Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Tripp__E t1_ix4i4bf wrote

This is definitely copy and pasted from an article somewhere.

193

Waadap t1_ix4ldmy wrote

It's a 1-year old account, with no history aside from the past 3 hours with most of that on "freekarmaforyou" type subreddits. How on earth do they think they are fooling anyone with this nonsense??

49

the_pedigree t1_ix4tz5u wrote

Seriously, OP sounds like an absolute tool. L they’re back and better than ever!” Lmao

4

Throwaway-account-23 t1_ix4i2mz wrote

"Hello fellow kids, how do you do. This is definitely how human people write human posts on the media socials. It is is definitely not a post by bot or attitude or PR firm. I am a real person, Upvoted pls up vote back :)"

155

plausibleturtle t1_ix49czf wrote

Two shows in one city doesn't totally constitute "touring" with Taylor Swift lol.

It is cool they get opening night tho!

50

Sox5452 t1_ix4hnr5 wrote

That seems to be the direction a lot of the major tours are going now with opening acts. Several openers all rotating out in smaller sections of the tour.

I guess it can still go on their resume; like when local acts say they've played with a dozen big-name bands when it was all from one festival date opening slot lol.

8

11upand1over t1_ix4pude wrote

Paramore are successful and have been around long enough that I don’t think they need “opened for Taylor Swift” on their resumes. It’s probably just a fun opportunity.

14

knightstalker1288 t1_ix4inuk wrote

This post fake af. I wonder how much it costs to pay someone to make a post like this, and if they get bonus points per comments or upvotes….

50

Kinodog t1_ix4km6d wrote

Tickets $95,000

6

MrEcksDeah t1_ix4q7ws wrote

Reddit needs to ban these accounts

3

dr_nostrand t1_ix4p6h5 wrote

wait content of the article aside--don't say gay law is terrifying Christian Nationalism type stuff--

what is going on this post? it is clearly a bot account and taken from an uproxx article

2

Jetm0t0 t1_ix4u79z wrote

Paramore is awesome! I love noticing how they are a pretty good band, and didn't break apart like Evanescence did. (not her control, but the resilience is nice)

2

currentlyhigh t1_ix4h89z wrote

>the Don’t Say Gay law, which prevents education about sexuality and gender in classrooms

It does?

0

Fat_moses t1_ix4ise5 wrote

Yup, it bars teachers or 3rd parties to provide any education to children regarding gender identity or sexuality in a manner that is not "age or developmentally appropriate".

Up front it sounds like a reasonable thing, but a major problem is that there is no established basis for what is "age or developmentally appropriate".

While a teacher may tell kindergarteners that some women want to wear suits and some men want to wear dresses, they are now open to lawsuits from an angry parent can declare the lesson to be inappropriate and take the teacher to court in violation of this law.

added in edit - Laws like this are so very problematic because they are based on individual interpretation. By leaving sections of the law vague, they create fear. Parents are suddenly worried their kids are being taught inappropriate things and teachers are scared that they will be sued for telling a 3rd grader that "yes I am a man and I have a husband, I am gay".

11

dafisol t1_ix4m7j8 wrote

Not to mention what it does to children who do have gay parents or are themselves gay

7

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix4oeso wrote

You don't need a lesson about why some women want to wear pants.

−20

MyNameThru t1_ix4qo5n wrote

88 in the username, openly transphobic comment history. We got one, folks

1

currentlyhigh t1_ixbxsyb wrote

Do you intend to present any sort of logical rebuttal or are you sticking with a purely ad hominem attack?

1

currentlyhigh t1_ixbyd7m wrote

Out of curiosity do you think it's possible that some people have "88" in their username for purely benign reasons like being born in 1988? Do you think it's greater or fewer than the number of users who have "88" in their name because they intend to directly associate with white supremacist groups?

1

MyNameThru t1_ixcgnpx wrote

Plausible deniability is of course the goal with this type of dog whistling. They're too cowardly to just be open, so they use code. This isn't news unless you actively deny it.

