and what the latitude is.

I guess another part is is this bill necessary? I can't seem to find out out why it even exists. Something about parents should be able to choose what their kids learn in school? I'm not sure how this would even come up as a discussion with K-3. Maybe a teacher says to his/her 2nd grade class, "Make sure to have your Mom & Dad come to the play you are all in this evening..." Little Timmy says, "I have two Dads, can they come?" Discussion of sexual orientation ensues?
Do you want anyone other than you, as a parent, talking to your children about sexual orientation or gender issues when they are pre-K through 3rd grade age?

You are aware of developmental milestones of a human as they progress toward maturation?

I guess if educators are not smart enough to figure out what that language means, it sort of calls into question why they are teaching in the first place, uh?

My kids' daycare has already spoken to my children in an age appropriate manner. (My son years ago, my daughter last year)

But Stack's question is sound: what is age or develomply appropriate according to state standards?  What are the state standards?  Do you know?

Because in theory this law also requires that they teach about lesbian sex, if the standards say so, rather than letting teachers and schools determine what is appropriate.


Also, back when I was in school (and my kids now) I got an option to opt out of such education.  I'm pretty sure this still exists in florida.
You know, for the parents who need to impart a "God hates fags" mentality in their 5 year old.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 11, 2022, 11:13:18 AM
All I'm conveying is:

A) What does "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" mean?
All I'm conveying is: Ask the educators who should be able to clearly spell out what the language means and what the adverse affect will be due to the law being in place.
B) Is any of this really an issue that government needs to create laws, mandates, and penalties around? Is there actually an issue around Teachers talking about sexual orientation to K-3 kids? As in, does it happen?
Obviously, it does...not that you would ever acknowledge it.
For someone who is anti-goverment reach, let alone overreach, I'm surprised you've sided with government so decidely.
Casting this issue in terms of "overreach," is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are all in favor of DEMOCRATIC RULE except when the pedophiles you champion get left out in the cold.

Don't worry, Uncle Hairy Legs will ride in, just as soon as he finishes off Corn Pop, and make all things well again, while ringing the ice cream bell.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 11, 2022, 09:46:43 PM
All I'm conveying is:

A) What does "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" mean?
All I'm conveying is: Ask the educators who should be able to clearly spell out what the language means and what the adverse affect will be due to the law being in place.

A good friend of mine is a 2nd grade teacher in a town outside of Boston. I'll ask her.

B) Is any of this really an issue that government needs to create laws, mandates, and penalties around? Is there actually an issue around Teachers talking about sexual orientation to K-3 kids? As in, does it happen?
Obviously, it does...not that you would ever acknowledge it.
For someone who is anti-goverment reach, let alone overreach, I'm surprised you've sided with government so decidely.
Casting this issue in terms of "overreach," is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are all in favor of DEMOCRATIC RULE except when the pedophiles you champion get left out in the cold.

Don't worry, Uncle Hairy Legs will ride in, just as soon as he finishes off Corn Pop, and make all things well again, while ringing the ice cream bell.

I didn't mean to say that this particular law is "overreach", per se. Just that the vaguery around, "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards", gives me pause in terms of reach.

I'm not sure how you got all the way to "pedophiles you champion". But to be expected I guess considering how overblown, bombastic, threatened, and hyperbolic you seem to be.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 12, 2022, 11:23:35 PM
All I'm conveying is:

A) What does "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" mean?
All I'm conveying is: Ask the educators who should be able to clearly spell out what the language means and what the adverse affect will be due to the law being in place.

A good friend of mine is a 2nd grade teacher in a town outside of Boston. I'll ask her.
Asking her would be illogical. One, she's in Boston, unaffected whatsoever by the law in FL. B, if she was in FL, she would be concerned with the first part that deals with pre-K through 3rd grade.
B) Is any of this really an issue that government needs to create laws, mandates, and penalties around? Is there actually an issue around Teachers talking about sexual orientation to K-3 kids? As in, does it happen?
Obviously, it does...not that you would ever acknowledge it.
For someone who is anti-goverment reach, let alone overreach, I'm surprised you've sided with government so decidely.
Casting this issue in terms of "overreach," is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are all in favor of DEMOCRATIC RULE except when the pedophiles you champion get left out in the cold.

Don't worry, Uncle Hairy Legs will ride in, just as soon as he finishes off Corn Pop, and make all things well again, while ringing the ice cream bell.

I didn't mean to say that this particular law is "overreach", per se. Just that the vaguery around, "...in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards", gives me pause in terms of reach.

I'm not sure how you got all the way to "pedophiles you champion". But to be expected I guess considering how overblown, bombastic, threatened, and hyperbolic you seem to be.
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 12, 2022, 11:45:20 PM
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.
You are correct.
None of which involves teaching about different genders or relationships along a line rather than a binary system.

At least, not the American system.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 13, 2022, 02:55:10 AM
All I'm conveying is:

A) What does "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" mean?
All I'm conveying is: Ask the educators who should be able to clearly spell out what the language means and what the adverse affect will be due to the law being in place.

A good friend of mine is a 2nd grade teacher in a town outside of Boston. I'll ask her.
Asking her would be illogical. One, she's in Boston, unaffected whatsoever by the law in FL. B, if she was in FL, she would be concerned with the first part that deals with pre-K through 3rd grade.
B) Is any of this really an issue that government needs to create laws, mandates, and penalties around? Is there actually an issue around Teachers talking about sexual orientation to K-3 kids? As in, does it happen?
Obviously, it does...not that you would ever acknowledge it.
For someone who is anti-goverment reach, let alone overreach, I'm surprised you've sided with government so decidely.
Casting this issue in terms of "overreach," is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are all in favor of DEMOCRATIC RULE except when the pedophiles you champion get left out in the cold.

Don't worry, Uncle Hairy Legs will ride in, just as soon as he finishes off Corn Pop, and make all things well again, while ringing the ice cream bell.

I didn't mean to say that this particular law is "overreach", per se. Just that the vaguery around, "...in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards", gives me pause in terms of reach.

I'm not sure how you got all the way to "pedophiles you champion". But to be expected I guess considering how overblown, bombastic, threatened, and hyperbolic you seem to be.
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.

I did ask her. She thinks the whole thing is pretty pointless - Stuff like that just doesn't come up, for her anyway, in the 2nd grade. She's been a 1st & 2nd grade teacher for 18 years - Granted, sample size of one.

As for the second bit, she says that these, "developmental milestones educators rely upon" you refer to actually vary from state to state. So, to your point, MA might be different than FLA. She also said there's nothing in the MA version that addresses anything in the FLA bill. So what would be interesting would be to see what exactly "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" means in FLA.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 13, 2022, 08:19:18 AM
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.
You are correct.
None of which involves teaching about different genders or relationships along a line rather than a binary system.

At least, not the American system.
Holy crap, now claiming sex education classes have no defined starting point in public school.

You just wrote a flat-out lie.

Wtf is the matter with you?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 13, 2022, 08:29:37 AM
All I'm conveying is:

A) What does "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" mean?
All I'm conveying is: Ask the educators who should be able to clearly spell out what the language means and what the adverse affect will be due to the law being in place.

A good friend of mine is a 2nd grade teacher in a town outside of Boston. I'll ask her.
Asking her would be illogical. One, she's in Boston, unaffected whatsoever by the law in FL. B, if she was in FL, she would be concerned with the first part that deals with pre-K through 3rd grade.
B) Is any of this really an issue that government needs to create laws, mandates, and penalties around? Is there actually an issue around Teachers talking about sexual orientation to K-3 kids? As in, does it happen?
Obviously, it does...not that you would ever acknowledge it.
For someone who is anti-goverment reach, let alone overreach, I'm surprised you've sided with government so decidely.
Casting this issue in terms of "overreach," is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are all in favor of DEMOCRATIC RULE except when the pedophiles you champion get left out in the cold.

Don't worry, Uncle Hairy Legs will ride in, just as soon as he finishes off Corn Pop, and make all things well again, while ringing the ice cream bell.

I didn't mean to say that this particular law is "overreach", per se. Just that the vaguery around, "...in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards", gives me pause in terms of reach.

I'm not sure how you got all the way to "pedophiles you champion". But to be expected I guess considering how overblown, bombastic, threatened, and hyperbolic you seem to be.
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.

I did ask her. She thinks the whole thing is pretty pointless - Stuff like that just doesn't come up, for her anyway, in the 2nd grade. She's been a 1st & 2nd grade teacher for 18 years - Granted, sample size of one.
You should find more logical friends.

As for the second bit, she says that these, "developmental milestones educators rely upon" you refer to actually vary from state to state. So, to your point, MA might be different than FLA. She also said there's nothing in the MA version that addresses anything in the FLA bill. So what would be interesting would be to see what exactly "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" means in FLA.

The bottom line is this:

You and LD and many others here have a general opinion US public schools have a way to go in terms of performance.

Teachers of pre-K through 3rd grade talking about gender identity doesn't fit with a model of improvement.

https://unitedforflchildren.com/research/common-core-state-standards/developmentally-appropriate-practice-and-the-florida-standards/
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2022, 08:48:31 AM
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.
You are correct.
None of which involves teaching about different genders or relationships along a line rather than a binary system.

At least, not the American system.
Holy crap, now claiming sex education classes have no defined starting point in public school.

You just wrote a flat-out lie.

Wtf is the matter with you?

???
What are you talking about?  I never mentioned sex education classes.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 13, 2022, 04:03:29 PM
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.
You are correct.
None of which involves teaching about different genders or relationships along a line rather than a binary system.

At least, not the American system.
Holy crap, now claiming sex education classes have no defined starting point in public school.

You just wrote a flat-out lie.

Wtf is the matter with you?

???
What are you talking about?  I never mentioned sex education classes.
Yeah, you did.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 13, 2022, 06:47:01 PM
All I'm conveying is:

A) What does "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" mean?
All I'm conveying is: Ask the educators who should be able to clearly spell out what the language means and what the adverse affect will be due to the law being in place.

A good friend of mine is a 2nd grade teacher in a town outside of Boston. I'll ask her.
Asking her would be illogical. One, she's in Boston, unaffected whatsoever by the law in FL. B, if she was in FL, she would be concerned with the first part that deals with pre-K through 3rd grade.
B) Is any of this really an issue that government needs to create laws, mandates, and penalties around? Is there actually an issue around Teachers talking about sexual orientation to K-3 kids? As in, does it happen?
Obviously, it does...not that you would ever acknowledge it.
For someone who is anti-goverment reach, let alone overreach, I'm surprised you've sided with government so decidely.
Casting this issue in terms of "overreach," is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are all in favor of DEMOCRATIC RULE except when the pedophiles you champion get left out in the cold.

Don't worry, Uncle Hairy Legs will ride in, just as soon as he finishes off Corn Pop, and make all things well again, while ringing the ice cream bell.

I didn't mean to say that this particular law is "overreach", per se. Just that the vaguery around, "...in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards", gives me pause in terms of reach.

I'm not sure how you got all the way to "pedophiles you champion". But to be expected I guess considering how overblown, bombastic, threatened, and hyperbolic you seem to be.
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.

I did ask her. She thinks the whole thing is pretty pointless - Stuff like that just doesn't come up, for her anyway, in the 2nd grade. She's been a 1st & 2nd grade teacher for 18 years - Granted, sample size of one.
You should find more logical friends.

At least I have friends.

As for the second bit, she says that these, "developmental milestones educators rely upon" you refer to actually vary from state to state. So, to your point, MA might be different than FLA. She also said there's nothing in the MA version that addresses anything in the FLA bill. So what would be interesting would be to see what exactly "...in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" means in FLA.

The bottom line is this:

You and LD and many others here have a general opinion US public schools have a way to go in terms of performance.

Teachers of pre-K through 3rd grade talking about gender identity doesn't fit with a model of improvement.

https://unitedforflchildren.com/research/common-core-state-standards/developmentally-appropriate-practice-and-the-florida-standards/

Hey, thanks for, the first time ever, providing a reference. However, I just read it. There's literally nothing in there even remotely relevant to this topic. It's about pedantic/rigid academic teaching styles/curriculums versus more montesori/experimental/play-based teaching styles/curriculums. Nothing whatsoever to do with age developmental and appropriateness in terms of the subject matter in question. Dig a little deeper and find something that's actually germain to the conversation.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 13, 2022, 09:07:38 PM
Hey, thanks for, the first time ever, providing a reference.
Wrong, as usual.
However, I just read it. There's literally nothing in there even remotely relevant to this topic. It's about pedantic/rigid academic teaching styles/curriculums versus more montesori/experimental/play-based teaching styles/curriculums. Nothing whatsoever to do with age developmental and appropriateness in terms of the subject matter in question. Dig a little deeper and find something that's actually germain to the conversation.
Wrong, again, and indicating the major problem with your whole take on the matter. You cannot understand written communication and you should work on that.

"Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a strongly supported early childhood education framework grounded in the scientific literature on child development and effective educational practices, and incorporates both theory and research (NAEYC, 2009). DAP recognizes the interrelated contexts of early learning skill domains and emphasizes the variability both in early learning opportunities (prior to school) and developmental maturation rates up until age 8. The DAP framework calls for school environments which are able to adjust to this variability between children and provides an educational foundation through active learning experiences tailored to the rapidly changing abilities and needs of young children (NAEYC, 2009)."

The entire article is directed on a focus of building a strong fundamental base of age-appropriate socialization and learning activities. Last I checked, teachers talking about the way they like to swing is not age-appropriate until sex education classes begin.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Roundy on March 13, 2022, 09:23:48 PM
Hey, thanks for, the first time ever, providing a reference.
Wrong, as usual.
However, I just read it. There's literally nothing in there even remotely relevant to this topic. It's about pedantic/rigid academic teaching styles/curriculums versus more montesori/experimental/play-based teaching styles/curriculums. Nothing whatsoever to do with age developmental and appropriateness in terms of the subject matter in question. Dig a little deeper and find something that's actually germain to the conversation.
Wrong, again, and indicating the major problem with your whole take on the matter. You cannot understand written communication and you should work on that.

"Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a strongly supported early childhood education framework grounded in the scientific literature on child development and effective educational practices, and incorporates both theory and research (NAEYC, 2009). DAP recognizes the interrelated contexts of early learning skill domains and emphasizes the variability both in early learning opportunities (prior to school) and developmental maturation rates up until age 8. The DAP framework calls for school environments which are able to adjust to this variability between children and provides an educational foundation through active learning experiences tailored to the rapidly changing abilities and needs of young children (NAEYC, 2009)."

The entire article is directed on a focus of building a strong fundamental base of age-appropriate socialization and learning activities. Last I checked, teachers talking about the way they like to swing is not age-appropriate until sex education classes begin.

But is it okay for the teacher to point out that there's nothing wrong with the fact that Little Suzy has two daddies? Or will the new bill discourage even that kind of discussion? That's what I think some people are afraid of with this. Other than that, I seriously doubt frank and detailed discourse about non-cisgender sexual practices was ever something anyone ever had to worry about in early grade school. It's just another case of Republicans raising the spectre of fear among their followers about a supposed problem that never really existed, like (shudder) critical race theory being taught in classrooms.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 13, 2022, 09:46:15 PM
But is it okay for the teacher to point out that there's nothing wrong with the fact that Little Suzy has two daddies?
In the course of a day-to-day school activity concerning home life, no. If kids have more questions about it, the teacher refers the child to seek more information from home.

If Suzy is getting guff from the other kids about the nature of the parents, then the teacher needs to have a discussion with the parents of the kids bringing the guff. Other than that, no reason to discuss it all.
Or will the new bill discourage even that kind of discussion?
Yes, outside of the parameters presented.
That's what I think some people are afraid of with this. Other than that, I seriously doubt frank and detailed discourse about non-cisgender sexual practices was ever something anyone ever had to worry about in early grade school. It's just another case of Republicans raising the spectre of fear among their followers about a supposed problem that never really existed, like (shudder) critical race theory being taught in classrooms.
This isn't a party issue, it is a people issue.

It was an issue and people brought it before their elected representatives and the representatives acted upon it.

Simple, end of story.

Critical race theory is taught in public schools and you need to learn more about it.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 13, 2022, 09:56:48 PM
Hey, thanks for, the first time ever, providing a reference.
Wrong, as usual.
However, I just read it. There's literally nothing in there even remotely relevant to this topic. It's about pedantic/rigid academic teaching styles/curriculums versus more montesori/experimental/play-based teaching styles/curriculums. Nothing whatsoever to do with age developmental and appropriateness in terms of the subject matter in question. Dig a little deeper and find something that's actually germain to the conversation.
Wrong, again, and indicating the major problem with your whole take on the matter. You cannot understand written communication and you should work on that.

"Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a strongly supported early childhood education framework grounded in the scientific literature on child development and effective educational practices, and incorporates both theory and research (NAEYC, 2009). DAP recognizes the interrelated contexts of early learning skill domains and emphasizes the variability both in early learning opportunities (prior to school) and developmental maturation rates up until age 8. The DAP framework calls for school environments which are able to adjust to this variability between children and provides an educational foundation through active learning experiences tailored to the rapidly changing abilities and needs of young children (NAEYC, 2009)."

The entire article is directed on a focus of building a strong fundamental base of age-appropriate socialization and learning activities. Last I checked, teachers talking about the way they like to swing is not age-appropriate until sex education classes begin.

The article is centered on math and literature, the 3 R's, play versus rigid academics. There's no mention of what's age appropriate for other topics.

Preschool Parkland FL - DAP (Developmentally Appropriate Practices)
https://youtu.be/eZZ7ec8hGf8

And she closes with "That's what Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) are".
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2022, 10:38:05 PM
There are clear developmental milestones educators rely upon when it comes to the introduction of instructional material and social interaction/activities.

You know this and shows your just whistling dixie in your typical fashion.
You are correct.
None of which involves teaching about different genders or relationships along a line rather than a binary system.

At least, not the American system.
Holy crap, now claiming sex education classes have no defined starting point in public school.

You just wrote a flat-out lie.

Wtf is the matter with you?

???
What are you talking about?  I never mentioned sex education classes.
Yeah, you did.

???
Ok... Where in the part you quoted, did I mention sex ed classes?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2022, 10:30:34 AM
Hey, thanks for, the first time ever, providing a reference.
Wrong, as usual.
However, I just read it. There's literally nothing in there even remotely relevant to this topic. It's about pedantic/rigid academic teaching styles/curriculums versus more montesori/experimental/play-based teaching styles/curriculums. Nothing whatsoever to do with age developmental and appropriateness in terms of the subject matter in question. Dig a little deeper and find something that's actually germain to the conversation.
Wrong, again, and indicating the major problem with your whole take on the matter. You cannot understand written communication and you should work on that.

"Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a strongly supported early childhood education framework grounded in the scientific literature on child development and effective educational practices, and incorporates both theory and research (NAEYC, 2009). DAP recognizes the interrelated contexts of early learning skill domains and emphasizes the variability both in early learning opportunities (prior to school) and developmental maturation rates up until age 8. The DAP framework calls for school environments which are able to adjust to this variability between children and provides an educational foundation through active learning experiences tailored to the rapidly changing abilities and needs of young children (NAEYC, 2009)."

The entire article is directed on a focus of building a strong fundamental base of age-appropriate socialization and learning activities. Last I checked, teachers talking about the way they like to swing is not age-appropriate until sex education classes begin.

The article is centered on math and literature, the 3 R's, play versus rigid academics. There's no mention of what's age appropriate for other topics.

Preschool Parkland FL - DAP (Developmentally Appropriate Practices)
https://youtu.be/eZZ7ec8hGf8

And she closes with "That's what Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) are".
Inference, based on the written material, when inconvenient to my statements, eludes me.
FTFY
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 14, 2022, 07:18:15 PM
Hey, thanks for, the first time ever, providing a reference.
Wrong, as usual.
However, I just read it. There's literally nothing in there even remotely relevant to this topic. It's about pedantic/rigid academic teaching styles/curriculums versus more montesori/experimental/play-based teaching styles/curriculums. Nothing whatsoever to do with age developmental and appropriateness in terms of the subject matter in question. Dig a little deeper and find something that's actually germain to the conversation.
Wrong, again, and indicating the major problem with your whole take on the matter. You cannot understand written communication and you should work on that.

"Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a strongly supported early childhood education framework grounded in the scientific literature on child development and effective educational practices, and incorporates both theory and research (NAEYC, 2009). DAP recognizes the interrelated contexts of early learning skill domains and emphasizes the variability both in early learning opportunities (prior to school) and developmental maturation rates up until age 8. The DAP framework calls for school environments which are able to adjust to this variability between children and provides an educational foundation through active learning experiences tailored to the rapidly changing abilities and needs of young children (NAEYC, 2009)."

The entire article is directed on a focus of building a strong fundamental base of age-appropriate socialization and learning activities. Last I checked, teachers talking about the way they like to swing is not age-appropriate until sex education classes begin.

The article is centered on math and literature, the 3 R's, play versus rigid academics. There's no mention of what's age appropriate for other topics.

Preschool Parkland FL - DAP (Developmentally Appropriate Practices)
https://youtu.be/eZZ7ec8hGf8

And she closes with "That's what Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) are".
Inference, based on the written material, when inconvenient to my statements, eludes me.
FTFY

Why would you cross out the title of the video which was created by the FLA teacher(s) who posted it? It's their title, not mine. Makes no sense.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2022, 07:26:35 PM
Did I eliminate the video?

No.

Still struggling with inconvenient inference, I see.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 14, 2022, 07:47:17 PM
Did I eliminate the video?

No.

Still struggling with inconvenient inference, I see.

No you didn't. But why did you cross out their title? Makes no sense.

What's the inference I'm missing? That kids playing with blocks developmentally above their pay grade is somehow related to age-inappropriate discussions of sexual orientation?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2022, 10:13:41 PM
Did I eliminate the video?

No.

Still struggling with inconvenient inference, I see.

No you didn't. But why did you cross out their title? Makes no sense.
It does when you realize...
he forgot the end BBC tag.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 15, 2022, 02:06:32 AM
Did I eliminate the video?

No.

Still struggling with inconvenient inference, I see.

No you didn't. But why did you cross out their title? Makes no sense.
It does when you realize...
he forgot the end BBC tag.

There’s an [/s] lurking in there…
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2022, 05:52:47 AM
Did I eliminate the video?

No.

Still struggling with inconvenient inference, I see.

No you didn't. But why did you cross out their title? Makes no sense.
It does when you realize...
he forgot the end BBC tag.

There’s an [/s] lurking in there…

Yes... So there is...
Then its sheer laziness.  He put in one at the end instead of several start/end tags to avoid the title.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2022, 03:56:57 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 10:13:44 AM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2022, 10:24:54 AM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2022, 10:55:32 AM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/

His rationalle is crap.
Marriage is a federal issue as well as a state issue.  Therefore it goes to the supreme court.  You can't leave it up to the states since federal tax law relies on marriage vs non-marriage declarations.


Also, ya know, discrimination.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 11:01:12 AM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2022, 12:03:11 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

Look at your tax form.
They absolutely must define marriage, in a legal sense.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 12:19:41 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

Look at your tax form.
They absolutely must define marriage, in a legal sense.
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

Unless you promote the whole concept of slavery in perpetuity.

Which, based on your post history, that is a given.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2022, 01:24:55 PM
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

They are, though. It's in any state's best interest to incentivize stable families. The continuation of society depends on it. Coincidentally, this is why the West's response to low birthrates has been incredibly high immigration.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2022, 02:03:53 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

I guess I’m wrong. You and I agree it’s good that SCOTUS prevented a discriminatory definition of marriage being pushed. You’d have to be a racist to think otherwise. SCOTUS performed their job as a check on the legislative branch perfectly. Doing their job is not “activism”.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 02:29:03 PM
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

They are, though. It's in any state's best interest to incentivize stable families. The continuation of society depends on it. Coincidentally, this is why the West's response to low birthrates has been incredibly high immigration.
Continuation of society is not dependent on elected government.

It is dependent on self-government.

Indentured servitude and forced fealty via taxation is contrary to self government.

Your stated reasoning is flawed.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 02:32:24 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

I guess I’m wrong. You and I agree it’s good that SCOTUS prevented a discriminatory definition of marriage being pushed. You’d have to be a racist to think otherwise. SCOTUS performed their job as a check on the legislative branch perfectly. Doing their job is not “activism”.
SCOTUS performs their job on the national legislative branch, not the states. That is Braun's point.

SCOTUS is government.

