[AATW]

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.

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.

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".

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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:



Parents are notified about the sex education instruction, and have a right to review the material:



There is a Sex Education Supervisor approved by the Michigan Department of Education who oversees the program instruction:



The teachers need to be qualified or certified in some manner:



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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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

@ 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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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.

[AATW]

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!  ]. 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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Action80]

"Oh my god! Teachers cannot talk about their sex lives to children!"

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

[Rushy]

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.

[garygreen]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

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. 

[Lord Dave]

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.

[WTF_Seriously]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[WTF_Seriously]

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."

[AATW]

Like all right thinking people I am sickened by this. Sickened!



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

[Lord Dave]

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."