1

currentlyhigh t1_ixdihon wrote

But do you think it's possible?

1

MyNameThru t1_ixdoq75 wrote

No shit. That's how plausible deniability works. Go look it up.

1

currentlyhigh t1_ixdqkk7 wrote

So you're saying that every single user, without exception, with "88" in their username is a neo-nazi?

1

MyNameThru t1_ixdvbmv wrote

Is that what you got from what I said? Your reading comprehension is terrible. Is English not your first language? That's the only excuse for this.

1

Murder_Ballads t1_ix4luim wrote

If they really cared about it they wouldn’t play Florida at all, but gotta get that money

0

HardRock_HardCock t1_ix4t2ey wrote

When I was in 4th grade they separated the boys and the girls for a sex education video. We only had one male teacher in the school, so he supervised us while we watched a 30 minute video on puberty. Afterwards the teacher asked if we had any questions. One boy raised his hand and asked "How do you fart?". The whole room laughed.

Point being, kids are fucking stupid and don't have the mental capacity to understand half the things we try to teach them. I never even knew my teachers' first names except for one or whether they were married or not. Now teachers feel like it's their duty to detail every private bit of information about them, including their sexual preferences. I just don't see how we can't collectively agree that children do not need to be learning about sexual topics before the 3rd fucking grade. Let kids be kids. We're living in that South Park episode "Proper Condom Use".

−1

MoonageDayscream t1_ix56w0c wrote

Kids are not stupid. They may be ignorant, they may be irreverent, they may be awful. But they aren't stupid.

1

HardRock_HardCock t1_ix5enrr wrote

Skirting around the point. The whole "Don't Say Gay" thing was entirely made up by the mainstream media as a smear campaign. Nothing in the Florida bill mentions gay topics. Parents spoke out to their representatives in response to their belief that their very young children were too immature to be introduced to sexualized subject matter of any sort, straight or gay, and I agree. Children already have a hard enough time grasping simple concepts, there's no need to confuse them further. A six year old needs to learn the basic subjects and develope good character, not be introduced into subject matters that even grown adults are fighting over.

0

Jakubisko95 t1_ix4os7h wrote

That law has nothing to do with not saying gay. Should've read up on it before posting this embarrassment of a post.

−4

Slacktopia t1_ix4smzw wrote

"Don't say gay" is not written anywhere, not even once in the bill. Sexual orientation should not be taught in an elementary school setting.

−4

MoonageDayscream t1_ix57l9i wrote

I agree. We need to ban every single book that mentions mommy and daddy being married. Or even just having a mommy and daddy at home what could the kids learn? That mommie and daddies might share a bedroom? How awful!

1

Slacktopia t1_ix59jxo wrote

When has it ever been okay for an adult (other then the parents/ guardian) to talk about gender/sex with a child?

1

MoonageDayscream t1_ix5cclr wrote

It's always been ok. How old were you when you were taught about gender? I remember teachers sorting us by gender. I remember "Sugar and spice and everything nice, that's what little girls are made of. Snips and snails and puppy dog tails, that's what little boys are made of." How old were you when you were first introduced to the idea that Mommy and Daddy were married? Attended a wedding? Should we ban children from being ringbearers and flower girls because they is participating in socially sanctioned sexual expression? It makes as much sense as banning a book where Timmy has two dads or firing a teacher for mentioning their same sex spouse.

2

Slacktopia t1_ix5spkt wrote

I'm not talking about gender, i'm talking about lesson plans on sexual orientation to children

0

MoonageDayscream t1_ix5w31y wrote

"When has it ever been okay for an adult (other then the parents/ guardian) to talk about gender..."

How is this question not about gender?

1

Slacktopia t1_ix5xgk3 wrote

Ah I see the confusion. My first comment was about sexual orientation/sex. Accidentally wrote gender on that comment. Obviously gender is talked about as you stated in your comment before.