When I say government has no business defining marriage, I mean all of government.

Whimsy is your modus operandi.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2022, 02:36:25 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

Look at your tax form.
They absolutely must define marriage, in a legal sense.
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

Unless you promote the whole concept of slavery in perpetuity.

Which, based on your post history, that is a given.
It is.
Because marriage links two people, legally, together.

For example.  Lets say your wife dies.  You will inherit any debts in her name as well as any items in her name.  Otherwise anything in her name would simply be sold off at auction. 
It also allows you to make decisions on her behalf should she be incapable of doing so.


And since taxes(in one form or another) are required for any government to exist (even if its just a tribe), its required to define such an important relationship in a legal way.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2022, 02:59:50 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

I guess I’m wrong. You and I agree it’s good that SCOTUS prevented a discriminatory definition of marriage being pushed. You’d have to be a racist to think otherwise. SCOTUS performed their job as a check on the legislative branch perfectly. Doing their job is not “activism”.
SCOTUS performs their job on the national legislative branch, not the states. That is Braun's point.

SCOTUS is government.

When I say government has no business defining marriage, I mean all of government.

Cool beans. I mean that you would have to be a racist to consider repealing an unconstitutional ban on interracial marriage as activism.

Quote
Whimsy is your modus operandi.

Personal attacks aren’t necessary, my dude.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 03:01:31 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

Look at your tax form.
They absolutely must define marriage, in a legal sense.
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

Unless you promote the whole concept of slavery in perpetuity.

Which, based on your post history, that is a given.
It is.
Because marriage links two people, legally, together.

For example.  Lets say your wife dies.  You will inherit any debts in her name as well as any items in her name.  Otherwise anything in her name would simply be sold off at auction. 
It also allows you to make decisions on her behalf should she be incapable of doing so.


And since taxes(in one form or another) are required for any government to exist (even if its just a tribe), its required to define such an important relationship in a legal way.
Marriage should not be legally defined, period.

As a concept, it is based on a religious/spirtiual issue, not a legal issue.

Your whole claim taxes are necessary for government to exist is pure bullshit.

Self government needs no taxes.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 03:07:13 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

I guess I’m wrong. You and I agree it’s good that SCOTUS prevented a discriminatory definition of marriage being pushed. You’d have to be a racist to think otherwise. SCOTUS performed their job as a check on the legislative branch perfectly. Doing their job is not “activism”.
SCOTUS performs their job on the national legislative branch, not the states. That is Braun's point.

SCOTUS is government.

When I say government has no business defining marriage, I mean all of government.

Cool beans. I mean that you would have to be a racist to consider repealing an unconstitutional ban on interracial marriage as activism.

Quote
Whimsy is your modus operandi.

Personal attacks aren’t necessary, my dude.
Not a personal attack, unless you view an objective statement of your continued wavering within your philosophical stance, a personal attack.

Government (any branch) has no business defining marriage.

Marriage is not an issue of race.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2022, 03:22:47 PM
Government (any branch) has no business defining marriage.

Marriage is not an issue of race.

Irrelevant.  There were laws prohibiting interracial marriage illegally and SCOTUS did away with them.  We definitely agree this is a good thing, yet you are trying to frame it as if we disagree.

Not a personal attack, unless you view an objective statement of your continued wavering within your philosophical stance, a personal attack.

Please show objectively that I waver philisophically.  Your assertion is not an objective truth, as much as you try to force it on others.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2022, 03:41:47 PM
Just as an aside about whether or not SCOTUS has any right to decide whether or not a ban on interracial marriage is legal:

Quote from: www.uscourts.gov
The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2022, 03:47:53 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

Look at your tax form.
They absolutely must define marriage, in a legal sense.
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

Unless you promote the whole concept of slavery in perpetuity.

Which, based on your post history, that is a given.
It is.
Because marriage links two people, legally, together.

For example.  Lets say your wife dies.  You will inherit any debts in her name as well as any items in her name.  Otherwise anything in her name would simply be sold off at auction. 
It also allows you to make decisions on her behalf should she be incapable of doing so.


And since taxes(in one form or another) are required for any government to exist (even if its just a tribe), its required to define such an important relationship in a legal way.
Marriage should not be legally defined, period.

As a concept, it is based on a religious/spirtiual issue, not a legal issue.
So if you're married, legally, you aren't?
Huh.... Well that would suck.  Would mean that if your wife was in the hospital, you get no special treatment.  You and her have separate assets, not combined.  And your family legally does not exist. 


Quote
Your whole claim taxes are necessary for government to exist is pure bullshit.

Self government needs no taxes.

That's called Anarchy.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 05:59:50 PM
Government (any branch) has no business defining marriage.

Marriage is not an issue of race.

Irrelevant.  There were laws prohibiting interracial marriage illegally and SCOTUS did away with them.  We definitely agree this is a good thing, yet you are trying to frame it as if we disagree.
It most certainly is relevant as I am framing it within the same context to demonstrate your errant take on framing as an issue of race, rather than government overreach (which it also happens to be).
Not a personal attack, unless you view an objective statement of your continued wavering within your philosophical stance, a personal attack.

Please show objectively that I waver philisophically.  Your assertion is not an objective truth, as much as you try to force it on others.
Your philosophy is generally government shouldn't define marriage.

Yet here you are trying to defend a branch of government doing so.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2022, 06:04:36 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

Look at your tax form.
They absolutely must define marriage, in a legal sense.
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

Unless you promote the whole concept of slavery in perpetuity.

Which, based on your post history, that is a given.
It is.
Because marriage links two people, legally, together.

For example.  Lets say your wife dies.  You will inherit any debts in her name as well as any items in her name.  Otherwise anything in her name would simply be sold off at auction. 
It also allows you to make decisions on her behalf should she be incapable of doing so.


And since taxes(in one form or another) are required for any government to exist (even if its just a tribe), its required to define such an important relationship in a legal way.
Marriage should not be legally defined, period.

As a concept, it is based on a religious/spirtiual issue, not a legal issue.
So if you're married, legally, you aren't?
Huh.... Well that would suck.  Would mean that if your wife was in the hospital, you get no special treatment.  You and her have separate assets, not combined.  And your family legally does not exist. 


Quote
Your whole claim taxes are necessary for government to exist is pure bullshit.

Self government needs no taxes.

That's called Anarchy.
Self government is not anarchy.

That is just an insane statement.

You want, and seemingly NEED, someone else to define things for you and to hold your hand and provide an occasional teet on which to suckle.

Why do I need someone else to approve or deny who gets or shares my money, especially when it is someone like you, who I wouldn't trust to clean a fucking toilet properly, let alone have any clue about what words actually mean or should legally mean?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2022, 06:43:49 PM
You just can’t keep the racists down, USA:

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/sen-mike-braun-says-was-to-legalize-interracial-marriage/
Racist, my ass...

"Mommy, he's a racist because he said something I disagree with!"

No, he’s racist because he thinks SCOTUS insisting anti-interracial marriage laws are illegal is judicial activism. But you know that, you just can’t help but disagree with me, no matter what position I take.
It is judicial activism as the government shouldn't be defining marriage to begin with.

You cannot agree with any position you offer, so I do not know why you have a problem with anyone else disagreeing with any position you offer.

Look at your tax form.
They absolutely must define marriage, in a legal sense.
Taxes are not an excuse for any government to define marriage.

Unless you promote the whole concept of slavery in perpetuity.

Which, based on your post history, that is a given.
It is.
Because marriage links two people, legally, together.

For example.  Lets say your wife dies.  You will inherit any debts in her name as well as any items in her name.  Otherwise anything in her name would simply be sold off at auction. 
It also allows you to make decisions on her behalf should she be incapable of doing so.


And since taxes(in one form or another) are required for any government to exist (even if its just a tribe), its required to define such an important relationship in a legal way.
Marriage should not be legally defined, period.

As a concept, it is based on a religious/spirtiual issue, not a legal issue.
So if you're married, legally, you aren't?
Huh.... Well that would suck.  Would mean that if your wife was in the hospital, you get no special treatment.  You and her have separate assets, not combined.  And your family legally does not exist. 


Quote
Your whole claim taxes are necessary for government to exist is pure bullshit.

Self government needs no taxes.

That's called Anarchy.
Self government is not anarchy.

That is just an insane statement.
Oh really?  Then what would happen if everyone self governed?  No taxes, no police, no laws except the ones you made for yourself.
What would that be.



Quote
Why do I need someone else to approve or deny who gets or shares my money, especially when it is someone like you, who I wouldn't trust to clean a fucking toilet properly, let alone have any clue about what words actually mean or should legally mean?
Because you'll die.  And you can't take it with you.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2022, 06:59:20 PM
It most certainly is relevant as I am framing it within the same context to demonstrate your errant take on framing as an issue of race, rather than government overreach (which it also happens to be).

Whether or not the government has any stake in defining marriage or not, the outcome is the same, hence it is irrelevant.  As an aside, I find it hilarious (and a little sad) that you think reducing the amount of government interference in interpersonal relationships is government overreach.

Your philosophy is generally government shouldn't define marriage.

Yet here you are trying to defend a branch of government doing so.

Except this isn't the government defining marriage is it?  It is literally removing pieces of the definition, making it less, not more defined.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: J-Man on March 24, 2022, 07:34:40 PM
How do you get Gay or Lesbian?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on March 24, 2022, 09:00:32 PM
Government (any branch) has no business defining marriage.

Marriage is not an issue of race.

Irrelevant.  There were laws prohibiting interracial marriage illegally and SCOTUS did away with them.  We definitely agree this is a good thing, yet you are trying to frame it as if we disagree.
It most certainly is relevant as I am framing it within the same context to demonstrate your errant take on framing as an issue of race, rather than government overreach (which it also happens to be).

Don't you think that having a law that prevents two people of differing skin colors to marry would amount to government overreach?

The fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, marriage is a 'legal' thing. And, like it or not, marriage is a legal entity under State and Federal government. Whether it should be or shouldn't be is neither here nor there. So as such, in the reality we live, all efforts should be made for such a legal arrangement to be equal and accessible, without discrimination regarding the amount of melanin a couple may possess.

As an aside, can you name a country, territory, locality, commune, or whatever, that has successfully prospered under only "self-rule"? How would "self-rule" work in America?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2022, 10:24:27 PM
The biggest hypocrites in the world are the libertarians, lol. Keep your government out of my business, unless it's something I think you should govern. lol I can't even
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 25, 2022, 11:45:20 AM
Self-government is not anarchy.

That is just an insane statement.
Oh really?  Then what would happen if everyone self governed?  No taxes, no police, no laws except the ones you made for yourself.
What would that be.
That would be nirvana.
Quote
Why do I need someone else to approve or deny who gets or shares my money, especially when it is someone like you, who I wouldn't trust to clean a fucking toilet properly, let alone have any clue about what words actually mean or should legally mean?
Because you'll die.  And you can't take it with you.
So what? I make the decision prior to death.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2022, 12:52:24 PM
Self-government is not anarchy.

That is just an insane statement.
Oh really?  Then what would happen if everyone self governed?  No taxes, no police, no laws except the ones you made for yourself.
What would that be.
That would be nirvana.
You're telling me you want to live in a world where i could poison your well, and your only recourse is to kill me or steal someone else's water? 
Smells like Teen Spirit, to me.

Quote
Quote
Why do I need someone else to approve or deny who gets or shares my money, especially when it is someone like you, who I wouldn't trust to clean a fucking toilet properly, let alone have any clue about what words actually mean or should legally mean?
Because you'll die.  And you can't take it with you.
So what? I make the decision prior to death.
Fair enough.  Sucks to be married to you. 
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on March 25, 2022, 02:17:44 PM
Self-government is not anarchy.

That is just an insane statement.
Oh really?  Then what would happen if everyone self governed?  No taxes, no police, no laws except the ones you made for yourself.
What would that be.
That would be nirvana.
You're telling me you want to live in a world where i could poison your well, and your only recourse is to kill me or steal someone else's water? 
Smells like Teen Spirit, to me.
Okay, what would the penalty be or should be for poisoning someone else's well?

My justifiable recourse in my mind is to permanently solve your proven misbehavior through fast and efficient means.
Quote
Quote
Why do I need someone else to approve or deny who gets or shares my money, especially when it is someone like you, who I wouldn't trust to clean a fucking toilet properly, let alone have any clue about what words actually mean or should legally mean?
Because you'll die.  And you can't take it with you.
So what? I make the decision prior to death.
Fair enough.  Sucks to be married to you.
[/quote]
LOL.

It may suck to be married to me, but at least I am worthwhile.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2022, 05:21:54 PM
Self-government is not anarchy.

That is just an insane statement.
Oh really?  Then what would happen if everyone self governed?  No taxes, no police, no laws except the ones you made for yourself.
What would that be.
That would be nirvana.
You're telling me you want to live in a world where i could poison your well, and your only recourse is to kill me or steal someone else's water? 
Smells like Teen Spirit, to me.
Okay, what would the penalty be or should be for poisoning someone else's well?
Depends on circumstances and motive.  If it was an accident, maybe a fine and to clean it up.
But if it was an attempt to poison you, death.

Quote
My justifiable recourse in my mind is to permanently solve your proven misbehavior through fast and efficient means.
And who would do that?  I just killed you via poison.  No laws.  No police.  No judges.  No one to tell me it was bad and to punish me.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Why do I need someone else to approve or deny who gets or shares my money, especially when it is someone like you, who I wouldn't trust to clean a fucking toilet properly, let alone have any clue about what words actually mean or should legally mean?
Because you'll die.  And you can't take it with you.
So what? I make the decision prior to death.
Fair enough.  Sucks to be married to you.
LOL.

It may suck to be married to me, but at least I am worthwhile.
[/quote]
Yeah... You haven't shown that side of you here.  I'm convinced you're 15 and haven't had a date before.  I mean, you didn't even laugh at my "Smells like teen spirit" joke!  Clearly you are under 30.
Title: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2022, 02:54:01 PM
These are the sickos teaching six year olds.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1509658926203039744

Why does she feel the need to introduce herself by saying she is a lesbian and her spouse is a trans-fem person? I have never had a teacher introduce themselves as straight or tell me details about their relationships. At best I knew if they were a Ms. or a Mrs. Your private life is just that. Private. Keep it that way. It doesn't matter if you are a furry or a foodsexual. That is not part of the first grade educational curriculum. There is no reason to impose that on the children of others.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 03:03:42 PM
These are the sickos teaching six year olds.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1509658926203039744

Why does she feel the need to introduce herself by saying she is a lesbian and her spouse is a trans-fem person? I have never had a teacher introduce themselves as straight or tell me details about their relationships. At best I knew if they were a Ms. or a Mrs. Your private life is just that. Private. Keep it that way. It doesn't matter if you are a furry or a foodsexual. That is not part of the first grade educational curriculum. There is no reason to impose that on the children of others.

She is a sicko because it's now illegal for her to mention to her students the name of her partner?  She can't even legally mention her gender. 

Not everyone is terrified of their sexuality, or ashamed of it.  I feel it's pretty sad some people are so repressed that they have such hate for anyone who isn't like them. Not everyone agrees that letting kids know that sometimes two women can fall in love is some sort of sinful hateful evil thing. The people passing these laws are the sickos, using religion to cover their own problems.

I remember my teachers talking about their husbands and wives, kids, families. The best teachers I had were ones that made personal connections to their students. Now that's going to be illegal, but only for some teachers. Shameful.

Just because you didn't care or pay attention to the lives of your teachers doesn't mean everyone else was like that.

There is no reason to impose your insecurities on children. They don't care who loves who until an adult tells them which groups they should hate.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: honk on April 01, 2022, 03:09:21 PM
My teachers talked about their marriages and families all the time too. For some mysterious reason, the people up in arms about children supposedly being taught about sexualities never have a problem with conventional, heteronormative relationships being discussed or being present in the books the kids read. It's only when it comes to the existence of LGBT people that suddenly everything becomes perversely sexual and inappropriate for children.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2022, 03:11:32 PM
Quote from: JSS
Not everyone agrees that letting kids know that sometimes two women can fall in love

That is simply not part of the first grade educational curriculum. Teachers are there to provide the ascribed curriculum, not teach interesting non-curriculum factoids about their own perversion.

I would also consider a straight teacher teaching that her husband prefers women or has a penis also as perversion. It's not part of the first grade curriculum.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 03:21:42 PM
Quote from: JSS
Not everyone agrees that letting kids know that sometimes two women can fall in love

That is simply not part of the first grade educational curriculum. Teachers are there to provide the ascribed curriculum, not teach interesting non-curriculum factoids about their own perversion.

I would also consider a straight teacher teaching that her husband prefers women or has a penis also as perversion. It's not part of the first grade curriculum.

Teaching first graders about life isn't part of the curriculum? Since when? They teach about having jobs, getting married, all kinds of things. I remember learning about the post office, golf, what school was like in other countries, what a hospital visit was like. 

You may want to restrict things because you think they are perversions, but that's your problem, not the childrens. Teaching children that their own bodies are evil, that's a perversion.

I'd be happy if you didn't spread your insecurity and repressed sexual feelings on innocent children.  Sex isn't evil or wrong just because it freaks you out.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2022, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: JSS
Not everyone agrees that letting kids know that sometimes two women can fall in love

That is simply not part of the first grade educational curriculum. Teachers are there to provide the ascribed curriculum, not teach interesting non-curriculum factoids about their own perversion.

I would also consider a straight teacher teaching that her husband prefers women or has a penis also as perversion. It's not part of the first grade curriculum.

Tom... You're not a teacher.  You know jack shit about teaching.  Teachers are not a wikipedia entry.  They have lives.  Loved ones.  Family.  Often times they have personal items on their desk, like we all do.

And one of the best ways teachers bond or teach lessons is to use themselves as part of the example.

So if you're teaching about "family" and what it means, you might describe your own family first, so kids understand what to do.

The fact that you don't think that is more proof that your opinion is worthless.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2022, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: JSS
Teaching first graders about life isn't part of the curriculum?

Since never. Teaching first graders about sexuality isn't part of the curriculum. Standard sex ed isn't even taught until the fifth grade.

Quote from: JSS
Since when?

 I remember learning...

Teaching children that their own bodies are evil, that's a perversion.

Yes, I don't doubt you that your first grade teacher taught you all about your body.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 03:41:50 PM
Quote from: JSS
Teaching first graders about life isn't part of the curriculum?

Since never. Teaching first graders about sexuality isn't part of the curriculum. Standard sex ed isn't even taught until the fifth grade.

This entire thread is a perfect example of why this sort of thing should be taught early.  Children aren't born hating gays and lesbians, they learn it, they are told to hate them. Told it's a perversion, it's evil, that their own bodies and feelings are evil.

Then you have adults who think it's terrifying if a child hears the word penis.  News flash, boys have them, even as children. They aren't ashamed about it any more than they are ashamed they have a thumb. All that shame and self-loathing is taught to them.

Quote from: JSS
Teaching children that their own bodies are evil, that's a perversion.

Yes, I don't doubt you that your first grade teacher taught you all about your body.

Maybe you want to think about what inside you made you say something like that.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2022, 03:47:40 PM
Quote
And one of the best ways teachers bond or teach lessons is to use themselves as part of the example.

Yeah no. First graders are there to learn about the first grade curriculum. This does not include anything the teacher chooses to do sexually in their personal life, a teacher talking about their drug overdose, or their murdered mother, or anything else. Teachers are expected to limit exposure to children and to only introduce them to certain concepts at the first grade. Parents did not sign up for a perversion class and expect that the curriculum is followed with little personal details or non-curriculum diversions.

Do you understand what educational accreditation is?

Schools are highly scrutinized and regulated in their lessons, and what they teach. These "lessons"  are unaccredited, and is something you are imposing without consent of the school or the parents. I consider it to be profound ignorance that this isn't clearly seen.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2022, 03:52:38 PM
Schools are highly scrutinized and regulated in their lessons, and what they teach. These "lessons"  are unaccredited, and is something you are imposing without consent of the school or the parents. I consider it to be profound ignorance that this isn't clearly seen.

How many children do you have, and what age(s)?

It's been shown recently that many folks protesting the school agenda/curriculum at school board meetings in the USA don't actually have children at the school which they are protesting.

Are you speaking as a parent, or as a bystander?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:15:21 PM
These are the sickos teaching six year olds.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1509658926203039744

Why does she feel the need to introduce herself by saying she is a lesbian and her spouse is a trans-fem person? I have never had a teacher introduce themselves as straight or tell me details about their relationships. At best I knew if they were a Ms. or a Mrs. Your private life is just that. Private. Keep it that way. It doesn't matter if you are a furry or a foodsexual. That is not part of the first grade educational curriculum. There is no reason to impose that on the children of others.
Yes, there are laws regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, and there is no reason for these to impose that type of information on anyone in the workplace.

I want one of these stupid bastards to come talking about crap having to with their private life. I'll screw them over so bad with a goddamn suit. it'll make their damn head spin.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:19:34 PM
Maybe you want to think about what inside you made you say something like that.
I'd surmise it was a brain.

The internet etiquette thread is tuning up and I just wanted to drop a reminder.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:21:39 PM
It's been shown recently that many folks protesting the school agenda/curriculum at school board meetings in the USA don't actually have children at the school which they are protesting.
More revisionist history from you, uh.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2022, 04:24:36 PM
These are the sickos teaching six year olds.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1509658926203039744

Why does she feel the need to introduce herself by saying she is a lesbian and her spouse is a trans-fem person? I have never had a teacher introduce themselves as straight or tell me details about their relationships. At best I knew if they were a Ms. or a Mrs. Your private life is just that. Private. Keep it that way. It doesn't matter if you are a furry or a foodsexual. That is not part of the first grade educational curriculum. There is no reason to impose that on the children of others.
Yes, there are laws regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, and there is no reason for these to impose that type of information on anyone in the workplace.

I want one of these stupid motherfuckers to come talking about shit having to with their private life. I'll fuck them over so bad with a goddamn suit. it'll make their fucking head spin.

Ah, lunch time already?
Maybe you should talk to your teacher about it instead of trolling?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2022, 04:25:19 PM
One of the US states, Idaho or Ohio, I forget which, passed laws today or recently that forbid trans kids from participating in school sport. According to the source I saw, there's only one kid in the whole state in that category.

The Government of that state considers it fair game to pass a law specifically to bully that one kid.  Just one. 

Links to follow in an edit once I retrace my steps and find the coverage.
They didn't pass a law prohibiting trans kids from participating in sports.

Quit lying.

I said I couldn't recall which. You could have at least waited until I'd confirmed it for myself.   

It was Utah.

"Utah bans transgender athletes in girls sports" by Sam Metz and Lindsay Whitehurst

https://apnews.com/article/utah-transgender-sports-ban-3ffc9205bfbeb05ae3a72425950208ef

"Utah has only one transgender girl playing in K-12 sports who would be affected by the ban. There have been no allegations of any of the four transgender youth athletes in Utah having competitive advantages."

So ... as I said - the legislative branch, the senate, and whomever else, of the whole state, was mobilised to bully one kid over his/her gender.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:27:45 PM
One of the US states, Idaho or Ohio, I forget which, passed laws today or recently that forbid trans kids from participating in school sport. According to the source I saw, there's only one kid in the whole state in that category.

The Government of that state considers it fair game to pass a law specifically to bully that one kid.  Just one. 

Links to follow in an edit once I retrace my steps and find the coverage.
They didn't pass a law prohibiting trans kids from participating in sports.

Quit lying.

I said I couldn't recall which. You could have at least waited until I'd confirmed it for myself.   

It was Utah.

"Utah bans transgender athletes in girls sports" by Sam Metz and Lindsay Whitehurst

https://apnews.com/article/utah-transgender-sports-ban-3ffc9205bfbeb05ae3a72425950208ef

"Utah has only one transgender girl playing in K-12 sports who would be affected by the ban. There have been no allegations of any of the four transgender youth athletes in Utah having competitive advantages."

So ... as I said - the legislative branch, the senate, and whomever else, of the whole state, was mobilised to bully one kid over his/her gender.
So, they are not banning trans kids from participating in sports.

Thank you for the confirmation.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2022, 04:29:24 PM
It's been shown recently that many folks protesting the school agenda/curriculum at school board meetings in the USA don't actually have children at the school which they are protesting.
More revisionist history from you, uh.

Just one example that I've seen;

https://www.wistv.com/2021/11/01/students-are-fed-up-with-raging-adults-school-board-meetings/
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 01, 2022, 04:31:41 PM
Quote
So, they are not banning trans kids from participating in sports.

Thank you for the confirmation.

One trans kid at present and all future trans kids, so in fact, saying they are banning trans kids from playing sports is completely correct.  For someone who likes to play stupid semantic games, you suck shit at it.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2022, 04:33:57 PM
So, they are not banning trans kids from participating in sports.

There's only one at the moment. They passed the law based on that. The law will ban others in future, so "kids" plural will be banned.

Like I said, they consider it fair game to pass a law specifically to bully that one kid.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:35:22 PM
Quote
So, they are not banning trans kids from participating in sports.

Thank you for the confirmation.

One trans kid at present and all future trans kids, so in fact, saying they are banning trans kids from playing sports is completely correct.  For someone who likes to play stupid semantic games, you suck shit at it.
They are not banning trans kids from participating in sports.

You cannot read at all.

I am right.

You are wrong.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 04:35:41 PM
Maybe you want to think about what inside you made you say something like that.
I'd surmise it was a brain.

The internet etiquette thread is tuning up and I just wanted to drop a reminder.

Yes, but I want to know what kind of thoughts made him post a sick comment like that.  It was really uncalled for.

Tuning up?  Are you trying to lure other people in to fight your battles for you?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:36:07 PM
So, they are not banning trans kids from participating in sports.

There's only one at the moment. They passed the law based on that. The law will ban others in future, so "kids" plural will be banned.

Like I said, they consider it fair game to pass a law specifically to bully that one kid.
Where does the law state the kids cannot participate in sports?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:38:26 PM
Maybe you want to think about what inside you made you say something like that.
I'd surmise it was a brain.

The internet etiquette thread is tuning up and I just wanted to drop a reminder.

Yes, but I want to know what kind of thoughts made him post a sick comment like that.  It was really uncalled for.
What was sick about it?
Tuning up?  Are you trying to lure other people in to fight your battles for you?
What battles? You're no longer involved with writing internet etiquette!?!

I find that hard to believe...
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2022, 04:45:19 PM
Where does the law state the kids cannot participate in sports?

Oh, I get it. I wasn't specific enough for you.

The law bans transgender kids (by implication, boys transitioning from M to F) from playing in girls' sports. It's that specific.

(H.B. 11 Student Eligibility in Interscholastic Activities
11     LONG TITLE
12     General Description:
13          This bill addresses student athlete participation in gender-designated sports in the
14     public education system.
15     Highlighted Provisions:
16          This bill:
17          ▸     defines terms;
18          ▸     imposes limits on participation in female sports, by:
19               •     requiring schools and local education agencies to designate athletic activities by
20     sex;
21               •     prohibiting a student of the male sex from competing against another school on
22     a team designated for female students
;
etc)

Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 04:46:11 PM
Maybe you want to think about what inside you made you say something like that.
I'd surmise it was a brain.

The internet etiquette thread is tuning up and I just wanted to drop a reminder.

Yes, but I want to know what kind of thoughts made him post a sick comment like that.  It was really uncalled for.
What was sick about it?

If what he said really went over your head, I'm not going to be the one to explain it to you.  Ask Tom what he meant.

Tuning up?  Are you trying to lure other people in to fight your battles for you?
What battles? You're no longer involved with writing internet etiquette!?!

I find that hard to believe...

What does that have to do with trans-athletes?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:48:12 PM
If what he said really went over your head, I'm not going to be the one to explain it to you.  Ask Tom what he meant.
I know exactly what he meant.

What was sick about it?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 04:49:59 PM
Where does the law state the kids cannot participate in sports?

Oh, I get it. I wasn't specific enough for you.

The law bans transgender kids (by implication, boys transitioning from M to F) from playing in girls' sports. It's that specific.
So, it doesn't ban kids from participating in sports.

Thanks for the admission you were wrong.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 04:56:07 PM
If what he said really went over your head, I'm not going to be the one to explain it to you.  Ask Tom what he meant.
I know exactly what he meant.

What was sick about it?

I said ask Tom, I'm not going to explain it to you.  Feel free to explain what you think he meant if you want to.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 05:13:13 PM
If what he said really went over your head, I'm not going to be the one to explain it to you.  Ask Tom what he meant.
I know exactly what he meant.

What was sick about it?

I said ask Tom, I'm not going to explain it to you.  Feel free to explain what you think he meant if you want to.
He stated, writing directly to you, and I quote:

Quote from: JSS
Teaching first graders about life isn't part of the curriculum?

Since never. Teaching first graders about sexuality isn't part of the curriculum. Standard sex ed isn't even taught until the fifth grade.

Quote from: JSS
Since when?

 I remember learning...

Teaching children that their own bodies are evil, that's a perversion.

Yes, I don't doubt you that your first grade teacher taught you all about your body.
Nothing sick about that.

What's sick is you advocating for sex education in schools for pre-k through third grade students.

Maybe you should just go ahead and change your screen name to Aqualung and get it over with.

As a matter of fact, just dole out #1, #2, etc, to the lot of you.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 05:39:29 PM
If what he said really went over your head, I'm not going to be the one to explain it to you.  Ask Tom what he meant.
I know exactly what he meant.

What was sick about it?

I said ask Tom, I'm not going to explain it to you.  Feel free to explain what you think he meant if you want to.
He stated, writing directly to you, and I quote:

I didn't ask you to quote what he said, I asked what you thought he meant.

Copying what someone else wrote is no replacement for actually answering a question. Try and use your own words.

What's sick is you advocating for sex education in schools for pre-k through third grade students.

Maybe you should just go ahead and change your screen name to Aqualung and get it over with.

As a matter of fact, just dole out #1, #2, etc, to the lot of you.

You might think it's sick for a lesbian teacher to mention she's married, but I don't.  Just like it's not sick for a straight teacher to mention she's married.  Nothing wrong with either of those. People get married, do you think children shouldn't know this?

If you think one is sick, that's your problem.  Teaching children to be homophobic is sick.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2022, 06:06:41 PM
Where does the law state the kids cannot participate in sports?

Oh, I get it. I wasn't specific enough for you.

The law bans transgender kids (by implication, boys transitioning from M to F) from playing in girls' sports. It's that specific.

(H.B. 11 Student Eligibility in Interscholastic Activities
11     LONG TITLE
12     General Description:
13          This bill addresses student athlete participation in gender-designated sports in the
14     public education system.
15     Highlighted Provisions:
16          This bill:
17          ▸     defines terms;
18          ▸     imposes limits on participation in female sports, by:
19               •     requiring schools and local education agencies to designate athletic activities by
20     sex;
21               •     prohibiting a student of the male sex from competing against another school on
22     a team designated for female students
;
etc)

Of course. Becauce FtM won't have the "benefit" of a male body so they'll easily be defeated.
The whole issue, to be blunt, is that many people think that a transitioned mtf still retains all the physical benefits of being male: strength, endurance, stronger bones, bigger hands and shoulders, etc ..
Essentially syaing they are phycially equal to a man and playing against girls.  They don't know about hormones.

But a former girl playing against boys would follow the same rules: so she/he would be petite and weak, thus no threat to the boys and their records.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2022, 07:40:19 PM
If what he said really went over your head, I'm not going to be the one to explain it to you.  Ask Tom what he meant.
I know exactly what he meant.

What was sick about it?

I said ask Tom, I'm not going to explain it to you.  Feel free to explain what you think he meant if you want to.
He stated, writing directly to you, and I quote:

I didn't ask you to quote what he said, I asked what you thought he meant.

Copying what someone else wrote is no replacement for actually answering a question. Try and use your own words.
He was pointing out your first-grade teacher wasn't talking to you about issues relating to his/her private life outside of the school and if they were, they were unjustified in doing so.

What's sick is you advocating for sex education in schools for pre-k through third grade students.

Maybe you should just go ahead and change your screen name to Aqualung and get it over with.

As a matter of fact, just dole out #1, #2, etc, to the lot of you.

You might think it's sick for a lesbian teacher to mention she's married, but I don't.  Just like it's not sick for a straight teacher to mention she's married.  Nothing wrong with either of those. People get married, do you think children shouldn't know this?

If you think one is sick, that's your problem.  Teaching children to be homophobic is sick.
Hyperbole is your best friend, I see.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 07:58:33 PM
I didn't ask you to quote what he said, I asked what you thought he meant.

Copying what someone else wrote is no replacement for actually answering a question. Try and use your own words.
He was pointing out your first-grade teacher wasn't talking to you about issues relating to his/her private life outside of the school and if they were, they were unjustified in doing so.

You got that, from this?  "Yes, I don't doubt you that your first grade teacher taught you all about your body."

It's pretty clear you are just paraphrasing what was discussed earlier in the conversation, as none of what you just said was mentioned in the quote above.  Try telling me what that quite means without copying bits of the conversation before it.

What's sick is you advocating for sex education in schools for pre-k through third grade students.

Maybe you should just go ahead and change your screen name to Aqualung and get it over with.

As a matter of fact, just dole out #1, #2, etc, to the lot of you.
You might think it's sick for a lesbian teacher to mention she's married, but I don't.  Just like it's not sick for a straight teacher to mention she's married.  Nothing wrong with either of those. People get married, do you think children shouldn't know this?

If you think one is sick, that's your problem.  Teaching children to be homophobic is sick.
Hyperbole is your best friend, I see.

Coming from you, that's pretty ironic.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 02, 2022, 06:26:13 AM
I didn't ask you to quote what he said, I asked what you thought he meant.

Copying what someone else wrote is no replacement for actually answering a question. Try and use your own words.
He was pointing out your first-grade teacher wasn't talking to you about issues relating to his/her private life outside of the school and if they were, they were unjustified in doing so.

You got that, from this?  "Yes, I don't doubt you that your first grade teacher taught you all about your body."

It's pretty clear you are just paraphrasing what was discussed earlier in the conversation, as none of what you just said was mentioned in the quote above.  Try telling me what that quite means without copying bits of the conversation before it.
Yeah, that is what I got from it.

Try to learn to read using inference and stop quoting the goddamn post and use your own words rather than quoting, since those are the rules you like.



What's sick is you advocating for sex education in schools for pre-k through third grade students.

Maybe you should just go ahead and change your screen name to Aqualung and get it over with.

As a matter of fact, just dole out #1, #2, etc, to the lot of you.
You might think it's sick for a lesbian teacher to mention she's married, but I don't.  Just like it's not sick for a straight teacher to mention she's married.  Nothing wrong with either of those. People get married, do you think children shouldn't know this?

If you think one is sick, that's your problem.  Teaching children to be homophobic is sick.
Hyperbole is your best friend, I see.

Coming from you, that's pretty ironic.
Irony does not negate truthfulness.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2022, 05:35:41 PM
Teaching first graders about life isn't part of the curriculum? Since when?
I noted Tom’s response and it’s a good example why feeding this troll is an exercise in futility. Your question was about teaching kids about life, his response was that kids shouldn’t be taught about sexuality - see how he misrepresented you.

Of course kids are taught about life at this age. In the UK kids are taken to the local shops and to the local park and learn about the world. Part of that these days is that some people have two mums or two dads. Some men marry other men, some women marry other women. It honestly doesn’t matter whether you think that should be the case, the fact is it is. And so of course kids should understand that reality of the world they’re living in.

Some people are acting like a female teacher mentioning that they’re married to another female is a stepping stone to teaching 5 year olds about strap ons. It really isn’t. Some people do seem to like to get outraged about things which really aren’t worth getting upset about.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2022, 05:47:10 PM
Teaching first graders about life isn't part of the curriculum? Since when?
I noted Tom’s response and it’s a good example why feeding this troll is an exercise in futility. Your question was about teaching kids about life, his response was that kids shouldn’t be taught about sexuality - see how he misrepresented you.

Actually he was talking about sexuality. The conversation was about teaching children about sexuality, which he characterized as 'life'. Why do you go into threads and make these plainly dishonest comments?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 02, 2022, 05:53:55 PM
I finally watched the vid because I was bored. It didn't strike me that she was talking about "sexuality", more that she specifically mentioned that during the "Get to know your teacher" thing at the beginning of the school year she is not allowed to mention that she is married. Regardless of who she is married to. I guess the same goes for all teachers? All marriages? They are not allowed to mention that they are married?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Lord Dave on April 02, 2022, 06:08:52 PM
I finally watched the vid because I was bored. It didn't strike me that she was talking about "sexuality", more that she specifically mentioned that during the "Get to know your teacher" thing at the beginning of the school year she is not allowed to mention that she is married. Regardless of who she is married to. I guess the same goes for all teachers? All marriages? They are not allowed to mention that they are married?
That would be the only way to get the law in.  Otherwise its discrimination and unconstitutional.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2022, 06:19:41 PM
I finally watched the vid because I was bored. It didn't strike me that she was talking about "sexuality", more that she specifically mentioned that during the "Get to know your teacher" thing at the beginning of the school year she is not allowed to mention that she is married. Regardless of who she is married to. I guess the same goes for all teachers? All marriages? They are not allowed to mention that they are married?

"do I invalidate my spouses stance as a trans-fem person? or do I put my job on the line to introduce myself?"

Yeah, she want to talk to kids about her spouse being a trans-fem person and about how she is a lesbian. Being introduced to the teacher's sexual preferences is inappropriate for the first grade.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: honk on April 02, 2022, 06:35:37 PM
And yet teachers talk about being married or having kids with zero hesitation all over the country. That is not something that these laws have been designed to address or will address.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Lord Dave on April 02, 2022, 06:41:34 PM
Just curious, Tom, have you ever raised children?  Taught children?  Have you ever lived with a first grader?

Do you have any qualification regarding children that would make your opinion mean something?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 02, 2022, 07:13:13 PM
I finally watched the vid because I was bored. It didn't strike me that she was talking about "sexuality", more that she specifically mentioned that during the "Get to know your teacher" thing at the beginning of the school year she is not allowed to mention that she is married. Regardless of who she is married to. I guess the same goes for all teachers? All marriages? They are not allowed to mention that they are married?

"do I invalidate my spouses stance as a trans-fem person? or do I put my job on the line to introduce myself?"

Yeah, she want to talk to kids about her spouse being a trans-fem person and about how she is a lesbian. Being introduced to the teacher's sexual preferences is inappropriate for the first grade.

I didn't see where she said "I want to specifically proclaim to the class my spouse is trans-fem" or, "Btw class, I'm a LESBIAN!". What's interesting to me is that 1st grade teacher, Mr. Smith, can't have a picture of his wife and kids on his desk? Or if he can, if asked anything about it by a student he has to say, "Sorry Timmy, I can't talk about that..."?

A close friend of mine is a 2nd grade teacher in a pub school in New England. She has taught 1st as well. Sometimes there are events, like school plays, sports and such, where her boyfriend accompanies her. In FLA, would he not be able to attend such a function? If a kid asks her who he is she has to say, "Sorry Timmy, I can't talk about that..."?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2022, 07:27:56 PM
And yet teachers talk about being married or having kids with zero hesitation all over the country. That is not something that these laws have been designed to address or will address.

I distinctly remember my elementary school teachers responding that "that's personal" or "that is an inappropriate subject to talk about" when someone in the class asked if they had a boyfriend. That is the professional response.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 02, 2022, 07:29:43 PM
And yet teachers talk about being married or having kids with zero hesitation all over the country. That is not something that these laws have been designed to address or will address.

I distinctly remember my elementary school teachers responding that "that's personal" or "that is an inappropriate subject to talk about" when someone in the class asked if they had a boyfriend. That is the professional response.

I would expect that response in the 1940's.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2022, 07:49:01 PM
And yet teachers talk about being married or having kids with zero hesitation all over the country. That is not something that these laws have been designed to address or will address.

I distinctly remember my elementary school teachers responding that "that's personal" or "that is an inappropriate subject to talk about" when someone in the class asked if they had a boyfriend. That is the professional response.

I would expect that response in the 1940's.

You would be wrong then. Teacher resource study.com suggests doing the same, for all levels of student-teacher interaction.

https://study.com/blog/how-open-should-you-be-with-your-students-about-your-personal-life.html

(https://i.imgur.com/PIqVc5q.png)
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 02, 2022, 07:53:12 PM
Teachers Spay Teachers blog? Sounds kinda saucy.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Iceman on April 02, 2022, 07:53:58 PM
Imagine equating that paragraph with saying “I have a husband” or “my wife’s name is Liz”.

There was only one teacher I had growing up who never mentioned anything about her family. We all thought she was a crazy cat lady, and she got treated with a lot more shenanigans than most other teachers did.

Teachers shouldn’t be putting their personal drama on display and transferring their stress to their students, but being disallowed from sharing anything about the existence of their family as you seem to suggest is the proper course of action here is asinine.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2022, 09:18:33 PM
Teachers shouldn’t be putting their personal drama on display and transferring their stress to their students, but being disallowed from sharing anything about the existence of their family as you seem to suggest is the proper course of action here is asinine.
Correct. Although this law is so vague that I have no idea whether it prohibits a female telling a student they have a wife or a male a husband.
The idea that teachers shouldn't be able to do that is obviously ridiculous. Tom knows this of course, he doesn't believe most of the things he posts which is why it's not worth engaging with his trolling.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2022, 10:00:24 PM
she want to talk to kids about her spouse being a trans-fem person and about how she is a lesbian. Being introduced to the teacher's sexual preferences is inappropriate for the first grade.

... but only if those preferences don't coincide with yours, right?

It's OK for hetero Mr Teacher to talk about Mrs Wife and kids?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2022, 10:04:23 PM
she want to talk to kids about her spouse being a trans-fem person and about how she is a lesbian. Being introduced to the teacher's sexual preferences is inappropriate for the first grade.

... but only if those preferences don't coincide with yours, right?

It's OK for hetero Mr Teacher to talk about Mrs Wife and kids?

Actually, no.

Teacher resource study.com suggests doing the same, for all levels of student-teacher interaction.

https://study.com/blog/how-open-should-you-be-with-your-students-about-your-personal-life.html

(https://i.imgur.com/PIqVc5q.png)
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2022, 10:17:22 PM
she want to talk to kids about her spouse being a trans-fem person and about how she is a lesbian. Being introduced to the teacher's sexual preferences is inappropriate for the first grade.

... but only if those preferences don't coincide with yours, right?

It's OK for hetero Mr Teacher to talk about Mrs Wife and kids?
Obviously that's OK, and Tom knows it is. None of the people backing this bill have ever spluttered with rage at a female teacher saying they have a husband or a male teacher saying they have wife. And the guidance Tom is cherry picking from to back up his trolling/bigotry also says:

Quote
A good rule of thumb when sharing details about your personal life is to pretend that everything you tell your students will be repeated to their parents.

Since when would any parent grumble if a heterosexual teacher mentioned their spouse?
If a parent has an issue if a gay teacher mentions their spouse then I'd suggest it's the parent who has the problem, not the teacher.
In fact, I'd suggest the child wouldn't give a monkeys either. Children aren't born bigots, they learn that. If from a young age they are taught to accept differences between people - race, culture, religion, sexuality - then that can only be a positive thing.
If it's done in an age appropriate way of course, which is what this bill claims to be about, although it's interesting that it's the bigots cheering this on.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2022, 10:46:38 PM
Obviously that's OK, and Tom knows it is.

Wrong.

I distinctly remember my elementary school teachers responding that "that's personal" or "that is an inappropriate subject to talk about" when someone in the class asked if they had a boyfriend. That is the professional response.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: rooster on April 02, 2022, 10:54:11 PM
Aren't you guys in the wrong thread? I thought there was a specific thread for gay teachers.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: JSS on April 02, 2022, 11:34:52 PM
I didn't ask you to quote what he said, I asked what you thought he meant.

Copying what someone else wrote is no replacement for actually answering a question. Try and use your own words.
He was pointing out your first-grade teacher wasn't talking to you about issues relating to his/her private life outside of the school and if they were, they were unjustified in doing so.

You got that, from this?  "Yes, I don't doubt you that your first grade teacher taught you all about your body."

It's pretty clear you are just paraphrasing what was discussed earlier in the conversation, as none of what you just said was mentioned in the quote above.  Try telling me what that quite means without copying bits of the conversation before it.
Yeah, that is what I got from it.

Try to learn to read using inference and stop quoting the goddamn post and use your own words rather than quoting, since those are the rules you like.

So the answer is no, you don't really understand what he was saying there since you can't use your own words to describe it. You also seem to be confused between the difference between quoting with proper attribution, and stealing someone elses work and presenting it as your own.

Thanks for making that clear to everyone.

Ironic you are telling me not to quote people, while quoting me doing it. :D

Irony does not negate truthfulness.

Quite a lot of that going around today.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 03, 2022, 12:04:55 AM
1st grader Timmy, after Xmas break, asks Mrs. Smith, his teacher, what she did for Christmas.
Mrs. Smith: "Well Timmy, my husband and I drove up to see his grandparents in snowy Vermont. It was a winter wonderland, just like the North Pole where Santa lives with Mrs. Claus and all of the elves..."

1st grader Timmy, after Xmas break, asks Mr. Smith, his teacher, what he did for Christmas.
Mr. Smith: "Well Timmy, my husband and I drove up to see his grandparents in snowy Vermont. It was a winter wonderland, just like the North Pole where Santa lives with Mrs. Claus and all of the elves..."

Both responses are now forbidden in FLA? I wonder if now you can't even mention that Santa has a wife too...

Or maybe it has to be:

1st grader Timmy, after Xmas break, asks Mrs. Smith, his teacher, what she did for Christmas.
Mrs. Smith: "Well Timmy, my friend and I drove up to see family in snowy Vermont. It was a winter wonderland, just like the North Pole where Santa lives with Mrs. Claus and all of the elves..."

Timmy: "What's your boyfriend's name?"

Mrs. Smith: "Nancy"
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2022, 07:59:40 AM
Nah more like

"I'm sorry Timmy, but its illegal for me to tell you."

And let that stew in the kid's head.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 03, 2022, 10:12:09 AM
So the answer is no, you don't really understand what he was saying there since you can't use your own words to describe it.
He was pointing out your first-grade teacher wasn't talking to you about issues relating to his/her private life outside of the school and if they were, they were unjustified in doing so.
I understood perfectly well what the message was.

You don't.

Bye.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 03, 2022, 10:37:55 AM
Both responses are now forbidden in FLA?
Probably not in practice, but the law is so vaguely worded that it could be read like that.

None of the homophobic bigots who have an issue with the second response have an issue with the first. It’s unsurprising to see them double down on their lies about that, rather than admit their bigotry.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2022, 01:58:40 AM
1st grader Timmy, after Xmas break, asks Mrs. Smith, his teacher, what she did for Christmas.
Mrs. Smith: "Well Timmy, my husband and I drove up to see his grandparents in snowy Vermont. It was a winter wonderland, just like the North Pole where Santa lives with Mrs. Claus and all of the elves..."

1st grader Timmy, after Xmas break, asks Mr. Smith, his teacher, what he did for Christmas.
Mr. Smith: "Well Timmy, my husband and I drove up to see his grandparents in snowy Vermont. It was a winter wonderland, just like the North Pole where Santa lives with Mrs. Claus and all of the elves..."

Both responses are now forbidden in FLA? I wonder if now you can't even mention that Santa has a wife too...

Actually study.com tells teachers not to discuss relationships and family matters with children to be professional in the classroom. This is not hard to understand.

A college course Student Teaching in Elementary School provides a Student Teaching Handbook (https://orion.sfasu.edu/courseinformation/syl/201102/ELE44113.pdf) for teacher candidates, which states on p.16 -

"Avoid discussion of your personal life with students."

Sounds pretty straight forward to me. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding this.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2022, 02:15:31 AM
In an article part of the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons at Fort Hays State University it says that sharing your sexual orientation with students is inappropriate:

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?&httpsredir=1&article=1585&context=alj

A Survival Guide: Seven Practices All Beginning Tactices All Beginning Teachers Should Know

...