1

seekerofthetruth250 t1_ix4ul0b wrote

Why don't they just play music😂 Also the bill is not called that and doesn't even have the word gay in it. It's a bill that is against the indoctrination of young children.

−5

DaFish221122 t1_ix4jj0x wrote

The law literally just states that you can't talk about sexual topics (including straight stuff) for kindergarten to 3rd grade.

Why are people crying so much

−14

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix4mcum wrote

So it's illegal for a teacher to mention their spouse?

10

Physical_Stock_8636 t1_ix4p423 wrote

Why would they have to mention their spouse in class. When I was growing up, we knew nothing about our teachers. They taught school and that was it. Just teach and leave everything else at home where it belongs.

1

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix4qbfm wrote

They don't have to do anything, but it definitely shouldn't be illegal for a teacher to mention the existence of their family.

When you went to school, the female teachers didn't have different titles like Ms. or Mrs. ?

8

Physical_Stock_8636 t1_ix8a63m wrote

It was always Miss. Whether Mrs or Ms. Wouldn't have known if they were married or not when I was that young. My mom was a teacher, and most of the kids in the classes she subbed for probably didn't even know she was my mom. That's the way it should be. Just teach the subject matter.

0

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix8aksp wrote

Mrs. is the title women traditionally take when they're married. I seriously doubt you had no teachers that went by Mrs.

All of this is pointless noise. It should not be illegal for a teacher to mention that they have a spouse.

1

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix4npgl wrote

No.

−5

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix4pavf wrote

But the law says any discussions of sexuality right?

3

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix4plfv wrote

Classroom discussions or instruction. Mentioning your spouse isn't the same as instructing them on what being gay is.

0

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix4qwda wrote

But acknowledging the existence of your spouse is surely discussion right? I mean for most female teachers it's right there in their name if they're married or not.

It's a law for a problem that doesn't exist and is written so vaguely as to make the mere acknowledgement of gay people illegal.

7

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix4tcws wrote

Why would acknowledging your spouse become a discussion? You can't have conversations about normal life without making it into an instruction or in-depth discussion about your sexual orientation? Because that's what the law prohibits, not wholesome anecdotes about your home-life.

1

GamingTrend t1_ix4woz5 wrote

Because kids are curious and will ask. Have you met kids??

3

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix4x1x7 wrote

Yes, I have two. I also know that as an adult, you're supposed to sometimes say, "No." I also know as a former teacher, the job is to teach the subject, not go on a tangent about your sex life.

0

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix4ykv7 wrote

>not go on a tangent about your sex life.

Who is doing this?

5

GamingTrend t1_ix516f4 wrote

Nobody, but it didn't stop Republicans from baiting a bear trap to get rid of those they see as "other".

3

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix52eah wrote

Well, if it's nobody the law shouldn't effect anything and there's nothing to complain about.

0

GamingTrend t1_ix581o2 wrote

You serious? That's literally the dumbest take you could possibly make, and yet, here we are. Putting vague laws on the books has never done anything but harm, and you know it.

1

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix4ygsm wrote

I thought the law prohibits "discussions of sexuality". That's pretty vague.

2

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix52nho wrote

That's not vague at all. There's no need to discuss sexuality with prepubescent elementary schoolers.

1

nyarlathotep9 t1_ix55pf8 wrote

Saying whether you're a Ms. or Mrs. is a discussion of sexuality though.

1

notcaffeinefree t1_ix4n2ge wrote

This is really, at best, blunting the impact of the law and at worst, being misleading.

It's not just "sexual topics". If little Bobby asks why his friend has two moms, or why his brother's friend has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend (or vice versa), the teacher cannot give an answer.

Kids are naturally curious. They ask a ton of questions. You are not helping them by ignoring reality or by trying to shield them from topics you don't like. They will ask questions about what they see and hear in the world. It's not harmful to answer them.

2

DaFish221122 t1_ix5fnm0 wrote

I promise you that most kids are not interested in sex. Being gay is usually something that you find out later in life and certainly not before puberty.