Rule #6: Students are Not Your Friends-Recognize the Line

'The relationship between a student and a teacher is a close one, but remember to draw the line.
Students, by nature, are intrinsically interested in their teachers. They are naturally curious and want to
know everything about you. Indeed, many students will come to admire their teachers greatly. However,
do not mistake respect and admiration with personal friendships. Indeed, while many teachers may
friendly towards students, it is “important for…students to understand that [teachers are] not their friend
or, at least, not the same way their peers are (Johnston, 2005, C1). Students are not your peers, so it is
important to draw a line with them. It is important to care for the well being of students, but it is also
important not to share too much information, especially as it relates to one’s personal life. Discussing
one’s personal life with students or intimate details of one’s life is not appropriate.
Surface information
is generally safe but to discuss personal experiences (i.e., a hard divorce, psychological challenges,
living situations, sexual orientation, etc…) is not appropriate and demonstrates poor professional
judgment.
In addition, when students are seeking advice or counsel, remember to limit personal advice
and refer them to school professionals on staff. It is okay to listen (of course), but avoid providing
students with a To Do List of actions they should take. Teachers are typically not licensed psychologist,
psychiatrist or counselors. Therefore, do not assume that role. The role of a teacher is to teach and
nurture a child’s development, but that role is limited in scope (Benton, 2004). Giving a student who is
in need of professional advice, the wrong advice could not only endanger that student, but could
jeopardize your career legally. So again, listen but use good judgment, and when in doubt, seek
support from your administrative team. Be mindful to report abuse or neglect allegations or
support from your administrative team.'
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: honk on April 04, 2022, 03:14:42 AM
It's interesting how that second article mentions a hard divorce as an example of something that's too personal to share - not just a divorce, but a hard divorce. Does that mean that teachers can mention that they're divorced? It must, right? Otherwise, the article would have just used divorce as an example, not specifically a hard divorce. So if divorce can be shared, then logically marital status in general can be shared, as it would be pretty silly for one type of marital status to be appropriate but not others. And if marital status can be shared, doesn't that mean that the gender of the spouse will logically be shared? Technically, I guess the article could be recommending that teachers refer to their spouses in entirely gender-neutral terms. But I really, really doubt it. It seems far more likely to me that the article is really just talking about LGBT people when it recommends not sharing their sexual orientation, which plays into the double standard that's at the heart of this subject: the idea that being straight is nice, normal, and uncontroversial, while being gay or trans is inherently sexual, inherently outré, and inherently inappropriate for children.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2022, 03:28:11 AM
It is inappropriate to discuss the teacher's boyfriend or husband or partner at all. It is inappropriate to talk about your sexual orientation at all. It has nothing to do with double standards. Your personal life is your own business and not for students. They are there to learn the course material. As a teacher they are not your own children. You do not have a right or responsibility to expose them to your sexual orientation. Students are there under oversight of the state or the school, who dictate what they are exposed to.

UC Davis (https://aadocs.ucdavis.edu/training/new-faculty-workshop-and-events/new-faculty-workshop-presentations-and-materials/2018/faculty-code-of-conduct.pdf)

Quote
FACULTY CODE OF CONDUCT

Do not discuss your personal life with students

Kirkland College (https://www.kirkleescollege.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Safeguarding-Guidance-2021-22.pdf)

Quote
Do not discuss your personal life with students

Arizona University - Graduate Studies Handbook (https://aed.cals.arizona.edu/sites/aed.cals.arizona.edu/files/data/7.24.2020%20AETI%20Graduate%20Studies%20Handbook%20pdf.pdf)

Quote
Code of Conduct

Avoid discussing your personal life with your students

An article about Florida education standards (https://shsthetribe.com/news/2019/02/18/where-to-draw-the-line-teachers-and-students/) from 2019 before the bill:

Quote
When faculty become licensed, they agree to follow a code of ethics of the education profession in Florida. The code of ethics lists all the ways in which faculty must properly interact with students to avoid legal complications.

This document states “Do NOT flirt with students, Do NOT discuss your personal life with students,” and “Do NOT make telephone calls or write notes of a personal nature to students.”

These rules should must be followed for all students, even if the student is 18 or older.

Office of Professional Standards - Dade Public Schools (https://www.hrdadeschools.net/ops/Final%20OPS%20Manual.pdf)

Quote
Do not discuss your personal life with students (husband, wife, dating, etc.).

CliffsNotes FTCE Professional Education Test with CD-ROM, 2nd Edition (https://books.google.com/books?id=juWMJcMi6YsC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109)

Quote
Chapter 6: Competency 6: Ethics

Do not discuss your personal life with students, even outside of the classroom.

Al-Mamoor School (https://almamoor.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Staff-Handbook-.pdf)

Quote
Do not discuss your personal life with students. It is your responsibility to keep students on task
and only stick to the subject matter that is being taught

It is extremely simple. The students are there to learn the course material, not to be exposed to the teacher's personal life or the teacher's sexual orientation.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 04, 2022, 04:45:58 AM
If it's already in all of the ethics, code of conduct literature, why this new law?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 04, 2022, 06:11:56 AM
If it's already in all of the ethics, code of conduct literature, why this new law?
Because none of this stuff means what the homophobic bigots want to pretend it means.
None of them have ever had a problem with a teacher mentioning their spouse. But suddenly when the spouse is the same sex as the teacher they need to protect little Johnny from knowing about this perversion. Although obviously it’s them who has the problem, not little Johnny. Kids don’t have this sort of bigotry, they learn it. Hopefully these sorts of attitudes will die out with the bigots.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2022, 10:23:00 AM
If it's already in all of the ethics, code of conduct literature, why this new law?

The bill isn't only about teachers talking about themselves.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089221657/dont-say-gay-florida-desantis

Quote
Public school teachers in Florida are banned from holding classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity after Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed the controversial "Parental Rights in Education" bill.

The bill, which some opponents have called "Don't Say Gay," was signed by DeSantis on Monday. It reads, "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."

Supporters of the legislation say it's meant to allow parents to determine when and in what way to introduce LGBTQ topics to their children. It also gives parents an option to sue a school district if the policy is violated.

During a press conference ahead of signing the law, DeSantis said teaching kindergarten-aged kids that "they can be whatever they want to be" was "inappropriate" for children.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 04, 2022, 11:13:00 AM
If it's already in all of the ethics, code of conduct literature, why this new law?
Because none of this stuff means what the homophobic bigots want to pretend it means.
None of them have ever had a problem with a teacher mentioning their spouse. But suddenly when the spouse is the same sex as the teacher they need to protect little Johnny from knowing about this perversion. Although obviously it’s them who has the problem, not little Johnny. Kids don’t have this sort of bigotry, they learn it. Hopefully these sorts of attitudes will die out with the bigots.
What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2022, 11:37:38 AM
What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?

When does a remark, or example become a discussion?  By any definition of the several I have just read, a teacher mentioning something about themselves would not constitute a discussion. A discussion requires parties to exchange ideas about the topic.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 04, 2022, 12:45:16 PM
What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?
Well, it's open to interpretation isn't it? What do you regard as "personal life"?
One of the pieces of guidance Tom posted said something about not mentioning a hard divorce. And sure, that is quite personal.
But the fact that you're married - if someone asks you that are you seriously saying you're reticent to answer because it's personal? It's a pretty basic piece of information.

You need to ask yourself honestly - do you have an issue with a male teacher telling pupils they're married...or does it only become an issue for you if they're married to a man?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2022, 01:59:19 PM
From the site Tom cited:

Quote from:  https://study.com/blog/how-open-should-you-be-with-your-students-about-your-personal-life.html
Talking about your personal life is a great way to build a rapport with your students, but oversharing can cause serious issues.

Now I’m fairly certain no one here is recommending a teacher overshare details about their life or involve students in the events of their life, if you are speak up, but sharing some details can be an easy way to connect with students both in an interpersonal way or by way of educational analogy.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 04, 2022, 02:27:34 PM
What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?

When does a remark, or example become a discussion?  By any definition of the several I have just read, a teacher mentioning something about themselves would not constitute a discussion. A discussion requires parties to exchange ideas about the topic.
True, but discussions commence with the uttering of a remark by one party.

I fail to understand why a remark concerning one's personal sexual orientation is necessary in a public education institution.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 04, 2022, 02:31:16 PM
What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?
Well, it's open to interpretation isn't it? What do you regard as "personal life"?
One of the pieces of guidance Tom posted said something about not mentioning a hard divorce. And sure, that is quite personal.
But the fact that you're married - if someone asks you that are you seriously saying you're reticent to answer because it's personal? It's a pretty basic piece of information.

You need to ask yourself honestly - do you have an issue with a male teacher telling pupils they're married...or does it only become an issue for you if they're married to a man?
I do not need to ask myself anything at all.

Anyone wasting their time and my money not performing the job for which they are hired, within all designated guidelines and parameters, should be dismissed.

I don't give a shit what the topic is.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 04, 2022, 02:37:35 PM
The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 04, 2022, 02:57:59 PM
I do not need to ask myself anything at all.
If you have an issue with a male teacher telling a pupil that they have a husband, but don't have an issue with them telling the pupil they have a wife then I'd suggest it's you who has the problem. You may have grown up in a world where men couldn't marry men - my parents grew up in a world where it was actively illegal. But that's not the world we live in now.

Isn't this common sense? I wouldn't expect a teacher to be discussing the details of their sex life or marriage issues with kids, but just mentioning they have a husband is hardly going to start a discussion with a 6 year old about gay sex. What problem are we actually solving here?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Clyde Frog on April 04, 2022, 03:38:53 PM
What problem are we actually solving here?
The problem is those uppity gays with all the rainbows and letters refusing to just be quiet and pretend they don't exist, of course. They are making the good, God-fearing Christians uncomfortable, which is incredibly disrespectful of them, and they must be stopped.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2022, 03:55:06 PM
What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?

When does a remark, or example become a discussion?  By any definition of the several I have just read, a teacher mentioning something about themselves would not constitute a discussion. A discussion requires parties to exchange ideas about the topic.
True, but discussions commence with the uttering of a remark by one party.

I fail to understand why a remark concerning one's personal sexual orientation is necessary in a public education institution.

No one said it was necessary.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2022, 03:56:07 PM
The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.

I agree, but Tom cited it as a source so I wanted to point out that his own source paints a more nuanced picture than he would like.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 04, 2022, 04:42:04 PM
I do not need to ask myself anything at all.
If you have an issue with a male teacher telling a pupil that they have a husband, but don't have an issue with them telling the pupil they have a wife then I'd suggest it's you who has the problem. You may have grown up in a world where men couldn't marry men - my parents grew up in a world where it was actively illegal. But that's not the world we live in now.

Isn't this common sense? I wouldn't expect a teacher to be discussing the details of their sex life or marriage issues with kids, but just mentioning they have a husband is hardly going to start a discussion with a 6 year old about gay sex. What problem are we actually solving here?
If frogs had wings, then Clyde wouldn't be bumping his ass on the ground while moderating elsewhere either, but the issue here is not about what problems you may think I have or the problems that I KNOW you have.

The issue is about the legality of discussing things relative to sexuality with children pre-K through 3rd grade.

You are for it.

I am not.

End of story.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 04, 2022, 04:53:35 PM
The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.

I agree, but Tom cited it as a source so I wanted to point out that his own source paints a more nuanced picture than he would like.
That source that you are nutpicking.

Tell us all how it negates the ethics clauses in the language concerning personal life information sharing in the multiple contracts that Tom also provided.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2022, 05:31:31 PM
The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.

I agree, but Tom cited it as a source so I wanted to point out that his own source paints a more nuanced picture than he would like.
That source that you are nutpicking.

Tell us all how it negates the ethics clauses in the language concerning personal life information sharing in the multiple contracts that Tom also provided.

Most of them are for universities and therefore irrelevant. One of them is a piece of student journalism from a Florida High School that, without citation, talks about some code of ethics. I have no idea if they are quoting it or interpreting it correctly. If you know what document this being referred to, please share it.

Within that article it is worth noting that sharing social media accounts is not forbidden so clearly exactly what discussing a teacher’s personal life has some context that isn’t being communicated. Marital status is easily discerned on social media, so IF we are to take the high school journalism as accurate, then clearly sharing some details is either permitted explicitly or de facto permitted. I don’t see how any of what Tom posted makes a case for teacher’s in elementary or high schools sharing their marital status as inappropriate.

To boot, Rule 6A-10.081, Florida Administrative Code, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida found on fldoe.org (https://www.fldoe.org/teaching/professional-practices/code-of-ethics-principles-of-professio.stml) says absolutely nothing about whether or not a teacher may divulge personal matters. It does outline ethical considerations when relating with students, which seems entirely appropriate.

Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2022, 11:54:18 PM
Aww, maybe you guys are right. This drag king on twitter is upset that she can't talk to pre-schoolers about their sexuality and prevent them from feeling "unloved or ashamed for who they are". We should certainly let drag kings provide unaccredited instruction to our children about sexuality.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1511013923084021769
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2022, 12:10:53 AM
Tom, for the avoidance of doubt: do you propose that some children should feel unloved or ashamed for who they are?

For super-duper-extra avoidance of doubt: this is a yes/no question. We can work out the details afterwards. An answer that doesn't include a clear "yes" or a "no" will be considered a cop-out. :)
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: scomato on April 05, 2022, 12:28:24 AM
If we are going to start discriminating against people for having a biological advantage, then let's start with stripping Michael Phelps of all of his gold medals.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 12:58:08 AM
Tom, for the avoidance of doubt: do you propose that some children should feel unloved or ashamed for who they are?

For super-duper-extra avoidance of doubt: this is a yes/no question. We can work out the details afterwards. An answer that doesn't include a clear "yes" or a "no" will be considered a cop-out. :)

Yes, certainly.

When a student has such a problem the answer is to inform the parents or refer them to the school psychology services, not to take it upon yourself to resolve their psychological problem. Teachers are not licensed to do that.

Most parents do not want their children to be groomed or instructed by teachers who seek to validate the child's supposed sexuality. That wasn't in the contract. The contract says that the school (at least a decent one) was accredited by a certain organization to provide a certain quality of experience and education. That quality of education the school was approved for does not include sexual validation by a drag king. This is out of scope to the agreed upon terms.

With standard Sex Ed in the fifth grade public education system the parents are aware of it, sign off on it, and those programs were accredited and standardized by an educational body who decided what to teach and how to teach it. What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent. Terrible and unjustifiable, to say the least.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 05, 2022, 01:36:30 AM
What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent. Terrible and unjustifiable, to say the least.

It doesnt matter how many times you say this, it is still not true.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 05, 2022, 02:02:25 AM
What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.

What's your definition of a "questionable lifestyle"?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 04:54:26 AM
What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.

What's your definition of a "questionable lifestyle"?

I consider this to be pretty questionable. Teaching impressionable children that they can be a boy, a girl, a boy and a girl, or neither.

https://twitter.com/Phenomenal_Cat/status/1507090871283433488

How about running this through the accreditation board and getting mass consensus from academia before just making things up and affecting the lives of children?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 05, 2022, 04:57:00 AM
Thats not a lifestyle.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 05:00:27 AM
Thats not a lifestyle.

It's teaching of a lifestyle. Plenty of people define themselves by their non-standard lifestyles. Some people do think that they have multiple sexualities and identities. Doesn't mean that we need to teach that to first graders and encourage them to choose their flavor of the rainbow.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/article/730061

"Bigender: Someone who identifies with both male and female genders, or even a third gender"

"Non-binary: An adjective describing a person who does not identify exclusively as a man or a
woman. Non-binary people may identify as being both a man and a woman, somewhere in
between, or as falling completely outside these categories. While many also identify as
transgender, not all non-binary people do."
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 05, 2022, 05:57:31 AM
Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2022, 08:02:11 AM
We should certainly let drag kings provide unaccredited instruction to our children about sexuality.

Shouldn't it go through a process of accreditation, then?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 05, 2022, 09:17:42 AM
Thats not a lifestyle.

It's teaching of a lifestyle. Plenty of people define themselves by their non-standard lifestyles. Some people do think that they have multiple sexualities and identities. Doesn't mean that we need to teach that to first graders and encourage them to choose their flavor of the rainbow.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/article/730061

"Bigender: Someone who identifies with both male and female genders, or even a third gender"

"Non-binary: An adjective describing a person who does not identify exclusively as a man or a
woman. Non-binary people may identify as being both a man and a woman, somewhere in
between, or as falling completely outside these categories. While many also identify as
transgender, not all non-binary people do."

So you think anyone who isn’t heterosexual, has a questionable lifestyle?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2022, 09:22:15 AM
Most parents do not want their children to be groomed or instructed by teachers who seek to validate the child's supposed sexuality. That wasn't in the contract. The contract says that the school (at least a decent one) was accredited by a certain organization to provide a certain quality of experience and education. That quality of education the school was approved for does not include sexual validation by a drag king. This is out of scope to the agreed upon terms.

With standard Sex Ed in the fifth grade public education system the parents are aware of it, sign off on it, and those programs were accredited and standardized by an educational body who decided what to teach and how to teach it. What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent. Terrible and unjustifiable, to say the least.

I can call to mind a number of occasions when my teachers stepped out from the standard curriculum to, you know, actually TEACH us something. Did me no harm.

I suspect that if I told you the details, you would be perfectly happy with these digressions, as they didn't touch upon gender or sexuality.

EDIT - I seem to recall lots of things that went on in my schools under the heading "Extra-curricular activities". Stuff that wasn't on the curriculum. Not the standard stuff.  Are you suggesting that this ALL should be excised?  Or just the stuff that you're cherry-picking?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2022, 10:23:03 AM
What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.
As has been pointed out, this simply isn't true.

I don't believe for one minute you think that a male teacher mentioning they have a wife is "teaching kids sexuality". It's only when they mention they have a husband you have an issue.

As JSS said above, I think it's reasonable for kids to be taught about the world. Being aware that some men marry other men seems reasonable. Even if you think that should be illegal, that doesn't matter. It's a fact of the modern world. And you know what, I doubt kids would care. Bigotry about stuff like this is learned, not innate. No 6 year old is going to hear that Mr Smith has a husband and think "oh cool, I think I'll be gay". Firstly because kids that age aren't generally thinking about their sexuality at all, and secondly because sexuality isn't something one consciously chooses. But as they get older it might help them to make sense of their feelings. Better that than how confusing and frightening it must have been to grow up in an era when homosexuality was illegal. Imagine being attracted to other men and thinking you're the only one who feels that way and society telling you that feeling that way is wrong and acting on those feelings illegal.

You're conflating kids understanding the world with people grooming kids or encouraging them to feel a certain way. The former is important, the second is probably impossible and not what anyone is saying should happen.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 12:52:29 PM
What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.
As has been pointed out, this simply isn't true.

Actually, it is true. This is the new Florida law you guys hate. The law says not to teach sexuality to K-3.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089221657/dont-say-gay-florida-desantis

Quote
Public school teachers in Florida are banned from holding classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity after Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed the controversial "Parental Rights in Education" bill.

The bill, which some opponents have called "Don't Say Gay," was signed by DeSantis on Monday. It reads, "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."

Supporters of the legislation say it's meant to allow parents to determine when and in what way to introduce LGBTQ topics to their children. It also gives parents an option to sue a school district if the policy is violated.

During a press conference ahead of signing the law, DeSantis said teaching kindergarten-aged kids that "they can be whatever they want to be" was "inappropriate" for children.

Quote from: stack
Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is.

It's not appropriate to teach or encourage very young children to decide how gay they are either.

I can call to mind a number of occasions when my teachers stepped out from the standard curriculum to, you know, actually TEACH us something. Did me no harm.

Considering that you are here arguing in favor of sexual orientation and gender identity LGBTQ education for K-3, I question that.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 01:43:16 PM
No 6 year old is going to hear that Mr Smith has a husband and think "oh cool, I think I'll be gay".

Incorrect. You apparently have not met many 6 year olds. Young children are very impressionable, and generally admire and want to be like their teachers. They will believe anything you tell them. If the teacher hypes it up they'll think it's great. It is dangerous to allow the LGBTQ to promote their own ideology to children. Just because the LGBTQ discovered that they were sexually different as an adult does not mean that children need to be accosted with their ideology.

(https://i.imgur.com/fWemHmM.png)
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2022, 02:05:02 PM
You apparently have not met many 6 year olds.
Have you? Why are you hanging around 6 year olds?

But yes, of course kids are impressionable. But a male teacher saying they have a husband simply tells the children that some men are married to other men. It's not "hyping it up", what kind of nonsense is that? It's simply a reality of the world we live in, and it's true whether bigots like it or not. Children need to understand the reality of the world they live in.
What was your sexuality at 6? I don't even think I consciously had one, who thinks about stuff like that at that age?
But as you get older and start feeling attracted to people then if that happens to be people of the same sex I'd suggest it's healthier to be living in a world where you're accepted rather than one where society tells you it's shameful and even acting on those feelings is illegal. No-one chooses which sex they're attracted to, I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual.

As much as you may misrepresent people, no-one here is suggesting the kids should be groomed. Simply that they should be accepted. I shudder to think how you would react if you have children and one of them turned out to be gay.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2022, 02:13:08 PM
The basis for this argument seems to be whether or not it's the state's job to introduce sexual topics to children or the parents'.

One side believes it is the state's job. They may also believe teachers should be able to bring up personal details about themselves routinely and that such a thing is acceptable.

The other believes it is the parents' responsibility. They may also believe that teachers should keep their personal lives to themselves.

Since these are both opinions, you'll all orbit in this argument for eternity because neither side is 'correct'. Also, none of this seems to have anything to do with "Trans atheletes" and I'm tempted to split the entire debate into a separate thread.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 02:22:49 PM
You apparently have not met many 6 year olds.
Have you? Why are you hanging around 6 year olds?

But yes, of course kids are impressionable. But a male teacher saying they have a husband simply tells the children that some men are married to other men. It's not "hyping it up", what kind of nonsense is that? It's simply a reality of the world we live in, and it's true whether bigots like it or not. Children need to understand the reality of the world they live in.

That is simply not how children work. They aren't just going to say "oh okay" to a new concept. They are going to want to discuss it at length and decide if they think it's great or not. Here is a man who came out to his fifth grade classroom. He says that the children were fascinated with it and "instead of teaching social studies today they just asked me a whole bunch of questions about being gay". If you think that he wasn't promoting being gay to children or hyping it up you are kidding yourself.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1510840044247998468

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
What was your sexuality at 6? I don't even think I consciously had one, who thinks about stuff like that at that age?

Correct, 6 year olds generally do not think about their sexualities. Hence the absurdity of allowing the LGBTQ to accost children with their ideologies they discovered as adults and encourage the children to "question".

Here a 3rd grade teacher is guiding and encouraging 8 year olds to explore their own gender identities.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1509280070711476226
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 05, 2022, 02:37:26 PM
I can call to mind a number of occasions when my teachers stepped out from the standard curriculum to, you know, actually TEACH us something. Did me no harm.

Considering that you are here arguing in favor of sexual orientation and gender identity LGBTQ education for K-3, I question that.
Tumeni and AATW advocate starting with the wee little kids as early as possible.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: garygreen on April 05, 2022, 03:01:45 PM
tom is right. santa claus is a thing, therefore children will instantly become gay if they hear about same-sex partnerships in school.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: honk on April 05, 2022, 03:04:25 PM
Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Action80 on April 05, 2022, 03:19:10 PM
... therefore children will instantly become gay if they hear about same-sex partnerships in school.
Who said kids will become gay if they talk to gay people?

My kids will just beat the hell out of a faggot if the faggot chooses to make it a topic of conversation out in public.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2022, 03:30:11 PM
That is simply not how children work. They aren't just going to say "oh okay" to a new concept.
At 5 or 6 they pretty much do. Your last tweet was one about Santa and how kids just accept it. And they do at a young age. When they're older sure, they start to question - the example you gave was of 5th graders, I had to look that up as that means nothing to me in the UK, but that's 10 or 11 year olds, right? So sure, at that age they'll have questions.

Quote
If you think that he wasn't promoting being gay to children or hyping it up you are kidding yourself.

I have no idea how he handled it, nor do you. People on the right do seem to like to be permanently furious and outraged about everything.
I like to think he handled things in an age appropriate way, I doubt he started talking to them about anal sex.
This idea that bigots have that gay people are actively trying to promote and encourage being gay is just ludicrous. I'm sure you'll now cherry pick some examples of people doing just that, but I'd suggest they are outliers. The gay people I know barely mention it - I went to a leaving do of a girl at work recently and her girlfriend came along. That was the first I knew of her sexuality. The idea that gay people mince around trying to recruit is nonsense. At best it's rare. And how's that going to work anyway? People don't choose their sexuality, they can't just change it because a gay person says how great cock is. Does this make you want to turn gay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4_TdrJZDhg

Quote
6 year olds generally do not think about their sexualities. Hence the absurdity of allowing the LGBTQ to accost children with their ideologies they discovered as adults and encourage the children to "question".
What the actual fuck are you talking about? "accost children"? Holy shit.
I'm talking about a male teacher mentioning they have a husband - maybe in response to a question about what they did for the holidays.
Again, kids knowing that gay couples are a thing and that it's OK is a million times better than kids growing up with that being hidden, thought shameful or even illegal.
Suddenly in their teens they start developing feelings for people of the same sex as them. In your world they should be taught that how they feel is wrong, that how they are is wrong, that they should be ashamed.
No-one chooses their sexuality, so you're trying to make kids feel ashamed because of feelings they have no control over.
Do I really have to explain how harmful that is?

Quote
Here a 3rd grade teacher is guiding and encouraging 8 year olds to explore their own gender identities.
It's interesting you focus on gender when the first screenshot talks about all kinds of aspects of identity. And of course one of your fellow perma-furious friends shouts that the teacher:
Quote
“wonders if anyone [students] will change their minds” presumably about their gender.

But the tweet it's responding to says:
Quote
students are continuing their study of gender by discussing their schema, adding to each other's thinking and determining which identity parts are visible and invisible
And that's the context in which the teacher wonders if anyone will change their mind. How can that possibly be talking about gender? That doesn't even make sense.
Like sexuality, no-one spends the first 10 years one gender and then suddenly "changes their mind". When did you consider being female and then decide not to?

TL;DR - children need to understand the world around them and feel accepted. No one here is suggesting children should be groomed or that being gay should be "promoted".
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: scomato on April 05, 2022, 03:30:23 PM
Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.

 ??? ??? ???

What does it even mean to be heterosexual then, to you?

Talking to kids about gay/trans people doesn't make them gay, by that logic teaching kids about Dinosaurs causes them to mutate into reptilian monsters.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 05, 2022, 05:15:26 PM
Quote from: stack
Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is.

It's not appropriate to teach or encourage very young children to decide how gay they are either.

I didn't ask about teaching or encouraging. I asked, "Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is."

So, is it?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 05, 2022, 05:16:21 PM
Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.

 ??? ??? ???

What does it even mean to be heterosexual then, to you?

Talking to kids about gay/trans people doesn't make them gay, by that logic teaching kids about Dinosaurs causes them to mutate into reptilian monsters.

[Sarcasim]
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2022, 05:20:48 PM
One side believes it is the state's job.
I'd relax that a little. One side believes that the state should not move to restrict free speech without a particularly good reason.

Teachers get away with some wild shit, mentioning that they have a partner is a drop in the ocean. Consequently, it seems fair to assume that the concern is not with the children's wellbeing, but rather with suppressing a group that the state doesn't like.

We can see that being at least partially true in the small glimpses into Tom's character that he's revealed so far. One of his sources openly states:
Quote
Any teacher who comes out to their students should be fired on the spot.

We're not talking about ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa onto the impressionable youth by force. We're talking about a guy who got asked if he was gay and chose to say "yes". According to Tom's character troll, that should be grounds for firing someone on the spot.

Another one of Tom's sources openly invites people to harass a teacher due to a discussion about the visible and invisible parts of one's identity. Not gender identity, just identity - exemplified in one of the images as "gender, race, religion, language, family, [ability?]". Of course, once again, they call for the teacher to be fired, because somehow that's "grooming". It's pretty cut-and-dried. We're talking about people with no experience with education trying to generate faux outrage because they don't like a certain group of people.

Also, none of this seems to have anything to do with "Trans atheletes" and I'm tempted to split the entire debate into a separate thread.
I support this.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2022, 05:38:32 PM
I'd relax that a little. One side believes that the state should not move to restrict free speech without a particularly good reason.

Teachers get away with some wild shit, mentioning that they have a partner is a drop in the ocean. Consequently, it seems fair to assume that the concern is not with the children's wellbeing, but rather with suppressing a group that the state doesn't like.

We can see that being at least partially true in the small glimpses into Tom's character that he's revealed so far. One of his "sources" openly states:
Quote
Any teacher who comes out to their students should be fired on the spot.

We're not talking about ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa onto the impressionable youth by force. We're talking about a guy who got asked if he was gay and chose to say "yes". According to Tom's character troll, that should be grounds for firing someone on the spot.

Another one of Tom's "sources" openly invites people to harass a teacher due to a discussion about the visible and invisible parts of one's identity. Not gender identity, just identity - exemplified in one of the images as "gender, race, religion, language, family, [ability?]". Of course, once again, they call for the teacher to be fired, because somehow that's "grooming". It's pretty cut-and-dried. We're talking about people with no experience with education trying to generate faux outrage because they don't like a certain group of people.

What the supporters say is irrelevant. The law is not worded as such to be specifically against homosexuals; if it were, it'd be struck down remarkably easily. The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions. Don't like a law? Just label something irrelevant like "Don't Say Gay" then rally your forces against around your strawman. It's a fallacy of such proportion there are a great many people who think it simply must be true.

Does it prevent teachers bringing up their homosexual partner? It seems to do so. Does it prevent teachers bringing up their heterosexual partner? It seems to do that, too. I don't think State employees deserve free speech while operating in a state position. In much the same way, the military does not have free speech. The police should not have free speech while operating as a police officer.

Teachers, police officers, and military personnel represent the state and the interest of the tax payer. They should absolutely not represent themselves, hetero, homo, or otherwise.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2022, 05:44:20 PM
What the supporters say is irrelevant.
[...]
The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions.
Not at all. I'm arguing against Tom. I haven't even read the law, nor do I care about laws in some state whose name eludes me.

What Tom says is the only thing that's relevant when it comes to me ripping into him for abandoning basic logic. He used to be good at this. He can do better.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2022, 05:55:29 PM
What the supporters say is irrelevant.
[...]
The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions.
Not at all. I'm arguing against Tom. I haven't even read the law, nor do I care about laws in some state whose name eludes me.

What Tom says is the only thing that's relevant when it comes to me ripping into him for abandoning basic logic. He used to be good at this. He can do better.

How is that 'not at all' when it seems your problem with Tom is his moral argument. Now, instead of it being The Law vs You, it's The Law vs Tom/You because it turns into "Man With Only Half The Facts in Heated Debate with Man Who Doesn't Have Any At All".
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2022, 06:13:10 PM
How is that 'not at all' when it seems your problem with Tom is his moral argument.
Tom's moral argument is irrelevant to the law. However, the law is irrelevant to the discussion we're having. Saying that Tom's position is irrelevant is "not at all" applicable here, because the discussion is not tethered to the law.

Similarly, the idea that the law is against homosexuals is "not at all" a moral pitfall I have chosen to leap into, because I'm not discussing the law. I haven't even looked at it.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2022, 06:27:12 PM
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
We're not talking about ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa onto the impressionable youth by force. We're talking about a guy who got asked if he was gay and chose to say "yes". According to Tom's character troll, that should be grounds for firing someone on the spot.

Actually he said that he spent the class answering questions about it instead of teaching Social Studies. This is unaccredited education on sexuality outside of the structure of education and it is disturbing that you are choosing to ignore what occurred.

At 5 or 6 they pretty much do. Your last tweet was one about Santa and how kids just accept it. And they do at a young age. When they're older sure, they start to question - the example you gave was of 5th graders, I had to look that up as that means nothing to me in the UK, but that's 10 or 11 year olds, right? So sure, at that age they'll have questions.

You think that children do not start asking questions until they are 10 or 11? Wrong. Here is a comment from an early child eduator:

https://www.quora.com/At-what-age-do-children-usually-start-asking-why-questions

(https://i.imgur.com/Xzfvgov.png)

have no idea how he handled it, nor do you. People on the right do seem to like to be permanently furious and outraged about everything.

We shouldn't need to worry about he handled it. This is the purpose of licensure, certification, standardization, accreditation and educational oversight. So we don't need to be concerned as much about something like a gay man spending the class promoting his gay lifestyle to impressionable minds instead of teaching Social Studies.

Again, we see that you are turning a blind eye to unaccredited instruction on sexuality outside of the structure of education.

In your world they should be taught that how they feel is wrong, that how they are is wrong, that they should be ashamed.

Actually, in my world a child's sexual education should be in the official structure of education and not from an adult man promoting his lifestyle to a classroom under the table.

It's interesting you focus on gender when the first screenshot talks about all kinds of aspects of identity. And of course one of your fellow perma-furious friends shouts that the teacher:

Quote
wonders if anyone [students] will change their minds” presumably about their gender.

But the tweet it's responding to says:

Quote
students are continuing their study of gender by discussing their schema, adding to each other's thinking and determining which identity parts are visible and invisible

And that's the context in which the teacher wonders if anyone will change their mind. How can that possibly be talking about gender? That doesn't even make sense.

It is definitely not interesting to me that you choose to avoid the fact that the screenshot shows that the class was studying gender.

(https://i.imgur.com/y0h5Ytx.png)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2022, 06:32:30 PM
Actually he said that he spent the class time answering questions about it instead of teaching Social Studies.
Egads, conversation! How could this possibly happen in a classroom?!

This is unaccredited education on sexuality outside of the structure of education
lol.
lmao.

it is disturbing that you are choosing to ignore what occurred.
Disturbing to whom? I strongly suspect my credentials in education are stronger than yours, given your comments above. So, whose assessment are you basing this on? Twitter user @LibOwner69420?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2022, 06:49:20 PM
I loved social studies when we talked about current events.
Ya know, studying society.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2022, 07:42:57 PM
ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa
What the hell is the gay agenda anyway. Is it something like:

1) Minutes from last meeting
2) Bumming
3) Any Other Business

I think gays just want equality and to not be oppressed, which seems fairly reasonable. The idea that they are trying to groom kids and won’t rest till they’ve converted everyone to gayness is obvious bullshit.

IF Tom et al had a general problem with teachers mentioning anything about their relationship status - so they’d be against a male teacher mentioning his wife as much as they’d be against him mentioning his husband - then ok. I mean, I think that’s ridiculous, but at least it’s logically consistent. But we all know that this is just bigotry.

All that said, the law as written doesn’t actually seem unreasonable. I’m just not sure it’s solving a problem that actually exists.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2022, 08:07:33 PM
What the hell is the gay agenda anyway.
People who fear what they do not know tend to think that the unknown is invasive.

As such, most arguments are slippery slope ones. For example: if we let gay people talk about how they're gay, there will be more gay children; not just because there will be fewer closeted gays, but because they will actively turn due to the evil influence. A more insidious conspiracy theory that rarely leaves /pol/, but with which Tom has been blatantly flirting here, is that LGBT people are paedophiles, and that they use sex ed to do more than just ed. The farthest extreme of that goes something along the lines of "first it was just about the gays, now it's about transgender people, paedophile tolerance will surely be next on the agenda!!!!1!!1!!"
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2022, 09:09:09 PM
People who fear what they do not know tend to think that the unknown is invasive.

This doesn't make sense. Gays, transgenders, and pedos aren't 'unknown'. They aren't some mysterious force of nature that requires detailed study. This sort of talk is needlessly condescending people.

As such, most arguments are slippery slope ones. For example: if we let gay people talk about how they're gay, there will be more gay children; not just because there will be fewer closeted gays, but because they will actively turn due to the evil influence.

That's true, though. There's still no evidence that homosexuality is a trait set at birth. It's possible that sexual trauma or repeated exposure to 'degenerate' topics warps the brain to a point that causes homosexuality.

A more insidious conspiracy theory that rarely leaves /pol/, but with which Tom has been blatantly flirting here, is that LGBT people are paedophiles, and that they use sex ed to do more than just ed. The farthest extreme of that goes something along the lines of "first it was just about the gays, now it's about transgender people, paedophile tolerance will surely be next on the agenda!!!!1!!1!!"

That's not a conspiracy, there are absolutely individuals trying to make pedophile tolerance a thing. What we may disagree on is the scope of the movement or what scope that movement may eventually reach. It used to be socially acceptable to marry a nine year old. The pendulum may swing into that stance again. Human history and societal frameworks are mostly cyclical.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2022, 09:56:00 PM
You think that children do not start asking questions until they are 10 or 11?
Holy shit your straw manning is tiresome. Obviously I do not think that. But equally obviously 10 and 11 year old are going to be asking different questions to 5 and 6 year olds. Younger children have no real concept of sex or relationships. They're going to be pretty accepting of the fact that some men marry other men, some children have two dads and so on. That's the world they are growing up in and they're going to just accept it.
I'm sorry if you don't like that that's how things are but it is and kids need to learn about the world they're growing up in - in an age appropriate way, of course.
And as I keep saying and as you keep ignoring, it's a lot healthier for kids to grow up in a society where if they do turn out to be gay they're not made to feel that how they feel and how they are is wrong. Being gay is not a conscious choice any more than being straight is.

Quote
So we don't need to be concerned as much about something like a gay man spending the class promoting his gay lifestyle to impressionable minds
I'm not concerned about that. You are. With no basis other than a Helen Lovejoyesque "Think of the children, won't someone please think of the children". But I don't believe the problem you are so very concerned about exists. This dude was asked a question, he answered it and various follow up questions. I'm sure he did so in an age appropriate way and claims that he was "promoting" his gay lifestyle are baseless. What is a "gay lifestyle" anyway? That is completely meaningless. I don't have a "straight" lifestyle. And how was he "promoting" it? What does that mean? You think he was hoping that he could win a few converts? That really isn't how any of this works.

Quote
Again, we see that you are turning a blind eye to unaccredited instruction on sexuality outside of the structure of education.
No, I'm denying that it was instruction on sexuality. The dude was asked some questions, he answered them. Your issue is your continued baseless assertion that he was "promoting his lifestyle".

Quote
It is definitely not interesting to me that you choose to be duplicitous and not mention the other included screenshot where it does talk about the class studying gender.
I literally quoted that tweet in full and explained why your hot take is nonsensical.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 05, 2022, 10:44:24 PM
That's true, though. There's still no evidence that homosexuality is a trait set at birth. It's possible that sexual trauma or repeated exposure to 'degenerate' topics warps the brain to a point that causes homosexuality.

That’s not entirely true. There is definitely some evidence that there is a biological developmental contribution towards homosexual behaviour. It’s not conclusive and there is also a contribution of sociological factors. These factors are all more subtle than a teacher telling a student they have a same sex partner.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2022, 12:01:44 AM
I'm sorry if you don't like that that's how things are but it is

kids need to learn about the world they're growing up in

I'm sure he did so in an age appropriate way

I am sorry to inform you that this is blatantly incorrect. The situation here is that you do not like how things are and how it is. In the US the states control education. The state decides how children learn sexual education and in what manner. Each state has different regulations, but it is regulated nonetheless.

See Michigan Sex Education Laws for example:

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Michigans_Sex_Education_Laws_Summary_303019_7.pdf

There is a Sex Education Advisory Board who reviews the material:

(https://i.imgur.com/1BEwrAZ.png)

Parents are notified about the sex education instruction, and have a right to review the material:

(https://i.imgur.com/ps0e5Lf.png)

There is a Sex Education Supervisor approved by the Michigan Department of Education who oversees the program instruction:

(https://i.imgur.com/PpWQvWS.png)

The teachers need to be qualified or certified in some manner:

(https://i.imgur.com/lPRildP.png)

This is the law. This is the defacto "how thigs are". Anything else is against the law.

Again, what you lot are proposing is that a LGBTQ member should be able to give ad-hoc sex education lessons about gay sexuality outside of the formal educational practices. This is not legitimate.

Disturbing to whom? I strongly suspect my credentials in education are stronger than yours, given your comments above.

As someone with some form of credentials in education you should know the the state controls education, and that a gay man spending a class answering questions about gay sexuality instead of teaching Social Studies is illegitimate, improper, and likely illegal in his state.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2022, 01:14:33 AM
a gay man spending a class answering questions about gay sexuality instead of teaching Social Studies
Ah, hold on, there's that sneaky bait-and-switch again. He did not spend a class answering questions. Your assertion was that he spent class time doing so, which I can't dispute - he clearly did do that. However, unless you have knowledge that wasn't presented in your reference material, he did not claim to spend an entire class doing so.

Now, based on my own conversations with (admittedly older) students, I suggest that a personal digression like that might take a few minutes, nothing that would fall out of the usual contingencies. It would be a gross overreach to suggest that this is a problem, provided that he still covered the intended learning outcomes of his session.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2022, 01:22:12 AM
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Ah, hold on, there's that sneaky bait-and-switch again. He did not spend a class answering questions. Your assertion was that he spent class time doing so, which I can't dispute - he clearly did do that. However, unless you have knowledge that wasn't presented in your reference material, he did not claim to spend an entire class doing so.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1510840044247998468 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1510840044247998468)

@ 0:47 - "They of course went bezerk ... so instead of teaching Social Studies today they just asked me a whole bunch of questions about being gay"

It sure sounds like he replaced the day's Social Studies class with a Q&A about gay sexuality.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2022, 01:25:02 AM
To me, it sounds like hyperbole. As a frequent user of that rhetorical device, surely you're not suddenly against it.

Of course, if he did waste an entire class on something other than teaching, that's a problem. However, it would be a completely separate (and comparably very minor) issue to the one you were describing up until now. If you're moving from "evil LGBT agenda is trying to groom our kids!!1!" to "one teacher somewhere out there may have wasted a single class once", then this is a welcome de-escalation. But this is not a "FIRE HIM ON THE SPOT!11!!" offence as your @LibCrusher420xD friend claims. That's a "gentle slap on the wrist" kind of offence.

Remember, the tweet you're defending claims that "Any teacher who comes out to their students should be fired on the spot." It's pretty out there, and it sure as hell does not focus on the time potentially wasted. ;)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 04:02:27 AM
a gay man spending a class answering questions about gay sexuality instead of teaching Social Studies
Ah, hold on, there's that sneaky bait-and-switch again. He did not spend a class answering questions. Your assertion was that he spent class time doing so, which I can't dispute - he clearly did do that. However, unless you have knowledge that wasn't presented in your reference material, he did not claim to spend an entire class doing so.

Now, based on my own conversations with (admittedly older) students, I suggest that a personal digression like that might take a few minutes, nothing that would fall out of the usual contingencies. It would be a gross overreach to suggest that this is a problem, provided that he still covered the intended learning outcomes of his session.

Even if he spent an entire class talking about it, so what?
He is a SOCIAL STUDIES teacher.  And based on corriculum, current events are part of social studies.  Its not just about maps or historical dates.  So spending a class discussing how gays live (the same as other people) or answering questions regarding society and its treatment of gays, while also promoting discussion on it, is a perfectly appropriate lesson.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 06, 2022, 08:14:29 AM
Even if he spent an entire class talking about it, so what?
Right. I don't think this is that big an issue.

Kids need to learn about the world they're living in. Tom can put his fingers in his ears and go "laa laa laa" as much as he likes, but the truth is that world is now one where being gay is accepted and gay marriage is legal in many places. That might not be the world he grew up in, it's not the one I did either, but it's the world we live in now and that's what kids need to learn about.

And I note Tom continues to ignore the point that as kids start to discover their sexuality it's a lot more healthy for them to do so in a world where how they feel is accepted than one where it's thought to be wrong, shameful and acting on it is illegal. No-one consciously chooses their sexuality, to be told that how you feel - how you are - is wrong is reprehensible. I'm pretty glad that as a species we have evolved past that. Well, most of us have.

It should also be noted that this teacher didn't mince in to class actively trying to "promote the gay lifestyle" (whatever the hell that means). He wasn't handing out fliers trying to recruit more kids to gayness. The pupils asked the questions and he responded. I'm going to assume that he did so in an age appropriate way because most people would, especially a teacher. You can question whether he should have let that go on all class - if it did. I would agree that he probably shouldn't have. [As an aside, when I was doing Computer Science A Level, one of my teachers was a Star Trek nut. If you could steer the conversation towards that then that was end of lesson!  :D]. But, overall, will it do those kids harm? They get a better relationship with that teacher, they learned a bit more about the world. I don't think this is worth the amount of hand wringing that it has generated from certain people.

Because what those people really mean, but are trying not to say out loud, is that homosexuality is sinful and an abomination and should still be illegal. But because that is no longer the prevailing view, they have to pretend that they're trying to protect children from all these "child catcher" gays "promoting their gay lifestyle". They'd be perfectly happy with children being indoctrinated if it was to a worldview they approve of.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2022, 09:28:22 AM
Even if he spent an entire class talking about it, so what?
So nothing. I don't know where you got the idea that me saying something would earn you a light slap on the wrist means I consider it a big deal.

Yes, it's technically a minor deviation from the rules. No, it's not one anyone with any authority would do anything about.

And that's only if it happened the way Tom describes it, which, anecdotally, I doubt.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on April 06, 2022, 10:19:54 AM
"Oh my god! Teachers cannot talk about their sex lives to children!"

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 01:53:31 PM
That's true, though. There's still no evidence that homosexuality is a trait set at birth. It's possible that sexual trauma or repeated exposure to 'degenerate' topics warps the brain to a point that causes homosexuality.

That’s not entirely true. There is definitely some evidence that there is a biological developmental contribution towards homosexual behaviour. It’s not conclusive and there is also a contribution of sociological factors. These factors are all more subtle than a teacher telling a student they have a same sex partner.

Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography). I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: garygreen on April 06, 2022, 02:13:55 PM
The law is not worded as such to be specifically against homosexuals; if it were, it'd be struck down remarkably easily. The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions.

However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states).

i'm glad you finally came around to admitting that the law is intentionally targeting the gay community because people like you think being gay is bad.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 03:00:51 PM
The law is not worded as such to be specifically against homosexuals; if it were, it'd be struck down remarkably easily. The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions.

However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states).

i'm glad you finally came around to admitting that the law is intentionally targeting the gay community because people like you think being gay is bad.

 ??? You quoted from two completely different unrelated arguments.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 06, 2022, 03:13:04 PM
That's true, though. There's still no evidence that homosexuality is a trait set at birth. It's possible that sexual trauma or repeated exposure to 'degenerate' topics warps the brain to a point that causes homosexuality.

That’s not entirely true. There is definitely some evidence that there is a biological developmental contribution towards homosexual behaviour. It’s not conclusive and there is also a contribution of sociological factors. These factors are all more subtle than a teacher telling a student they have a same sex partner.

Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography).

Agreed.

Quote
I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.

I would love to agree with this, but we are talking about DeSantisand Florida; the same state that proudly presented a bill called the “Stop Woke Act” and DeSantis dressed down a teenager for wearing a mask to a press conference. Florida has never seemed interested in protecting anyone and the timing of this, as trans rights movements are gaining momentum, is highly suspicious. Maybe I’m too cynical, but Florida’s government seems extremely interested in owning da libs. 

Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 03:56:35 PM
That's true, though. There's still no evidence that homosexuality is a trait set at birth. It's possible that sexual trauma or repeated exposure to 'degenerate' topics warps the brain to a point that causes homosexuality.

That’s not entirely true. There is definitely some evidence that there is a biological developmental contribution towards homosexual behaviour. It’s not conclusive and there is also a contribution of sociological factors. These factors are all more subtle than a teacher telling a student they have a same sex partner.

Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography). I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.

I mean, if they couldn't turn gay teens straight with actual torture, I don't think a classroom will do it either.

I suppose if you forced kids into sex for years with the same sex, they might become bi or gay.  But that is pretty extreme.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2022, 05:06:59 PM
Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography). I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.

So what your saying is that no teacher should be allowed to talk about their home life with their students.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 05:54:13 PM
Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography). I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.

So what your saying is that no teacher should be allowed to talk about their home life with their students.

Why should they ever bring it up in the first place? I don't recall any of my teachers ever bringing up their 'home life' in such a way that it qualifies as introducing sexual topics to a child.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2022, 06:49:38 PM
Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography). I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.
So what your saying is that no teacher should be allowed to talk about their home life with their students.

Why should they ever bring it up in the first place? I don't recall any of my teachers ever bringing up their 'home life' in such a way that it qualifies as introducing sexual topics to a child.

Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."

Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 06, 2022, 07:23:12 PM
Like all right thinking people I am sickened by this. Sickened!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L6uYi-425xE

Promoting his heterosexual lifestyle like this. Trying to turn all these kids straight. I bet when they stopped filming he started banging her on the desk in front of the children
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2022, 07:45:16 PM
Oh god, that reminds me of the married teachers at school.  Wonder how that would go down.

"Is Mrs. Smith your wife, Mr. Smith?"

"I'm sorry, its illegal for me to tell you."
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 08:04:50 PM
Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."