The law was made to prevent schools to prevent discussion of things like sexual practices and telling little girls or boys to transition. Which these things do happen and I've literally seen them with my own eyes at previous schools of mine. I was in Arizona which is a pretty moderate state

1

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix4ob6m wrote

That's not true. The law bans curriculum or classroom instruction about sexual orientation, not answering basic questions.

They just can't go into full teacher-mode about what it means or what it entails. They don't need worksheets about why Susie wants to be with Sally. The law makes it so that they have to stick to academics.

−1

notcaffeinefree t1_ix4p4c6 wrote

That's not entirely correct.

It bans "classroom instruction". The problem is that the bill doesn't define what "instruction" means.

Is the teacher "instructing" a student if they explain why a man might date another man? Without a clear answer, if you're a teacher, are you willing to risk your job to answer such a question? Is a school district going to risk lawsuits by allowing teachers to do so?

4

DoppelGangHer88 t1_ix4rapq wrote

What do you mean? Instruction already has a concrete definition: "detailed information about how something should be done or operated. Teaching; education."

The bill explicitly does not prohibit students from talking about their families or bar classroom discussions about LGBTQ history. The bill states that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”

Answering a question with a direct answer is not equivalent to having a classroom discussion or instruction about the subject.

2

biscaynium t1_ix4ks42 wrote

Because there's a group of people that have to remain outraged all the time. If things were exactly as they wanted them they would no longer have any personal identity and wouldn't get attention.

−8

Murder_Ballads t1_ix4m1fa wrote

It’s a good question. We really should be asking why these people want to talk to young kids about sex so desperately.

−13

readerf52 t1_ix4mvvc wrote

And that’s the point.

It wasn’t being discussed to the very young children, but that didn’t scare people, so they had to pretend it was an issue.

There are books for young children like “My 2 Dads” that simply talks about a different family dynamic. It is not sexual. There is no push to create homosexual children or adults. It simply explains what that family feels like and how they function.

And that scares the shit out of people.

So the better question is: why? What are grown ass adults scared of families that are different?

8

Murder_Ballads t1_ix4n57m wrote

So if none of that is happening with very young children why are people so up in arms about he law? Do they just not understand what it says? It apparently seeks to prevent something that isn’t even happening, so what is the law harming, besides potentially wasting tax dollars?

−3

readerf52 t1_ix4t97n wrote

From what I’ve read, it puts a burden on teachers.

Children are curious and they aren’t stupid. Any honest question that may result in even the slightest shading of talk of “gay” could have serious repercussions for them.

This is not a subject that teachers willingly discuss with very young children; they would much rather it be discussed at home. But if it isn’t, and little Emma talks about her aunts that are married to each other, it could cause a discussion. Emma can be happy as a clam, and her family accepting and understanding, but the very topic is now forbidden. On any level.

3

LazySchwayzee t1_ix4h7gn wrote

Why would Paramore want to taint themselves with the talentless Swift?

−27

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4hd5z wrote

I don't care who agrees or disagrees with this but here goes... If you feel threatened by not being able to talk about anal sex and gender non-conformity to a 6 year old, you are by definition a groomer. Sexualizing children is deplorable in every way, shape, or form. The fact that someone has to defend this point is troubling. I don't care what you do in the bedroom but when it comes to kids this is unacceptable and is the parent's responsibility to have these conversations. Parents are not going to stand down and take this any longer. It's been true in FL as well as many, many other states. It would also be great if this sub talked more about music and less about this type of garbage.

−38

Throwaway-account-23 t1_ix4icuc wrote

Hey, nutjob, you made up that entire scenario in your mind and then got yourself mad about it.

Nobody does that, congrats on being a fucking moron and 100% lapping up the GOPs market tested talking points to get you to vote against your own best interests.

14

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4j67q wrote

Nice edit after you posted too. Amateur

−13

Throwaway-account-23 t1_ix4kg7u wrote

OMG NOBODY CAN EDIT A POST

Fuck off psycho.