Correct.

Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2022, 08:19:08 PM
Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."

Correct.

Fair enough.  Sure as hell glad I didn't go to that school.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 08:25:20 PM
Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."

Correct.

Fair enough.  Sure as hell glad I didn't go to that school.

Yes, I'm sure you have lots of fond memories about teachers talking about their honeymoon while you were five years old. I'm sure you cannot imagine what you'd do without them.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2022, 08:33:34 PM
Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."

Correct.

Fair enough.  Sure as hell glad I didn't go to that school.

Yes, I'm sure you have lots of fond memories about teachers talking about their honeymoon while you were five years old. I'm sure you cannot imagine what you'd do without them.

No, but who determines what's an acceptable personal discussion to have. 

Is, "Hey (male) Teach, how'd you like the game last night."

"My husband and I thought it was great."

acceptable?

How 'bout "Hey (male) Teach, how'd you like the game last night."

"My wife and I thought it was great."
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 08:37:25 PM
No, but who determines what's an acceptable personal discussion to have. 

Is, "Hey (male) Teach, how'd you like the game last night."

"My husband and I thought it was great."

acceptable?

How 'bout "Hey (male) Teach, how'd you like the game last night."

"My wife and I thought it was great."

Well, for starters, what in the world kind of kindergartners are you creating? "how'd you like the game last night?" Are you sure this is a kindergartner or is this a 35 year old man at a bar?

Secondly, why not simply "I thought it was great"? The question was "how did YOU like that game last night?" not "how did YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY like the game last night?". Are teachers incapable of basic language parsing where you come from?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2022, 08:39:49 PM
Sorry, missed the part where anything was dictated that everything stopped at the age of 5.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2022, 08:41:18 PM
Secondly, why not simply "I thought it was great"? The question was "how did YOU like that game last night?" not "how did YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY like the game last night?". Are teachers incapable of basic language parsing where you come from?

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 08:43:22 PM
Sorry, missed the part where anything was dictated that everything stopped at the age of 5.

The law stops at third grade. In the most extreme of cases, you're dealing with a 9 year old. The majority will stop at 7 or 8. I don't know how many third graders you interact with, but they usually don't sound like a grown man at the local bar.

Secondly, why not simply "I thought it was great"? The question was "how did YOU like that game last night?" not "how did YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY like the game last night?". Are teachers incapable of basic language parsing where you come from?

Irrelevant.

This is low content nonsense. Don't do it again. Warned.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2022, 08:59:03 PM
Secondly, why not simply "I thought it was great"? The question was "how did YOU like that game last night?" not "how did YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY like the game last night?". Are teachers incapable of basic language parsing where you come from?

Irrelevant.

This is low content nonsense. Don't do it again. Warned.

OK, I'll be more verbose.  Your "But he coulda" response is irrelevant to the question I asked.  At what point and in what context does a mention of one's spouse become off limits.  All of them?  A teacher is never allowed to admit they have a spouse until they are teaching 4th grade or higher?  More importantly, if all spouse mentions are not off limits, then are strictly same sex spouses not allowed?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2022, 09:01:13 PM
OK, I'll be more verbose.  Your "But he coulda" response is irrelevant to the question I asked.  At what point and in what context does a mention of one's spouse become off limits.  All of them?

The law is vague enough that it's left up to interpretation by the school and parents. This is as it should be, since parents pay for the school via taxes, the parents should have the most say in how teachers interact with the children in their class.

More importantly, if all spouse metions are not off limits, then are strictly same sex spouses not allowed?

If that were the case, the law would be struck down quickly. The law carries no verbatim language specifically targeting sexual orientation.

Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 06, 2022, 11:23:13 PM
If that were the case, the law would be struck down quickly. The law carries no verbatim language specifically targeting sexual orientation.

Not targeting a specific sexual orientation, but targeting the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in general. From the law itself:

prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/er/pdf

Im just not sure how that plays out in real world scenarios. I’m not sure how “discussion” is defined. If a kid asks about the ring around a teachers finger, or the photos of their kids on the desk or why their teacher, Ms. Smith, is not called Mrs like their gym teacher, Mrs. Smith, etc. it’s all a little murky and I’m not sure what “problem” the law is trying to solve.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Roundy on April 07, 2022, 12:32:28 AM
Well one good thing about this law. It's like how Obama reminded us that there are still vicious racists out there. A lot of people seem to like to pretend to be friendly to those of the LGBTQ+ persuasion, it's kinda in vogue.

Anyone defending this law is doing it from a place of bigotry. They think they can make it sound righteous (Think of the poor children!). But you don't make an effort to defend this law in any way unless you're a bigot. There's no reason to; unless you are a bigot who is afraid the gay will rub off, you have no reason to think it necessary.

So it's rooted some of those fakes out. Shown their true colors.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 07, 2022, 08:44:26 AM
It's like Brexit. Not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist, but all the racists definitely voted for it.
With this bill, I don't think you have to be a homophobic bigot to support it, but all the homophobic bigots definitely do.
The law, as written, doesn't seem so unreasonable. It talks about teaching things in an age appropriate way. But isn't that obvious? Surely that already happens. What problem does this bill solve? You can tell in Tom's posts what problem he thinks there is:

Quote
If the teacher hypes it up they'll think it's great. It is dangerous to allow the LGBTQ to promote their own ideology to children
...
If you think that he wasn't promoting being gay to children or hyping it up you are kidding yourself.
...
We don't need to be concerned as much about something like a gay man spending the class promoting his gay lifestyle to impressionable minds
...
the absurdity of allowing the LGBTQ to accost children with their ideologies they discovered as adults and encourage the children to "question".

Look at the kind of language he's using. "promoting" their ideology, "promoting being gay", "hyping it up", "promoting his gay lifestyle, "accosting children"
This utter bullshit that gay people are actively trying to recruit others and encourage kids to be gay. How would that even work?
Elsewhere he rolls his eyes that:

Quote
[the teacher is] upset that she can't talk to pre-schoolers about their sexuality and prevent them from feeling "unloved or ashamed for who they are".

When Pete asked him to clarify if he proposes that some children should feel unloved or ashamed for who they are, Tom replies "yes, certainly" and:

Quote
"When a student has such a problem the answer is to inform the parents or refer them to the school psychology services...Most parents do not want their children to be groomed or instructed by teachers who seek to validate the child's supposed sexuality"

Note how the mask slips here. Tom is pretending that he's super concerned about children and their education. What he's actually scared of is that a child might turn out to be gay because that is "a problem". He has no problem with children being indoctrinated, just so long as that it's to a way of life he agrees with and doesn't consider a sinful abomination.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2022, 11:38:40 AM
Quote
Look at the kind of language he's using. "promoting" their ideology, "promoting being gay", "hyping it up", "promoting his gay lifestyle, "accosting children"

Yes, if you ask someone who enjoys doing or being a certain thing about that topic they will most likely say something positive about it. Saying something positive about it is promoting it. It is not unbiased emotionless instruction about different flavors of sexuality like you would read in a dictionary or in some textbooks. Children having Q&A with random LGBTQ people outside of the structure of education is not healthy at all. Nor is Q&A with an old man about heterosexuality. It is also disturbing to think of a random person giving uncertified instruction about straight sex and sexuality to very young children.

Sexual education is the responsibility of the state and of the patents. Many states have an authorization structure for sex education, oversight of the content material, and requires consent from parents. Society already has a mechanism for education, and has had a mechanism for many years.

The argument that young children need to be accosted by random people with their own ideas about sexuality because you feels that "kids need to learn" or the similar garbage you are flaunting is irrelevant.  It is simply improper to decide on your own, outside of the framework of education, without oversight, and without the permission of parents, that a classroom full of young children are ready to learn about sexuality in the way you see sexuality from you. You must go through the proper channels. And the proper channels will get together and debate it out with child psychologists, parents, experts, and provide a structure for that. They will also end up drafting laws saying that education is the responsibility of the state and of the parents, and as in Florida's case, that very young children should not be subjected to lessons on sexuality.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2022, 01:08:23 PM
We are still waiting to know what problem this solves. There is no epidemic of K-3 children being taught about sexuality. It’s a manufactured panic. As AATW already stated, kids are surely being taught in an age appropriate manner in the vast majority of cases. I think you’ll struggle to find a child psychologist who says that a certain topic should be absolutely taboo, but instead support ideas being introduced in an age appropriate manner. You will likely not find many child psychologists who insist that ONLY a parent should be the source of any information. That notion just comes from a desire to control a child’s world and isn’t an inherent good.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 07, 2022, 01:24:22 PM
Yes, if you ask someone who enjoys doing or being a certain thing about that topic they will most likely say something positive about it.
If the "something positive" is that it's OK to be gay then, given the world we now live in where being gay is accepted and gay marriage is legal, I'd suggest that's a good message for kids to be hearing. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, it is clearly a lot more healthy for a kid who is gay to grow up feeling loved and accepted rather than being told that how they feel, how they are is wrong and shameful. That old attitude has done so much harm down the years. The fact that you think that gay kids should feel unloved or ashamed for who they are is reprehensible.

I don't even know what you mean "enjoy". Do you enjoy being heterosexual? What does that even mean? You might enjoy sex, maybe that gay teacher does. I seriously doubt you or he would be telling kids about that though. The idea that gays are trying to "recruit" is bullshit. And how would that work? No-one consciously chooses their sexuality.

Quote
The argument that young children need to be accosted by random people with their own ideas about sexuality because you feels that "kids need to learn" or the similar garbage you are flaunting is irrelevant.
It's not "irrelevant", it's simply not an argument that I or anyone else is making.
Firstly, "accosted". What the hell are you talking about? You know what that means, right?
"approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.". Who is suggesting that?
And "random people"? Aren't we talking about the context of a school? We are talking about trained teachers.

And "their own ideas about sexuality"? What does that mean? What I've consistently said is that kids need to learn about the world they're growing up in. That world is now one in which being gay is legal and accepted. Gay marriage is legal in many places, gay adoption is too.
You may think that gay kids should grow up feeling unloved or ashamed of who they are. I absolutely do not think that and I'm glad that as a society we have moved past that

You keep pretending that you don't want kids indoctrinated - not that I think they are being. What you really mean is you don't want them indoctrinated in a way you personally don't approve of.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2022, 02:11:20 PM
Well one good thing about this law. It's like how Obama reminded us that there are still vicious racists out there. A lot of people seem to like to pretend to be friendly to those of the LGBTQ+ persuasion, it's kinda in vogue.

Anyone defending this law is doing it from a place of bigotry. They think they can make it sound righteous (Think of the poor children!). But you don't make an effort to defend this law in any way unless you're a bigot. There's no reason to; unless you are a bigot who is afraid the gay will rub off, you have no reason to think it necessary.

So it's rooted some of those fakes out. Shown their true colors.

There are individuals who spent the past 16 pages explaining to you various reasons why this law now exists. Unfortunately, in modern times, people are all too excited to play the victim and put words in other people's mouths.

If your argument starts with "No, your stance isn't what you say it is, it's what I say it is" then your argument is pointless. Here's what I would say if I take the same argument tactics as you:

"You and anyone who dislikes this law just wants to have sex with children. That's it. There's no other reason for being against this law. You want to fuck children and you're outing yourself for attacking this law. That's the only possible reason. You're putting effort into attacking this law because you're a pedophile. That's it. End of story."

See how easy it is to just ignore the things you say and make up my own things. Amazing.

If that were the case, the law would be struck down quickly. The law carries no verbatim language specifically targeting sexual orientation.

Not targeting a specific sexual orientation, but targeting the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in general. From the law itself:

prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/er/pdf

Im just not sure how that plays out in real world scenarios. I’m not sure how “discussion” is defined. If a kid asks about the ring around a teachers finger, or the photos of their kids on the desk or why their teacher, Ms. Smith, is not called Mrs like their gym teacher, Mrs. Smith, etc. it’s all a little murky and I’m not sure what “problem” the law is trying to solve.

Okay? If I say "no white people allowed in my business" that is racist. If I say "no people allowed" that is not racist (and probably very bad for business). I'm not sure how you've taken "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT. Is a fundamental quality of LGBT requiring that you talk to children about sexual topics?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2022, 04:51:23 PM
We are still waiting to know what problem this solves. There is no epidemic of K-3 children being taught about sexuality. It’s a manufactured panic. As AATW already stated, kids are surely being taught in an age appropriate manner in the vast majority of cases. I think you’ll struggle to find a child psychologist who says that a certain topic should be absolutely taboo, but instead support ideas being introduced in an age appropriate manner. You will likely not find many child psychologists who insist that ONLY a parent should be the source of any information. That notion just comes from a desire to control a child’s world and isn’t an inherent good.

This 'epidemic' argument is bunk on its face. It actually doesn't matter how many murders occur to justify murder being illegal, as an example.

Another article about the LGBTQ sexualization of children came out today about Pre-K education in Illinois - Daily Wire - School District To Pre-K Students: Draw Your Own Transgender Pride Flag (https://www.dailywire.com/news/school-district-to-pre-k-students-draw-your-own-transgender-pride-flag)

No parental consent to this education:


Teaching children that they can be a boy or a girl or "both" a girl and a boy, or "neither", or "something else":


Reading books to little boys which promote crossdressing:


Do you have an argument in favor for why very young children and special needs kids should be taught that they can be "both" a girl and a boy, or "something else", and that crossdressing is fabulous?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2022, 05:53:56 PM
We are still waiting to know what problem this solves. There is no epidemic of K-3 children being taught about sexuality. It’s a manufactured panic. As AATW already stated, kids are surely being taught in an age appropriate manner in the vast majority of cases. I think you’ll struggle to find a child psychologist who says that a certain topic should be absolutely taboo, but instead support ideas being introduced in an age appropriate manner. You will likely not find many child psychologists who insist that ONLY a parent should be the source of any information. That notion just comes from a desire to control a child’s world and isn’t an inherent good.

This 'epidemic' argument is bunk on its face. It actually doesn't matter how many murders occur to justify murder being illegal, as an example.

We aren't talking about crimes.

Quote
Another article about the LGBTQ sexualization of children came out today about Pre-K education in Illinois - Daily Wire - School District To Pre-K Students: Draw Your Own Transgender Pride Flag (https://www.dailywire.com/news/school-district-to-pre-k-students-draw-your-own-transgender-pride-flag)

No parental consent to this education:

    Speaking to The Daily Wire on condition of anonymity, a parent whose spouse works as a teacher in the district said presenting gender-based ideology ought to be the “purview of parents.” The parent said “teaching this to children without parental consent” is not the right thing to do.

Teaching children that they can be a boy or a girl or "both" a girl and a boy, or "neither", or "something else":

    Gender-based curricula have also been implemented during other equity-focused weeks. During BLM month in February, the district presented slides on being a “Transgender ally” that told special needs kids they may choose to be “a boy or girl or both or neither, or something else” since “no one gets to choose for them,” according to slides reviewed by The Daily Wire

So you don't think gender is a social construct and people should identify how they choose to?  You think the State should dictate how people identify?

Quote
Reading books to little boys which promote crossdressing:

    Following this, teachers were instructed to do a “read aloud” of books that have a social justice bent. One suggested book is “Julián is a Mermaid,” which is about a boy who sees how women are dressed “spectacularly” and goes home to dress “like the ladies.”

Do you have an argument in favor for why very young children and special needs kids should be taught that they can be "both" a girl and a boy, or "something else", and that crossdressing is fabulous?

See above about how people want to identify.  I think people shouldn't be told they have to identify how society wants them to.  I would think that you also wouldn't want the government to interfere with what is a personal choice, but hey ho, lets go authoritarianism!

Crossdressing is fabulous and although many queer identifying people do it, heterosexual people also engage in it. My brother-in-law's father is known for doing drag shows at family functions and he is straight; it is not strictly a sexual act.  Now you have to explain why you want to enforce the heterosexual ideology that certain clothes should only be worn by certain sexes.  I thought you were against people enforcing sexual ideology.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2022, 06:16:36 PM
See above about how people want to identify.  I think people shouldn't be told they have to identify how society wants them to.  I would think that you also wouldn't want the government to interfere with what is a personal choice, but hey ho, lets go authoritarianism!

Crossdressing is fabulous and although many queer identifying people do it, heterosexual people also engage in it. My brother-in-law's father is known for doing drag shows at family functions and he is straight; it is not strictly a sexual act.  Now you have to explain why you want to enforce the heterosexual ideology that certain clothes should only be worn by certain sexes.  I thought you were against people enforcing sexual ideology.

Yes, your brother is a drag queen and loves crossdressing. Awesome. But why do we therefore need to read books to ages 3 - 5 which tell them that crossdressing is fabulous?

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming. It is not merely letting them know that crossdressers exist.

Quote from: Rama Set
So you don't think gender is a social construct and people should identify how they choose to?  You think the State should dictate how people identify?

I don't see any legitimate argument from you for why ages 3 to 5 must be taught that they can be gender fluid and be "both" a girl and a boy or "neither" or "something else".

The parents didn't agree to that like they agree to normal sex education in elementary school. How is that appropriate at all?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2022, 06:21:43 PM
This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.
Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2022, 06:52:03 PM
See above about how people want to identify.  I think people shouldn't be told they have to identify how society wants them to.  I would think that you also wouldn't want the government to interfere with what is a personal choice, but hey ho, lets go authoritarianism!

Crossdressing is fabulous and although many queer identifying people do it, heterosexual people also engage in it. My brother-in-law's father is known for doing drag shows at family functions and he is straight; it is not strictly a sexual act.  Now you have to explain why you want to enforce the heterosexual ideology that certain clothes should only be worn by certain sexes.  I thought you were against people enforcing sexual ideology.

Yes, your brother is a drag queen and loves crossdressing. Awesome. But why do we therefore need to read books to ages 3 - 5 which tell them that crossdressing is fabulous?

Uh, seems you would have to make an arguement as to why not.  If there is nothing wrong with cross-dressing why are you making it in to a taboo?

Quote
This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming. It is not merely letting them know that crossdressers exist.

Grooming for what?  Cher covers?  Crossdressing is not an exclusively sexual act.

Quote

I don't see any legitimate argument from you for why ages 3 to 5 must to be taught that they can be gender fluid and be "both" a girl and a boy or "neither" or "something else".

Because kids need to know that their thoughts, feelings and experiences are ok.  That they can discuss them without stigma and that being different doesn't make them wrong or bad.

Quote
The parents didn't agree to that like they agree to normal sex education in elementary school. How is that appropriate at all?

I don't agree that parents should dictate an educational curriculum based on their own comfort.  There are people who think that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the Earth is flat and we don't accomodate those beliefs either.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 07, 2022, 07:37:07 PM

If that were the case, the law would be struck down quickly. The law carries no verbatim language specifically targeting sexual orientation.

Not targeting a specific sexual orientation, but targeting the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in general. From the law itself:

prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/er/pdf

Im just not sure how that plays out in real world scenarios. I’m not sure how “discussion” is defined. If a kid asks about the ring around a teachers finger, or the photos of their kids on the desk or why their teacher, Ms. Smith, is not called Mrs like their gym teacher, Mrs. Smith, etc. it’s all a little murky and I’m not sure what “problem” the law is trying to solve.

Okay? If I say "no white people allowed in my business" that is racist. If I say "no people allowed" that is not racist (and probably very bad for business). I'm not sure how you've taken "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT. Is a fundamental quality of LGBT requiring that you talk to children about sexual topics?

I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2022, 11:17:16 PM
I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

Then I'm misunderstanding what problem you have with the law. Do you think K-3 elementary schoolers should be introduced to sexual orientation topics, despite not having hit puberty and those topics obviously making zero sense to them?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2022, 11:40:57 PM
This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.
Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508912865293619202

Disney corporate president claims to have one transgender child and one pansexual child and has committed to having "many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories" and wants a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508926408332034049
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 07, 2022, 11:43:08 PM
I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

Then I'm misunderstanding what problem you have with the law. Do you think K-3 elementary schoolers should be introduced to sexual orientation topics, despite not having hit puberty and those topics obviously making zero sense to them?

1) The problem I have is that I don't know what "problem" it is trying to solve. Is there an issue today that requires such a thing? Is the very comprehensive existing FLA teacher's code of conduct and current mechanisms for oversight lacking in some way? That seems unclear to me.
2) Akin to #1, seems like a government overreach that is unnecessary
3) It's so vague and loose that teachers could easily be unfairly dragged into a lawsuit based upon such broad potential interpretations. Sapped by legal fees just to defend against something that could be extremely innocuous
4) And I do think it could be misused by some with an agenda
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2022, 11:54:01 PM
1) The problem I have is that I don't know what "problem" it is trying to solve. Is there an issue today that requires such a thing? Is the very comprehensive existing FLA teacher's code of conduct and current mechanisms for oversight lacking in some way? That seems unclear to me.
2) Akin to #1, seems like a government overreach that is unnecessary

Are you overly familiar with the elementary school curriculum in Florida? Obviously not, I think; better let Florida voters decide how to run it. Is that hard for you to accept?

3) It's so vague and loose that teachers could easily be unfairly dragged into a lawsuit based upon such broad potential interpretations. Sapped by legal fees just to defend against something that could be extremely innocuous

The vagueness allows for interpretation in various school systems. Some parents want their children taught differently than others. Surprise!

4) And I do think it could be misused by some with an agenda

I could say this and imagine any number of magic scenarios for any number of laws on the books throughout the US. Your imagination is not a debate point. Stop using it.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: stack on April 07, 2022, 11:56:45 PM
This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.
Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2022, 12:20:58 AM
This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.
Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".

If you listen to it she says that "wherever I could I was basically adding queerness" into her Disney content.

Does your idea of "accepting" mean that your friends and relatives try to make the lives of their children as queer as possible before they have even decided that they want to be queer? Likely not.
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 08, 2022, 12:36:14 AM
I would define it as grooming when you [...]
No, sorry, I'm not looking for examples. I'm looking for a definition. What does the word "grooming" mean, in your view?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2022, 12:42:02 AM
I have provided my view of what grooming is here:

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

I sincerely hope this clears up the confusion. Did you have any commentary to make about the grooming issue?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 08, 2022, 02:01:59 AM
This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.
Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".

If you listen to it she says that "wherever I could I was basically adding queerness" into her Disney content.

So? What's wrong with that inclusion? Are you saying that there should only be hetero couples in children's media?

Does your idea of "accepting" mean that your friends and relatives try to make the lives of their children as queer as possible before they have even decided that they want to be queer? Likely not.

How does including "queerness" into Disney content "make the lives of their children as queer as possible"? That's like saying the vast majority of heterosexual content makes gay people as straight as possible. It would literally mean there are no gay people because they were exposed to pretty much solely heterosexual content as children.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2022, 02:41:13 AM
I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

The woman says that she is purposely making the content as queer as possible and declaring that she has a gay agenda. This is conditioning and grooming, full stop.  It doesn't matter if you think it won't work. It's still conditioning. It does not matter if you think that the script she received has heterosexual content, it doesn't matter. When you have an agenda and ideology and are purposely trying to find ways to push your views it onto children you are a groomer and are pushing an agenda. This is grooming as I had described it and is clearly an act of pushing an agenda, no matter the poor excuses made for it.

Similarly, if you get a book and cross out the male names and replace them with female names you are pushing a certain agenda, no matter what backward excuse you make for it - such as claiming that you are balancing out patriarchal society or whatever wacked justification you can conceive of. You are indisputably pushing an agenda. Plain and simple.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 08, 2022, 02:53:12 AM
I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

The woman says that she is purposely making the content as queer as possible and declaring that she have a gay agenda. This is conditioning and grooming, full stop.  It doesn't matter if you think it won't work. It's still conditioning. It does not matter if you think that the script she received has heterosexual content, it doesn't matter. When you have an agenda and ideology and are purposely trying to find ways to push your views it onto children you are a groomer and are pushing an agenda. This is grooming and pushing an agenda, no matter what incredibly poor excuses are made for it.

Similarly if you get a book and cross out the male names and replace them with female names you are pushing a certain agenda, no matter what backassward excuse you make for it for trying to balance out society or whatever wacked justification. You are indisputably pushing an agenda. Plain and simple.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: scomato on April 08, 2022, 03:27:46 AM
Teaching queer perspectives on all facets of life is very important, sexuality and gender is only a small part of it.

And, if we're going to be pedantic about this, being LGBT is only a 'queering' of gender and sexuality because heterosexuality and 'family values' are oppressively enforced, globally. Stop thinking only within western contexts.

For example queerness in America and queerness and India are two completely different conversations involving a queering of two completely different sets of social and cultural relationship/marital norms. There is not one 'gay' monolith, but conservatives have created a bogeyman out of thin air.

Queerness, and oppression, are two sides of the same coin. They do not exist without the other, for if there were no oppressive societal externalities there would be no queering.

You could very much argue that flat earth, and alternative sciences like it, are 'queer' science, and conspiracy theories 'queer' politics, because they subvert the status-quo of what is widely socially accepted, and you will find that there is soft social pressures everywhere that see this enforced. I mean, try getting a job as a scientist, policymaker, or teacher, if you're 'out' as a flat earther? Doors will be shut on your face, that is what it means to be queer.

Thinking that queerness starts and stops inside the bedroom is small-minded.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 08, 2022, 07:36:55 AM
I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.
Ha. Exactly this. Tom is pretending that he cares about children being groomed and indoctrinated. What he really means is he wants them groomed and indoctrinated but into his way of thinking and no-one else's. It's telling that he doesn't understand why representation is important and conflates that with "conditioning and grooming". As a white, heterosexual male most of the TV shows and movies I watched growing up had people in I could identify with. If there was a gay character they were usually a caricature and a punchline. I do think this representation can go a bit too far sometimes, it does feel like every major show now has to have a gay character. I don't approve of "quotas", for sexuality or race in terms of representation*. But, overall, I think it's important that kids have positive role models they can identify with.

(*or in the workplace, while we are here. I work for a very "woke" organisation and they are looking at quotas in senior leadership. I think that's bullshit, honestly. I shouldn't get a job because I'm white, male or straight but neither should I be denied one because I don't tick the right boxes. Positive discrimination is an oxymoron. The solution to discrimination is equal opportunity, not more discrimination).
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2022, 09:02:59 AM
I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

Yeah, no. When your friends and relatives opted not to push a sexuality onto their child in the above example I gave they did not advocate for a "heterosexual agenda". Parents who are "accepting" typically means that they have no agenda for their child, and which I would advocate for.

If your selected sexual preference isn't the norm in society then it merely means that it isn't the norm. It is not justification at all to push a sexuality onto a child to make them into homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, trans, or whatever of the 27 genderfluid identities you decide is best for them.

Why not just let them decide later in their lives like others have done when discovering their sexuality?

Not sure why you are turning a blind  eye to the homosexual agenda by talking about hetrosexuality and leaving out all of the other sexualities you could possibly push onto a child. There is a flaw there. The child could be a sexuality that is neither homosexual or heterosexual. The smallest introspection on this will therefore show that it is wrong to deliberately push a sexuality onto a child by making their life as queer as possible under a "gay agenda".

In fact, you have no defense, which why you are unable to directly justify making a child's life or media queer or employing a gay agenda onto children, and have to argue with the "no u" tactic.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 08, 2022, 09:51:33 AM
I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

Yeah, no. When your friends and relatives opted not to push a sexuality onto their child in the above example I gave they did not advocate for a "heterosexual agenda". Parents who are "accepting" typically means that they have no agenda for their child, and which I would advocate for.

If your selected sexual preference isn't the norm in society then it merely means that it isn't the norm. It is not justification at all to push a sexuality onto a child to make them into homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, trans, or whatever of the 27 genderfluid identities you decide is best for them.

Why not just let them decide later in their lives like others have done when discovering their sexuality?

Not sure why you are turning a blind  eye to the homosexual agenda by talking about hetrosexuality and leaving out all of the other sexualities you could possibly push onto a child. There is a flaw there. The child could be a sexuality that is neither homosexual or heterosexual. The smallest introspection on this will therefore show that it is wrong to deliberately push a sexuality onto a child by making their life as queer as possible under a "gay agenda".

In fact, you have no defense, which why you are unable to directly justify making a child's life or media queer or employing a gay agenda onto children, and have to argue with the "no u" tactic.

Define "norm". Is it a percentage thing? If so, because there are fewer black people in America than whites, is being white the "norm"?

Your problem is this thing you call "push". How is having a gay couple represented on a TV show "pushing" a sexuality? Conversely, how is having a hetero couple on a TV show "pushing" a sexuality? What's the difference? How is either "pushing" a sexuality onto a child?
Title: Re: LGBT School Teachers
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 08, 2022, 09:57:58 AM
I sincerely hope this clears up the confusion.
Well, it doesn't clear up the confusion, that's why I asked for a definition, rather than examples. Let's probe this some more. You see, your word of choice is one that normally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming) refers to a crime: lowering a child's inhibitions in preparation for sexual abuse or child trafficking. That's how your @LibDestroyer420 friends use it, too.

Your use of the word is extremely crucial here. Currently, your arguments have only gone as far as saying that these people are (in your view) inappropriately encouraging children to view homosexuality and trans rights in a positive light. However, you are persistently using a term that means much more than that.

So, let's drop the other shoe: Are you accusing these people of being paedophiles who are actively planning to abduct or otherwise abuse children? If not, please consider using more representative language for your views.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on April 08, 2022, 10:47:54 AM
I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

Then I'm misunderstanding what problem you have with the law. Do you think K-3 elementary schoolers should be introduced to sexual orientation topics, despite not having hit puberty and those topics obviously making zero sense to them?

You should have a look at what age appropriate education actually constitutes on this topic because it mostly centres around consent when physically interacting with others and being open minded about other people. I’ve said it a few times but this is a huge manufactured moral panic that many on the American right are all to ready to embrace.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 08, 2022, 01:22:05 PM
Why not just let them decide later in their lives like others have done when discovering their sexuality?

No-one is suggesting otherwise. That is what everyone here would advocate.
Your trouble is you are conflating the "homosexual agenda" with

Quote
push[ing] a sexuality onto a child to make them into homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, trans, or whatever of the 27 genderfluid identities you decide is best for them.

Literally no-one is advocating that. I don't even think that's possible.
The gay agenda, as much as that even exists, is about representation, acceptance and equality.
Kids should grow up knowing that how they feel is OK and accepted, they should see gay role models in popular culture.
As I've said sometimes it feels like that goes a bit too far, but no kids are going to see positive gay role models and think "that sounds good, I got to try me some of that". Because that's not how anything works, no-one consciously chooses their sexuality.

The fact that you believe that some children should grow up feeling unloved or ashamed for who they are betrays your true agenda here.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tron on April 09, 2022, 03:33:08 PM
i don't mean to jump in late to this convo, but I do think some people can sometimes choose there sexuality or lack thereof. 
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2022, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
No-one is suggesting otherwise.

Incorrect, stack has been apparently agreeing with the Disney producer that they should make their children's programming as queer as possible.

The gay agenda, as much as that even exists, is about representation, acceptance and equality.

Actually we've seen that teachers were reading books to children with the message that crossdressing was fabulous. This is not mere education of the existence of cross dressers. It is promotion of an ideology to children before they are old enough to make rational decisions.

A Disney producer was inserting as much queerness into the Disney productions as she could in what she termed to be a gay agenda. She was clearly trying to show queerness in an appealing light for children.

Countless advocates and educators are attempting to make the picture of being gay a positive thing, with imagery of happy people under colorful rainbows, wearing colorful clothes or doing something fun. This is not mere emotionless education about the existence of gay people. By inserting such imagery it is an attempt to make it look appealing.

If you are doing something more than educating children, and are promoting it, then you are conditioning children.

i don't mean to jump in late to this convo, but I do think some people can sometimes choose there sexuality or lack thereof.

Gender dysphoria is said to be a mental disorder for many people. This psychiatrist says that it needs to be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/

Quote
The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

...

Most young boys and girls who come seeking sex-reassignment are utterly different from Jenner. They have no erotic interest driving their quest. Rather, they come with psychosocial issues—conflicts over the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex—and presume that sex-reassignment will ease or resolve them.

The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions. Rather, they and their families find only “gender counselors” who encourage them in their sexual misassumptions.

...

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

About the Author

PAUL MCHUGH

Paul McHugh, MD, is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is the author of The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tumeni on April 09, 2022, 10:11:07 PM
Countless advocates and educators are attempting to make the picture of being gay a positive thing, with imagery of happy people under colorful rainbows, wearing colorful clothes or doing something fun. This is not mere emotionless education about the existence of gay people. By inserting such imagery it is an attempt to make it look appealing.

It really sounds as though you're just jealous that they're having more fun than you.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tron on April 09, 2022, 10:44:47 PM
Tumeni, lol.

My main point is I think people have power to choose a sexual activity or life-style (gay, straight, hugh hefnor, etc).   

And I agree we shouldn't "over do" sex-ed and lead the audience...  But I have never seen this done. The Doctor said "everyone has met a transgender boy or girl by now" which I haven't.
 I'm hesitant to think this is a huge issue for the majority of people. 

Organizations like the LGBT movement i've come to respect.  Sometimes society can be grim and they have an ability to lift people's spirits.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2022, 01:07:46 AM
Quote from: MetaTron
My main point is I think people have power to choose a sexual activity or life-style (gay, straight, hugh hefnor, etc).

And my point is that young children do not have the power to make rational decisions. Developing children are accosted by a giant LGBT movement trying to make being gay cool, fun, admirable and who promote crossdressing as fabulous.

This is grooming:

(https://i.imgur.com/FntAHft.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/DQWoYl5.png)


This is grooming:

(https://i.imgur.com/PiM8Opa.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/eAAjkEy.jpg)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 10, 2022, 01:18:15 AM
Quote
My main point is I think people have power to choose a sexual activity or life-style (gay, straight, hugh hefnor, etc).

And my point is that young children do not have the power to make rational decisions. Developing children are accosted by a giant LGBT movement trying to make being gay cool, fun, admirable and who promote crossdressing as fabulous.

This is grooming:

How are you defining "accosted" and "grooming"? Accosted how? What is the results of this "grooming" you mention?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2022, 04:49:50 AM
How are you defining "accosted" and "grooming"? Accosted how?

Children are unable to consent to anything, and rely on their parents to do it for them. This is why traditional sexual education classes require parental consent, and why the material is open for parental review before the class is given. Parents also consent to the traditional non-sexual education given in school.

Parents complain that they have not consented to this LGBT sexualization. Certainly, if it wasn't invited by their parents then their child is being accosted by this ideology.

Quote from: stack
What is the results of this "grooming" you mention?

As this is a relatively recent phenomenon, it is difficult to say what the exact result of the mass LGBT indoctrination of children will be. But considering the historic rates of depression and suicide among the LGBT, and increase in pedophilia and sexual perversion, I can only assume that the results of this experiment will be horrifying.

The ideology being pushed onto children now is quite blatant and questionable.

https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/

(https://i.imgur.com/oZO42ID.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/tU7Duth.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/8TWs4Me.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/XNxyi9l.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/sKqEJ5C.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/twNoJzA.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/aMg2MFo.png)

https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/788240/gender-neutral-eight-drag-queen-rupauls-drag-race-child-abuse/ -

(https://i.imgur.com/SRjMY8U.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/IoNGGOa.png)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 10, 2022, 06:02:02 AM
How are you defining "accosted" and "grooming"? Accosted how?

Children are unable to consent to anything, and rely on their parents to do it for them. This is why traditional sexual education classes require parental consent, and why the material is open for parental review before the class is given. Parents also consent to the traditional non-sexual education given in school.

Parents complain that they have not consented to this LGBT sexualization. Certainly, if it wasn't invited by their parents then their child is being accosted by this ideology.

I'm sure some parents have complained. But because some people complain that equals all children are being "accosted"? Every person who complains about something and that something still persists, the complainers' kids are "accosted"? You mean all I have to do is complain to feel "accosted"?

Quote from: stack
What is the results of this "grooming" you mention?

As this is a relatively recent phenomenon, it is difficult to say what the exact result of the mass LGBTQ indoctrination of children will be. But considering the historic rates of depression and suicide among the LGBT, and increase in pedophilia and sexual perversion, I can only assume that the results of this experiment will be horrifying.

What do you mean by "indoctrination"? You mean like religious indoctrination?

The ideology being pushed onto children now is quite blatant and questionable.

You may want to look at something that's been going on for a lot longer than this "indoctrination" you speak of:

High Glitz: The Extravagant World of Child Beauty Pageants Hardcover – September 8, 2009
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/515UmQfX02L._SX470_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
High Glitz is a close-up and intimate look at America’s child beauty pageants, and in turn our society’s obsession with youth, beauty, fame, and fortune. Susan Anderson’s vibrant portraits of pageant contestants twist notions of sexuality and identity, with a new perspective on this uniquely American subculture.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2022, 06:21:53 AM
I think Tom's misunderstanding is that being gay is taught.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tumeni on April 10, 2022, 08:14:33 AM
As this is a relatively recent phenomenon, it is difficult to say what the exact result of the mass LGBT indoctrination of children will be. But considering the historic rates of depression and suicide among the LGBT, and increase in pedophilia and sexual perversion, I can only assume that the results of this experiment will be horrifying.

... and you don't think the rates of depression and suicide were connected to the type of repression that you are espousing?

That they might just be due to bullying from folks like you shouting "this will be HORRIFYING", rather than just accepting them as they are?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: garygreen on April 10, 2022, 02:00:32 PM
yo rushy please tell me more about how this doesn't have anything to do with the LGBT community
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2022, 02:02:21 PM
This is grooming
OK. How are the authors of these books going to kidnap or molest the children who've read it?

Stop misusing words, Tom, it ruins any argument you might have.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: garygreen on April 10, 2022, 02:40:34 PM
interesting how proponents of this bill literally never bring up any child abuse statistics. probably because child abuse by a teacher almost never happens.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm2020.pdf
Quote
The majority (77.2%) of perpetrators are a parent of their victim, 6.6 percent of perpetrators are a relative other than a parent, and 4.2 percent had multiple relationships to their victims. Approximately 4.0 percent (3.8%) of perpetrators have an “other” relationship to their victims. (See table 5–5 and related notes.) According to Appendix D, State Commentary, the NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes foster sibling, nonrelative, babysitter, etc.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2022, 02:45:59 PM
This is grooming
OK. How are the authors of these books going to kidnap or molest the children who've read it?

Stop misusing words, Tom, it ruins any argument you might have.

Grooming is a form of sexual exploitation. It doesn't necessarily culminate with physical sexual abuse by the groomer. See the definition by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/

(https://i.imgur.com/54ttsbB.png)

NSPCC says that persuasion to participate in sexual conversations is a form of sexual exploitation:
 
(https://i.imgur.com/HQFm8uJ.png)

Encouraging children to explore their sexuality and accosting them with sexual propaganda in a school classroom certainly falls under this definition.

Another definition:

https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/childprotection/Pages/expolitationgrooming.aspx

(https://i.imgur.com/HJLFUtl.png)

Predatory conduct = Manipulation. No parental consent. Pro-homosexual, pro-crossdressing, and pro-drag queen propaganda

Prepare for later time = Talking with kids about their sexuality. Exposure of children to sexuality. Promotion of sexuality.

Grooming in this definition is just to prepare a child for sexual activity at a later time. This clearly does not mean that the groomer is preparing the child for sexual activity with the groomer. The article goes on to describe that this can include sexual activity with 'others'. By introducing certain sexual concepts into a child's life before they are able to make rational decisions you are clearly manipulating and sexualizing them; getting a jump start on influencing their sexual life. By a plain reading of the definition this is grooming.

This is also the Australian legal definition:

(https://i.imgur.com/s5t6UwF.png)

Another definition describes it as priming a child for sexual activity:

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/act/offences/sexual-offences/grooming/

(https://i.imgur.com/IiqYaxn.png)

Another individual = Can be literally anyone the child chooses to have a relationship with in their life

Prime for sexual activity = Obviously if you are discussing sexuality with a child you are priming them for their sexual life
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2022, 04:22:19 PM
Grooming is a form of sexual exploitation. It doesn't necessarily culminate with physical sexual abuse. See the definition by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/
Uh huh. Have you considered clicking on that "exploitation" link rather than just imagining what it might mean? Replacing one word you don't understand with another does not help your case, it makes it worse.

Allow me:

Quote from: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/child-sexual-exploitation/
Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is a type of sexual abuse. When a child or young person is exploited they're given things, like gifts, drugs, money, status and affection, in exchange for performing sexual activities. Children and young people are often tricked into believing they're in a loving and consensual relationship. This is called grooming. They may trust their abuser and not understand that they're being abused.

Very conveniently, this page explains both exploitation and grooming. You really shouldn't use words you don't understand - it's truly the nuclear option for rendering your position null and void.

Encouraging children to explore their sexuality and accosting them with sexual propaganda in a school classroom certainly falls under this definition.
Ahaha, oh wow. Tom, I sincerely hope that one day you return to your nuanced and thought-provoking arguments. Until then, please don't expect to be taken seriously.

"A book is literally the same as forcing kids into a sexual conversation!!!" I wonder, what caused you to lose your edge?

Another definition:

https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/childprotection/Pages/expolitationgrooming.aspx

[...]

Predatory conduct = Manipulation.
Ah, Tom, such a sophomoric mistake to make! The very same page you're citing provides further clarifiaction whcih completely nukes your attempts at redefining the word. If only you had continued reading! If only you had read the sentences that precede the one you've cherry-picked!

Allow me:

Quote from: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/childprotection/Pages/expolitationgrooming.aspx
Grooming is when a person engages in predatory conduct to prepare a child or young person for sexual activity at a later time.

[...]

Grooming is now a criminal offence under the Crimes Act 1958. This offence targets predatory conduct undertaken by an adult to prepare a child, under the age of 16, to engage in a sexual activity at a later time.​​

Of course, since this is just an abridged legal definition, we can also refer to the letter of the law (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s49m.html). Kids, can you guess whether this aligns with Tom's fantasies?

Another definition describes it as priming a child for sexual activity:

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/act/offences/sexual-offences/grooming/
Oh boy, I'm sure visiting this link won't reveal that it once again confirms the consensus definition and not yours.

Ah, shit, who'd have thunk it?

Quote from: https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/act/offences/sexual-offences/grooming/
Grooming

The charge of grooming a child (intending to make it easier to procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia (whether or not that activity is with the person doing the grooming or someone else)) is a serious offence.

Public policy commands that specialist police teams investigate constantly in the area and allegations are thoroughly prosecuted.
The Offence Of Grooming

Grooming a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia is a Commonwealth offence and is found at Section 272.15 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The maximum penalty for grooming is imprisonment for 12 years.
What Actions Might Constitute Grooming?

Grooming is typically considered to be any behaviour that an adult individual commits with the intention of making it easier to procure a child under the age of 16 for sexual activity, either with themselves or with another individual. In simple terms, grooming refers to behaviour that primes a child for sexual activity.

So, now that you have provided three independent sources that prove you wrong beyond a reasonable doubt, I firmly ask you that you stop using terms you don't understand, or pretend not to understand. PR&S is part of the upper fora, and you are expected to argue in good faith. Either you are accusing these people of grooming (that is, that they are actively preparing children for sexual abuse, and that they are guilty of this specific criminal offence in many states), or you aren't. If it's the former, you need to immediately present evidence, and it had better be stronger than the shitty excuse you've just presented above.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2022, 04:31:02 PM
Allow me:

Quote from: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/child-sexual-exploitation/
Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is a type of sexual abuse. When a child or young person is exploited they're given things, like gifts, drugs, money, status and affection, in exchange for performing sexual activities.

Teachers encouraging students with affection regarding discussion of sexuality fits the bill there. And yes, sexual conversations is a sexual activity. It is not always physical. This is why "sexual conversations" is listed as a bullet point on the same page further down.

On the same page:

(https://i.imgur.com/HQFm8uJ.png)

It is clearly classifying sexual conversations as a form of sexual exploitation, despite your forced interpretation that it must always be physical.

Quote
Ahaha, oh wow. Tom, I sincerely hope that one day you return to your nuanced and thought-provoking arguments. Until then, please don't expect to be taken seriously.

"A book is literally the same as forcing kids into a sexual conversation!!!" I wonder, what caused you to lose your edge?

A class on gender identity certainly is enticing them into a conversation about sexual identity. Teachers encourage them to explore their sexuality, create in-class assignments, and discuss it with the children. Teachers throw the propaganda and tell them that they will accept how they feel. This is a conversation.

Quote
Oh boy, I'm sure visiting this link won't reveal that it once again confirms the consensus definition and not yours.

Ah, shit, who'd have thunk it?

Quote
Grooming is typically considered to be any behaviour that an adult individual commits with the intention of making it easier to procure a child under the age of 16 for sexual activity, either with themselves or with another individual. In simple terms, grooming refers to behaviour that primes a child for sexual activity.

Well you're literally wrong. Look at the bolded above.

Any behavior = Anything to encourage sexual behavior

Easier to procure = Sexualizing a child with LGBT propaganda makes the child more susceptible for them to be procured by the LGBT movement, or by other LGBT members seeking LGBT relationships, or perhaps by child predators seeking to exploit the child's interest in sexuality

With another individual = Not necessarily the groomer, can be anyone

Prime for sexual activity = Priming for sexual activity at some later date

See: "In simple terms, grooming refers to behaviour that primes a child for sexual activity."

I'm not sure how clearer it can get.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2022, 04:41:24 PM
This is why "sexual conversations" is listed as a bullet point on the same page further down.
Of course, the page continues to explain why the abuser would try to attain sexual imagery or logs of conversations, so we don't need your completely unqualified guesses for this. Shockingly, your screenshot doesn't include those. I just can't fathom why that would be!

Allow me:

Quote from: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/child-sexual-exploitation/
When a child is sexually exploited online they might be persuaded or forced to:
  • send or post sexually explicit images of themselves
  • film or stream sexual activities
  • have sexual conversations.
Once an abuser has images, video or copies of conversations, they might use threats and blackmail to force a young person to take part in other sexual activity. They may also share the images and videos with others or circulate them online.

Gangs use sexual exploitation:
  • to exert power and control
  • for initiation
  • to use sexual violence as a weapon.

Children or young people might be invited to parties or gatherings with others their own age or adults and given drugs and alcohol. They may be assaulted and sexually abused by one person or multiple perpetrators. The sexual assaults and abuse can be violent, humiliating and degrading.

A class on gender identity certainly is enticing them into a conversation about sexual identity.
That's not what "a sexual conversation" is within this law.

Well you're literally wrong. Look at the bolded above.

Any behavior = Anything to encourage sexual behavior

Easier to procure = Sexualizing a child with LGBT propaganda makes the child more susceptible for them to be procured by the LGBT movement and engage in LGBT sexual relationships

With another individual = Not necessarily the groomer, can be anyone

Prime for sexual activity = Priming for sexual activity some later date
Of course, we once again have a complete legal definition (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html), so we don't need your "one thing = another thing [source: dude just trust me]" nonsense. You will be shocked to find out that this once again does not back up your lie.

Remember, I've been trained on these aspects, and you have not. Allow me to repeat myself: you will not continue to lie about this in PR&S. You didn't know what the word means (or pretended not to), which is embarrassing, but we can move past that. Continue making your argument without the senseless misuse of terminology.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2022, 05:36:11 PM
Ok, why doesn't Tom tell us what a typical conversaion a teacher promoting homosexuality would have in their classroom. 
Because maybe we're all wrong about Tom?  Maybe he was sexually groomed by a teacher at a young age and he honestly thinks that's what all teachers do?

Or maybe he's an ass.
Either way, I'd love to know how his mind actually envisions modern classroom discussions.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2022, 05:41:21 PM
Quote
This is why "sexual conversations" is listed as a bullet point on the same page further down.
Of course, the page continues to explain why the abuser would try to attain sexual imagery or logs of conversations, so we don't need your completely unqualified guesses for this. Shockingly, your screenshot doesn't include those. I just can't fathom why that would be!

Allow me:

Quote from: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/child-sexual-exploitation/
When a child is sexually exploited online they might be persuaded or forced to:
  • send or post sexually explicit images of themselves
  • film or stream sexual activities
  • have sexual conversations.
Once an abuser has images, video or copies of conversations, they might use threats and blackmail to force a young person to take part in other sexual activity. They may also share the images and videos with others or circulate them online.

I notice that it says "might" there.