Move to Alabama or Florida or wherever nobody with a high school diploma lives.

8

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4lar0 wrote

You really need to just look up the word so you can understand it. Here you go Einstein...

ad ho·mi·nem

/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb

in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"

in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

You get angry and attack me personally instead of the argument because you have no argument. Do you want me to look up the definition of psycho and explain that too? Now fuck off before you embarrass yourself more.

−1

The_Powers t1_ix4lbec wrote

Literally no-one does that you weirdo, that's not at all the context being talked about and it says more about you than anything else.

12

Murder_Ballads t1_ix4m7ue wrote

If literally no-one is doing it then the law shouldn’t be a problem.

−6

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4lond wrote

That's what the law prevents and I support that law. If that is weird to you, then that tells me all I need to know. That's weird bud.

−13

The_Powers t1_ix4nlss wrote

What's the weather like on your planet?

4

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4rl4p wrote

Normal

0

The_Powers t1_ix4rx3m wrote

If only your grip on reality was as well.

Pretty funny that your one word reply speaks volumes about your politics. Anyone who screeches about how such and such is 'not normal' and bases their world view on the maintenance of their 'normal' always seems to vote the same way. I don't even have to say which way cos you, I and anyone else reading this knows exactly what I mean.

Funny that.

4

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4txxs wrote

Get mad. I don't get af. Like I said in my OP. I don't care who agrees or disagrees. All you can do is call names which does what? Nothing... Later tater

−2

The_Powers t1_ix4v64o wrote

Get mad? I'm taking the piss out of you, you utter clown shoe. Ain't nobody 'calling names' (until the clown shoe comment but if the make up and colourful wig fits, right?) and anyway, what are you, 7 years old talking like that? Run go tell teacher why don't you? Jeeeeezus, so many adult babies.

"I don't get af" - Not surprised, lol.

2

Mattbl t1_ix4nkvm wrote

Can you provide sources where someone was trying to talk to a 6-year-old class about anal sex? I saw a story about a trans woman trying to explain to her class what her being trans meant because they were questioning her about it but I haven't seen anything about anal sex discussions.

There's an extreme difference between talking to children about gender identity and sex acts. They are not even close to one in the same. It's also very dubious equating discussions about gender identity to "non-conformity." You're painting it as "straight normal, gay abnormal." Personally, I don't want a kid to be told they're "not conforming" if they don't identify as cis. We've been doing that for decades and look how many mental health issues it's caused in the LGBTQ+ community.

It's also a total strawman to call anyone who opposes this bill or wants to discuss it further a "groomer," like you do in another comment. It basically feels like you're using that as a defense-mechanism and don't actually have any justifiable reason for supporting this other than fear that your kid is going to somehow turn gay by being exposed to gay people in the real world. No one that's debating this wants young kids to be sexually preyed on, stop parroting that bullshit because it makes you look ignorant.

There's a reason this is called the "don't say gay bill." The right hides behind vague wording and Ron innocently says things like, "where does it say that?" But we all know it's a fear of change and anything that you don't deem status quo. There's very, very few (if any) examples of a gay/trans teacher sexually grooming young children. If you think a gay or trans person wanting children to know they exist rather than having to hide their identity is "grooming," you have an extreme misunderstanding of the context. Believing that is why you got told you're lapping up GOP talking points in another reply.

7

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4rfou wrote

You make A LOT of assumptions about me, my background, and my statement. You don't know me. This is how dialogue becomes undistinguishable from the get go so nothing is accomplished. Lots of word salad that ends up being pointless along with misformation based on nothing. You have so many incorrect points you are basing on what? This is the one of the famous reddit psychoanalysis sessions based on a few sentences which is complete garbage. Here is my point in case it wasn't clear enough from my original post.... This subject is not up to the teachers, districts, or anyone else other than the parents from the ages of 3rd grade and below... Period. Not up for debate. This is wrong. Older kids like say middle school age... No problem. These elementary school aged kids are trying to tie their shoes and looking forward to recess not contemplating an out of control sexualized agenda.

3

Hawkson2020 t1_ix4i3vs wrote

That’s uhhh. Not what anyone except strawmen are doing.

4

Rabblerowsers t1_ix4i073 wrote

Agreed, it's sad how the media exploded over this and made it appear like an anti-gay agenda when in reality it's just preventing sex talk from happening in class from kindergarten to grade 3. As someone raised by lesbians, myself, as well as my parents, are horrified at how sexual the LGBTQ movement is/has become, like being hyper sexual and gross is part of the identity or something...

−9

AnimalMother76 t1_ix4kohq wrote

Thanks for your pov! I know people in the gay community that feel the same way as well. It's like the LGBTQ movement has become more of a cult than anything else. Crazy days we live in...

4

LowGradePlayer t1_ix43upa wrote

I think the law is to not say gay below a certain age.

It does not “prevent education about sexuality and gender in classrooms” per say.

I think it is a stupid law, but when it comes to politics, it’s important to be as honest as possible.

−75

PM_ur_Rump t1_ix47vwr wrote

It is specific about the "absolutely none up until 3rd grade" and then says "in an age appropriate manner" beyond that. It is purposefully ambiguous so that pretty much any discussion in any grade can be challenged and shut down.

That is being honest about it.

49

Insight42 t1_ix4lr6b wrote

Exactly. "Absolutely no sex education before 3rd grade" is a pointless law - who exactly is teaching kindergartners about sex? - but that's a reasonable stance.

Unfortunately that is not what the law actually states: "[c]lassroom 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."

This, of course, is overly vague.

What constitutes instruction - answering a student question? A discussion of a topic? A full lesson?

What kind of specific content are we addressing - the existence of LGBTQ people? What that term means? Gender roles and place in culture? Sex education?

Who decides what's age or developmentally appropriate? How do we decide this for an entire class of kids in later grades?

Nothing here is nailed down at all, and attempts to do so were quickly shot down to intentionally keep the language vague. This gives the bill the quality of having equally viable interpretations: one can correctly say that it prevents discussion of safe sex with kindergartners (good!) as well as discussions of historical figures such as Joan of Arc (who have defied gender roles of their time - which may or may not be part of the banned instruction) straight up to graduation.

It is true that the law does not specifically state that you can't say gay. It's also true that it's vague enough that this is an entirely reasonable interpretation of the restrictions placed upon teachers in any grade; since any arbitrary breach will result in penalty, it is indeed safer to simply never come close to any topic even tangentially related to sex or gender in any way.

3

PM_ur_Rump t1_ix4ou97 wrote

I generally agree, with all of this, though still think it's funny how squicky people get about discussing sex with kids in general. Like, yes, nobody is teaching kindergarteners about safe sex or sex toys or positions or anything explicit about the act. But kids from a pretty young age are completely capable of learning about the fact that it's a thing, it's (usually) how they came to be, and that it's a very personal subject that they themselves have control over regarding their own bodies. The more educated kids are about sex, the less likely they are to make risky decisions or allow someone to "groom" or otherwise take advantage of them. Actual "groomers" love it when young people are uneducated in the matter. And as for the whole "why would an unrelated adult want to talk to kids about sex, that's the parent's job" argument, most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by family members, not teachers. The teachers are more likely to stop it than family is.

It's weird how there is this major, almost ubiquitous, often risky factor in life that we often attempt to completely hide from children until they stumble through it themselves unprepared. All because people are either so afraid of being seen as the "creep" or "groomer" or so afraid of the idea that their children will be doing it themselves someday, which ironically, is something they also pray for in the form of grandchildren.

2

Insight42 t1_ix6e0px wrote

In fact - we used to. Not in great detail, but we used to; it's pretty much what you said. I grew up in the 80s, which was this time everyone seems to look back on with crazy nostalgia. And some of the other similarly old people out there might remember this whole thing we had back then called an AIDS epidemic.