And while I don't think teachers are collecting conversations for blackmail, sadly even threats are employed against children regarding this:

https://familypolicyalliance.com/issues/2019/12/12/dont-tell-your-parents/

Quote
Tragically, there was a common factor in each unique story I heard. A mother shared how her daughter was instructed by her teacher, “Don’t tell your parents” about the book you are being assigned. I heard from a teacher aide who has been instructed by school administrators, to remain silent as the school allows a 1st grade boy to use the girls bathroom with other 7-year-old girls present without the permission or knowledge of any of the parents of the students involved.

Another teacher shared her frustration over her high school son being forced to attend a school rally that featured a lesbian and a transgender male sharing how wonderful and fulfilling their chosen lifestyles were. Students were encouraged to cheer and support this mandated school assembly celebrating the diversity of sexual preferences and identities. Disciplinary action awaited any students who refused to attend.

Recently, a mom shared her displeasure over the diversity week at her 11-year-old son’s middle school in an historic, upper-class NJ district. Students and faculty received a white t-shirt with the phrase “I am” printed on the front. The shirts were required to be worn the following day with a personal identity handwritten after “I am”.

Teachers are in a position of authority to where if they tell or instruct a child to do anything there is an implied threat behind it. Children are unable to consent to anything. Even if they agree to it, they still cannot give consent. This is why parental consent is so important.


Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2022, 06:00:55 PM
I notice that it says "might" there.
You're very perceptive, a refreshing change. Not that it changes anything at all.

And while not directly related to blackmail, sadly even threats are employed against children regarding this
Of course. Some teachers abuse their position of power. It is the responsibility of other staff, teachers and the principal to identify, prevent, and report such incidents. However, this is wholly distinct from simple conversations about gender, and it is even more distinct from simply writing books on the subject. You are, of course, well aware of this.

I repeat my call for you to begin arguing in good faith. You mustn't abuse our commitment to free speech.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 10, 2022, 10:00:07 PM
stack has been apparently agreeing with the Disney producer that they should make their children's programming as queer as possible.
And you are continuing to not understand what that means, even though it has been explained to you.

You have this idea that the "gay agenda" is about recruiting - trying to turn as many kids gay as possible (while laughing evilly, presumably).
What it's actually about is equality, acceptance, representation and helping kids make sense of how they feel and of the world in general.

You talk about the "historic rates of depression and suicide among the LGBT" and elsewhere say that that children should certainly "feel unloved or ashamed" for who they are. Holy shit, dude! Can you not see a link between those two things? You think kids should feel "unloved and ashamed" if they feel a certain way - historically that IS how gay people have felt because of people like you. Are you then surprised about the high rate of depression and suicide? I'm just throwing this out there but if gay kids grow up feeling loved and accepted then maybe they wouldn't then be depressed?

Your fundamental problem is you believe being gay is a sin and an abomination. Look at you spluttering with rage that there are books with:

Quote
imagery of happy people under colorful rainbows, wearing colorful clothes or doing something fun. This is not mere emotionless education about the existence of gay people. By inserting such imagery it is an attempt to make it look appealing

Presumably you have no issue with the mountains of books showing happy heterosexual people. You're OK with that "grooming" and "indoctrination", just not which depicts a lifestyle which you believe to be an abomination, right?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2022, 03:02:18 AM
Please do not attribute words and phrases to me in quotation marks that I never said.

I have clearly and repeatedly advocated that children should be left to be kids and decide for themselves once they are capable of making rational decisions. The concern is that LGBT teachers should not be trying to sexualize and condition children with media and children's books which glamorizes crossdressing and drag queens and transgenderism, and with material which tries to depict gay people as cool or better or more fun. The material may seem harmless if given to an adult, immediately recognized as propaganda, but children are impressionable. This is more than simple education of the existence of these things. This is promotion and conditioning.

The argument I am receiving from you guys appears to concede that the LGBT community is trying to influence and condition children, but "what about heterosexual society brainwashing children?!" (paraphrased) with terms like male and female and mothers and fathers and families apparent in literature. This argument is basically turning a blind eye to the blatant LGBT manipulation of children, and is a false equivalency.
 
Schools do not typically directly push heterosexual ideologies onto them in regards to their sexuality as a form of conditioning. Sexuality is a very controlled subject. Some of those basic ideas of society being complained about are simply the societal norms the children can be expected to grow up in. It is statistically expected that a "boy" will be a "boy" when he is older. They don't need someone trying to directly manipulate them otherwise.

Read about the methods at this Swedish Preschool:

https://www-varldenidag-se.translate.goog/nyheter/genusforskola-vi-slangde-alla-bocker-om-pippi-och-emil/reprid!Mox9LCNwAyhygNeVenhjIw/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Quote
Gender preschool: We threw away all the books about Pippi and Emil

All children should be called "hen", boys are pressured to wear dresses and Astrid Lindgren books have been thrown in the name of norm criticism. That is the reality at a municipal preschool in southern Sweden. - One day a girl whispered in my ear: "Am I a boy or a girl?", Says one of the babysitters at the preschool.

When Anna started working at a southern Swedish preschool about two years ago, she was getting a shock. A girl had come up to her and shown her shirt with a butterfly on it, whereupon Anna had said: "Oh, how nice!". But she would not have said that. Immediately one of the other educators came up to her and said that you must not tell the children that something they are wearing is nice, or that they are cute.

Anna then tried to think about how she expressed herself, but soon she noticed that it was not the only thing she would need to think about. When she said "he" or "she" about the children, she got new curses.

"You may not gender the children. We say hen ", said my colleague, says Anna.

This was also noticed when Anna was reading books to the children. The staff had taken Tipp-Ex and crossed out all "he" and "she" and instead written a "hen" there.

However, this would not be enough.

One day when we were cleaning among the toys, my colleagues threw away all the Emil and Pippi books. I thought it was unnecessary to throw away books and asked why, says Anna.

The answer she received was that there were no gender-neutral people in the books. The bookshelves at the preschool have now instead been filled with children's books with themes such as transsexuality and homosexuality, says Anna.

The children in the department that Anna works in are three to four years old, but even when she jumped into the preschool's toddler department, she noticed the norm-critical thinking.

The one-two-year-olds sat in a ring while the educators told us that a girl can fall in love with a girl and a boy with a boy. Then some of the children were asked: "Who are you in love with?". A little boy looked completely confused and then said "my lego", says Anna.

Speaking of lego, it is one of the toys that, according to Anna, is accepted in her department. There have not been dolls as long as she has worked there, and recently the cars and trains also went out, she says.

Something that is left is the costumes. One day it was a boy who had put on a firefighter's suit, says Anna.

"You know you can wear a dress if you want?" then one of the educators came and said, according to Anna.

"But I do not want a dress, I want to wear this", the boy is said to have replied.

"But you know you can wear a dress?" continued the educator, says Anna.

I do not understand why the children should be forced into something. Let them wear what they want, she says.

...

She says that words like "snowman" and "Santa Claus" may not be used, but have been replaced by gender-neutral words, and that a popular Disney movie has in principle been blacklisted.

One day a three-year-old girl came up to me and said: "Today I am a boy." Almost a year later, just before the summer holidays, she came up to me and whispered anxiously in my ear: "Am I a boy or a girl?"

Anna ignored all the directives and said firmly: "You are a girl".

I can not follow those rules. I just can not. They go against everything I know.

What these educators are doing is clearly wrong in numerous ways, and is a disservice to these extremely young children who deserve to just be left alone without someone trying to manipulate them in favor of their own ideology.

It is clearly the default in society for  boys and girls to be called boys and girls, and it is expected that 'boy' will continue to be a 'boy' in his life. Why deliberately try to confuse young children? Traditional male-female genderism and heterosexuality is the default in society, clearly, and is beyond control. This is simply the basic state of biology, apparent in many species. A simple fact of existence and the world which they will take part in. A minority of children will eventually decide otherwise, but that is for them to decide at a mature and appropriate time. The answer is not to condition and confuse children about their sexuality in Preschool, but to wait and let them decide once they are capable of making rational decisions. Acceptance is not encouraging little boys to wear dresses and stripping away their birth gender.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2022, 03:22:20 AM
I simply do not see how anyone can defend this sort of blatant conditioning. A school in Britain was making six year old children write gay love letters.

https://anglicanmainstream.org/bbc-video-shows-6-year-old-schoolkids-being-made-to-write-gay-love-letters/

Quote
BBC video shows 6-year-old schoolkids being made to write ‘gay’ love letters

BBC Radio Manchester shared a video on its Facebook page featuring 6-year-olds being made to write love letters from one male story character to another male story character, imploring him to marry the other.

The video shows children pen a note from “Prince Henry” to his servant “Thomas.”

“This class of 6-year-olds is learning about gay marriage. In this fairy tale, the prince wants to marry his [male] servant. And the children are writing a love letter,” said teacher Sarah Hopson.

In June, the school received an award and became the first school in the region to win a LGBT+ award.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWuy-aDwM4U

The school even received a LGBT+ award to recognize their exemplary treatment of children. How quaint.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2022, 08:48:47 AM
I simply do not see how anyone can defend this sort of blatant conditioning. A school in Britain was making six year old children write gay love letters.
That's around the same age they'd write straight love letters in most UK schools. Why are you railing against one and ignoring the other?

School do not typically directly push heterosexual ideologies as a form of conditioning.
You have yet to demonstrate that it's a form of "conditioning", beyond just repeatedly calling it "blatant". It's not blatant.

Early stages of education can look pretty weird to adults who remember none of it, and who have since not engaged with it. That's why we need highly trained professionals and not armchair pedagogues to maintain the system.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 12, 2022, 10:06:00 AM
Please do not attribute words and phrases to me in quotation marks that I never said.
Fair. Have edited my post. I do think it is what you believe - you certainly haven't denied it and have had ample opportunity to - but you haven't said it out loud so have removed the quotations around "abomination".

Quote
I have clearly and repeatedly advocated that children should be left to be kids and decide for themselves once they are capable of making rational decisions.
Which is reasonable, and I don't believe anyone would argue against that.
But you seem to want them to do that without being told that being gay is a thing, that some men marry other men, that some kids have two dads or two mums.
And you might well believe that is all wrong, but it's the reality of the world kids are growing up in so they need to understand that.
Kids don't need to know about sex at this age, no-one is suggesting that. But 5 year olds understand about love (at a basic level), they understand that people get married.
Understanding that sometimes those people are two men or two women is part of them making sense of the world they live in.
When they get older it might help them make sense of their feelings.

What you see as an attempt to "sexualize and condition children" is actually an attempt to help children understand the world and feel accepted. You note the "historic rates of depression and suicide among the LGBT", but fail to acknowledge that those rates are because such people have been made to "feel unloved or ashamed" - something which astonishingly you condone. The thing you are taking issue with here is the very thing which should solve the problem of depression and suicide among the LGBT.

Do the books which try to "depict gay people as cool or better or more fun" show heterosexuals as sad? Are they actively promoting being gay as better than straight? I don't actually know the answer but I'd be very surprised were that so. The issue you really have is that you believe being gay is wrong and you don't want kids to be taught that they can be happy that way. You have already said that kids should "feel unloved or ashamed" - the quotes are correct this time. It's a reprehensible attitude.

Quote
The argument I am receiving from you guys appears to concede that the LGBT community is trying to influence and condition children
It depends what you mean by this. If they are trying to influence and condition children in to feeling loved and accepted and that it's OK to feel how they do then I guess people are trying to do that - not just the LGBT community. I'd suggest that's a good thing. It's a million times more healthy than them feeling "unloved and ashamed" for how they are. What a horrible and backward attitude.

Quote
It is statistically expected that a "boy" will be a "boy" when he is older. They don't need someone trying to directly manipulate them otherwise.
No-one is trying to manipulate children. But being told that if they feel differently then that's OK is important. What you do about that is a separate issue. Where we are as a society right now different sexualities are accepted - so you don't "do" anything about that. With trans stuff we as a society are still on a journey. Personally I don't think young children should be having gender correction surgery or drugs suppressing puberty. But kids feeling loved and accepted is important. The old attitudes which you are still promoting in this thread have done a lot of damage down the years.

The Swedish preschool example - I would agree that is going too far but having looked this up such kindergartens are outliers even in Sweden. You're cherry picking an extreme example as usual, it's not what most people would advocate.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 12, 2022, 10:25:26 AM
I simply do not see how anyone can defend this sort of blatant conditioning. A school in Britain was making six year old children write gay love letters.

I'm guessing this teacher should be fired under the law for grooming, downright conditioning her students regarding the result of a perceived sexual act? She makes baby-making look fun! Not to mention, her students know her as "Mrs." She must be married, she even probably wears a ring. She has a partner! A partner she probably has sex with! Full-on hetero grooming/conditioning if I've ever seen it. The horror!

Pregnant Teacher Asks Her 6-Year-Old Students To Give Her Parenting Advice And Gets These 16 Hilarious Responses
 (https://www.boredpanda.com/children-give-parenting-advice-to-teacher/?utm_source=theweblist&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=organic)
(https://i.imgur.com/SIIcDBN.png)
(https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2-625413410e069__700.jpg)(https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/4-62541343e1e4d__700.jpg)
(https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/7-625413487cdd5__700.jpg)(https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/5-625413458ea9f__700.jpg)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2022, 01:51:58 PM
Its worse than that.

She was pregnant.
Which means kids asked where babies come from.
And, as Tom points out, the teacher MUST HAVE TALKED ABOUT SEX!!!!
This teacher, by virtue of being visibly pregnant at school and not claiming to be fat, has corrupted our children!  Now all the girls will want babies and the sex that makes them.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2022, 01:52:24 PM
I simply do not see how anyone can defend this sort of blatant conditioning. A school in Britain was making six year old children write gay love letters.
That's around the same age they'd write straight love letters in most UK schools. Why are you railing against one and ignoring the other?

So your argument is that children should be forced to write love letters because they are capable of it and might write a love letter to someone? Children are capable of a lot of actions. This is not a justification that forcing them to perform those actions is appropriate.

If students are writing love letters in school to each other on a personal level then that is their own personal perogrative, clearly. If a teacher forced a student to pretend to write a heterosexual love letter to an external individual in society that the teacher decided the child must write a love letter to it would garner complaints.

How is it not conditioning to force children to pretend to be gay in classroom activities? It appears that your justification is just than that the children are capable of it. This is not justification at all.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2022, 01:58:08 PM
So your argument is that children should be forced [...]
No, and if you cannot argue without these false accusations, then don't expect me to waste my time.

If students are writing love letters in school to each other on a personal level
Why would I talk about anything they do on a personal level? We're talking about what happens during class activities, Tom. Yeah, I'm not surprised you didn't know children write fantasy love leters in class (see also: armchair pedagogues with no experience of education), but now that this information is available to you, you can try and adapt your beliefs to it.

It appears that your justification is just than that the children are capable of it.
The way things "appear" to you is irrelevant. Respond to what's been said, and not to your imagination thereof. If you haven't understood something, ask.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2022, 02:11:33 PM
So your argument is that children should be forced [...]
No, and if you cannot argue without these false accusations, then don't expect me to waste my time.

From what I am reading here it seems that you thought it was appropriate for the teacher to force the children to write a love letter. Why not defend that it is appropriate to force a child to write a love letter?

If you do not think it is appropriate to force children to write love letters then you should simply say that doing this is wrong rather than giving the appearance of defending it.

Quote
Yeah, I'm not surprised you didn't know children write fantasy love leters in class

Is there evidence for this? Did the teachers instruct them to do this, or did you mean that this is something that students decide to do on their own?

Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Respond to what's been said, and not to your imagination thereof. If you haven't understood something, ask.

I am trying to asking you guys some questions on how these things are appropriate but you just deflect with another question or a comment along the lines that you know how things work and others dont, so you are correct.

Here are some direct questions:

How is it appropriate for a child to be forced to write a love letter?

How is it appropriate for a child to be forced to pretend to be gay in classroom activities?

These are genuine questions from me which I would appreciate direct answers to. I genuinely do not understand how this is appropriate.

Teachers are in a special posion of authority, as you conceded to. Teachers are role models. If a teacher asks you to do something there is institutional pressure and an implied threat behind it. Children are incapable of consenting, even if they choose to agree with you.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2022, 02:50:12 PM
From what I am reading here it seems that you thought it was appropriate for the teacher to force the children to write a love letter. Why not defend that it is appropriate to force a child to write a love letter?
Tom, I will say this one last time. You are currently in PR&S, and you are expected to argue in good faith. If you cannot do that, please find somewhere else to post.

Is there evidence for this?
Ah, how peculiar that you suddenly require evidence, after ignoring so many calls for your own. But hey, of course I do! Here are just a few public resources in which educators shared parts of their lesson ideas around Valentine's Day. I'm surprised you haven't seen those before - considering your confidence in the subject, you'd have thought you at least ran a Google search.
https://www.pentagonplay.co.uk/news-and-info/valentines-day-lesson-ideas-for-eyfs-ks1-ks2-children
https://www.artistshelpingchildren.org/valentinesdaycardboxes.html
https://www.mrsmactivity.co.uk/downloads/i-love-you-to-pieces-writing-activity/

And here's a BBC KS1 resource proposing it as a follow-up activity to the broadcast: https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/school-radio/primary-school-assemblies-collective-worship-ks1-valentines-day/ztcysk7

Did the teachers instruct them to do this or is this something that students do on their own?
Come on, Tom. What is this insanity? 6-year old children left unsupervised to do something on their own? Now that would be grossly inappropriate (and it reminds us that you have absolutely no context on the subject you're discussing)! The teacher has ultimate responsibility for those kids, and, as you aptly pointed out, they have no capacity to consent to anything.

Here are some direct questions:

How is it appropriate for a child to be forced to write a love letter?

How is it appropriate for a child to be forced to pretend to be gay in classroom activities?

These are genuine questions from me which I would appreciate direct answers to. I genuinely do not understand how this is appropriate.
Neither of these entirely hypothetical scenarios would be appropriate. If you ever find any examples of this happening, please report it to the school and local authorities. They will be well placed to take appropriate action.

However, I must warn you: you are currently misusing the word "forced" in a very fanciful way, and one that would get you a very negative response from anyone with authority. You should reserve the above advice for actual cases, and not for super cool troll arguments.

If a teacher asks you to do something there is institutional pressure and an implied threat behind it.
That goes against the very core of what teachers are trained to do, especially at such a young age. I'm afraid that such an extraordinary claim would require some extraordinary evidence. Until then, it can be discarded.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2022, 03:02:10 PM
Has tom even seen these "love letters"?
They're likely closer to "write a valenitne card to a classmate" which is very much "I like your hair" or "you have a cool pencil" or, if scandelous... "You're my best friend".

Since, ya know, kids don't have a concept of the emotional committment Tom is talking about and would write stuff they do know/care about.


Also: Teachers forced me to do MATH!  Oh the horror!
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2022, 03:04:42 PM
Has tom even seen these "love letters"?
They're likely closer to "write a valenitne card to a classmate" which is very much "I like your hair" or "you have a cool pencil" or, if scandelous... "You're my best friend".
It's a literature class. They are writing a letter from one fictional character to another. Extremely common, extremely boring, except the characters are 👻 gay 🎃
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tumeni on April 12, 2022, 03:36:00 PM
Pretty much everything I did at school, I was forced to do.

They forced me to sing hymns at school assembly, when I hadn't really decided whether or not I believed. Participate in prayers, too. 

I seem to recall mandatory religious instruction, at least in my early years.

I had no interest in calculus, poetry, creative writing, or sports, but they were all mandatory and I got forced to do them.

I don't see why Tom's example of being (big, bold) FORCED is any different...
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2022, 04:49:10 PM
Has tom even seen these "love letters"?
They're likely closer to "write a valenitne card to a classmate" which is very much "I like your hair" or "you have a cool pencil" or, if scandelous... "You're my best friend".
It's a literature class. They are writing a letter from one fictional character to another. Extremely common, extremely boring, except the characters are 👻 gay 🎃
Ooohhh.
Well that's just silly to complain about then.  I thought it was like what I did in school where I had to make a valentines day card for someone in class.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 12, 2022, 07:03:02 PM
Has tom even seen these "love letters"?
They're likely closer to "write a valenitne card to a classmate" which is very much "I like your hair" or "you have a cool pencil" or, if scandelous... "You're my best friend".
It's a literature class. They are writing a letter from one fictional character to another. Extremely common, extremely boring, except the characters are 👻 gay 🎃
The way it was described to the children was a Prince writing to one of his servants saying why they should get married.
It was an exercise in imagination which as you say happens in every classroom every day. The words "love letter" weren't even used as far as I can tell.
But, shock horror, the servant was male. So it's clearly something to get the veins bulging.
What does Tom think 6 year olds are going to write, that the Prince likes the feel of the servant's throbbing cock up his shitter?
I don't believe for one minute that Tom would have any issue with this were the servant female and there this was a "normal" relationship. He's made his feeling very clear about homosexuality with the comments about children feeling "unloved" and "ashamed". Tom doesn't have a problem with indoctrination, he has a problem with children being taught that things are OK when he doesn't believe that's true because "muh holy book".

(as an aside, as a regular Charlie Church, this is an issue I struggle with. Because the Bible does say certain things, but overall...why would God be that bothered about two blokes shacking up? I mean, the Old Testament also forbids prawn cocktails and clothes with mixed fabrics. So...yeah, I'm pretty liberal in my views on this because I know gay people and know that they just want to be loved and accepted as we all do. None of them chose to feel like that do any more than I chose to be straight. So...yeah, an issue I have some mixed feelings about and feel that the church has historically obsessed about it unnecessarily)
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: stack on April 12, 2022, 07:17:31 PM
I remember in like 1st and 2nd grade the teachers handing out handfuls of these on Valentine's Day:

(https://i.imgur.com/1MzCIg9.png)

We would give them to other kids in the class. Imagine the horror and backlash that would cause today?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 12, 2022, 08:18:15 PM
Look at this heterosexual grooming and conditioning. It sickens me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv8O6R5TVyU

I bet just after they turned the cameras off they were banging on the school desk in front of the kids.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2022, 05:26:02 PM
Tom; Taking a cue from Pete Buttigieg's quote recently, if the class are comparing notes on what they did at the weekend, would you seriously suggest that the kid(s) with two Dads or two Mums should be shut down by the teacher, and not allowed to relate about their lives?

If it's OK for the kids to talk about "Mum and Dad", it should be OK for them to talk about "Mum and Mum" or "Dad and Dad" - isn't it?

And if it's OK for the kids to talk about their family, why shouldn't the teacher?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: garygreen on May 14, 2022, 10:45:08 PM
this is grooming

https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/a-christian-school-had-kids-write-letters-persuading-a-friend-to-stop-being-gay/
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: existoid on June 15, 2022, 07:46:01 PM
I don't believe this is breaking any forum rules, if so, I'll happily remove/edit it. 

I'm curious - how many of y'all which have commented in this thread have children of your own?   I have 4 daughters, ages 5 to 12, meaning they're all in (what we call in the US) elementary and middle school.

Don't misunderstand - I don't ask this to say that those without children shouldn't have opinions on this complex subject.  But I am curious, nonetheless, as I've noticed patterns among my personal family, friends and acquaintances regarding their opinions on these subjects, and the principle characteristic I've found that lines folks up is whether they have children of their own in schools or not. (Surprisingly, it's NOT been whether they are generally "on the right" or "on the left" as I have many folks close to me on both extremes of the political spectrum, and that's not what's been a major influence for THIS topic, interestingly).

So, could be an interesting addendum to this whole discussion to tell us if you have kids or not.  Or not.










Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2022, 09:34:55 PM
I have two, age 7 and 4.
So my 7 year old is ending 2nd grade.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 04:17:40 AM
It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 05:05:47 AM
It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/

Or the democrats living in red areas are hypersexualized deviants.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 05:18:56 AM
It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/

Or the democrats living in red areas are hypersexualized deviants.

Either way, it begs the question: why are republicans turning people in to hypersexualized deviants?
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Action80 on June 28, 2022, 03:19:09 PM
It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
More likely some of the regulars here using a VPN set to server locations in conservative areas.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Tumeni on June 28, 2022, 03:23:46 PM
I'm curious - how many of y'all which have commented in this thread have children of your own?

I don't, and I'm not in the USA.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 03:25:31 PM
It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
More likely some of the regulars here using a VPN set to server locations in conservative areas.

Oh yes, for sure that makes more sense.
Title: Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
Post by: BillO on June 28, 2022, 05:36:22 PM
I'm curious - how many of y'all which have commented in this thread have children of your own?
First comment here, but ..

Two children: Girl -34, boy - 32.  Both married, both own homes, both are educated.