We had assemblies at school to talk about it. Videos in the classroom. All sorts of stories all over the media explaining that if you have sex, you have to be safe. Songs on the radio. Famous athletes, musicians - hell, your favorite cartoon characters were out there telling you about it. This led to a huge bump in sex ed all through the 90s (at least in blue states) which were well thought out and highly regarded. This was replaced during Dubya's reign in most places for abstinence only, but it very much existed prior to the backlash.

2

LowGradePlayer t1_ix4881v wrote

Do you suppose age appropriate discussion of heterosexual stuff?

Or do you think age is irrelevant it any topic about sex?

−36

ogfusername t1_ix4a4bw wrote

Do you support the government determining what is and isn’t age appropriate discussions about heterosexuality/homosexuality?

Do you realize there are an infinite amount topics regarding homosexuality/heterosexuality that have nothing to do with sex itself?

28

fnordal t1_ix4gk23 wrote

I support any government setting an age for appropriate discourse about sex, as long as it's before 4th grade.

But since heterosexuality and homosexuality are not necessarily about sex, but also affection, that part of the discussion should definitely be "free" at all ages.

4

Where_Da_Cheese_At t1_ix4n2km wrote

There are infinite topics but none of them have to do with reading or math. There is no need to be talking about homosexuality outside of age appropriate sex Ed class - anything else is interjecting opinions onto impressionable kids when they should be learning core subjects.

−2

ogfusername t1_ix4nigo wrote

An infinite amount of topics but none of them having anything to do with READING?? What the fuck are you talking about?

3

LowGradePlayer t1_ix4d5g4 wrote

Governments determine school curriculum across the country.

Parents can do what they want.

−19

ogfusername t1_ix4gkjo wrote

Lol if you support the law just say that. State sponsored erasure of gay people has nothing to do with school curriculum.

Parents have always been able to do what they want.

6

LowGradePlayer t1_ix4reug wrote

I say I did not support the law.

I also do not support disinformation

1

MoonageDayscream t1_ix4j8oi wrote

Barring a second grade teacher from being able to even mention their legal marriage is not about education, it's about erasure.

5

PM_ur_Rump t1_ix4lh71 wrote

I mean, they can mention their marriage if they are straight, or read stories about straight characters, or do all sorts of things that reference heterosexual relationships and traditional gender roles, that's just conveniently not "discussing gender/sex."

Really, it's about protecting the parents, not the kids. They are afraid of having to discuss these issues with their kids because they are not mature enough for the conversation, not the kids.

4

TKHunsaker t1_ix4gnao wrote

Then what are all those parental committees for? Surely not because parents care about what their children are taught.

3

super_sayanything t1_ix47yv3 wrote

Honest? Honest is that these people want gay people silenced. They want them not to be able to raise children, marry or feel like full people.

Cut the bullshit. This is pure "signaling" that inches itself to abuse against an entire population that deserve love and equality. Inalienable rights.

It's not just about what the law says, it's what it means.

GAY. GAY. GAY.

28

Absolute_Crap_Comics t1_ix4nz5x wrote

You do realize that most gay people just like most straight people don't want to involve children in any way, shape, or form, when they talk about their sexuality, right? Homosexuality is not on par with pedophilia, and the fact you don't seem to understand this is very disturbing.

2

LowGradePlayer t1_ix48drl wrote

So say that.

But don’t say is stops sex education in school, because it does not.

−17

PaulClarkLoadletter t1_ix4ifqv wrote

It absolutely does and seeks specifically to combine topics relating to gender and sexuality to intercourse. The purpose is to marginalize a specific societal group.

Make no mistake. There is a substantial difference between the manner in which two people of the same gender have intercourse and whether or not those people exist. The latter is what’s important here. They exist and it’s perfectly normal. It’s way more damaging for a teacher to decline acknowledging Susie’s two moms than it is for Jenny to hear that Susie has two moms.

The fact that the first thing the GOP thinks of at the mention of two men in love is how they have sex is disturbing.

8