White House condemns Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[j brown's body]

So if there’s a gay student or student with gay parents, the classroom cannot talk about it, right? Kids often have their crushes. A boy could like another boy. What happens when the students are assigned to tell their classroom what mommy and daddy do? Are the kids going to ask questions why one student has two moms or two dads? The other problems here is that it takes power from the schools to developed their own curriculum and makes gay/trans/non-binary people into something naughty. I oppose this bill. It is wrong in so many different ways. LQBTQ people should never be seen as a negative.

Straight kids with straight parents won't be able to either. Straight is a sexual orientation as well.

Yes, it is a bill intended to eliminate gay/trans/non-binary people from the classroom.

 

[Gaius46]

Its unreasonable from the standpoint that it addressees a problem that doesn't exist. It criminalizes teachers.

The purpose is obviously to drive them from their jobs and destroy public schools. People who feel this way support this law.

Legislatures can enact laws to address issues they foresee. It’s done all the time.


As to purpose you are speculating. There is nothing In the bill to support your claim. In fact the bill is aimed at school districts and s hill boards, not teachers.

 

[SuperDS77]

Sure. If Tommy wears a cross necklace or a kippah on his head, the teacher should be allowed to answer the question or a have a class discussion about it. Are you assuming that the poster is anti-Christianity or something?

Thanks for the response. I am assuming nothing. I am 100% certain that there are many who would not agree with you (and me in this case) on whether or not that can be discussed.

Florida apparently doesn't like the concept of free speech or having discussions about the world around them.

A stretch for sure...

 

[j brown's body]

Legislatures can enact laws to address issues they foresee. It’s done all the time.


As to purpose you are speculating. There is nothing In the bill to support your claim. In fact the bill is aimed at school districts and s hill boards, not teachers.

Why would they foresee a problem here?

Sure, its got nothing to do with teachers.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

based on what facts, where does the law say that?

[/QUOTE]
Based on the text of the law. You said that you could claim a violation because a child learned about a couple. But the text of the law only prohibits the school from encouraging discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity. Its text does not prohibit a child just learning about a couple. You can CLAIM anything you want, but unless it amounts to the school encouraging a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity, then it's not a violation, based on the literal text of the law. If you hae some evidence otherwise, then have at it.

Ive been VERY clear what my issue with the bill is. its poorly written nonsense and allows me to do what I've already point out.

[/QUOTE]

Your argument is silly. It's like saying that because I can sue someone for negligence, I can just make up that they hurt me and sue them. Sure, I can "claim" whatever I want. That doesn't mean the claim is worth shit. And your suggestion that it would remotely be considered a violation of the law for there to be any mention of a family or for a child to learn about a couple is ridiculous, because the literal text of the law requires encouragement of a CLASSROOM DISCUSSION ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, and what you've described is neither a "classroom discussion," nor "about sexual orientation or gender identity."

here we are in the same spot
I could file a complaint and bring action against the school if my kid learns about ANY couple whatsoever or ANY mention of gender/sex during lessons, I very easily could claim that is the school "encouraging" talk about sexual orientation and gender identity that is not age and developmentally appropriate since the bill is written so poorly.

Like i said there's nothing to debate and this is why the bill is nonsense

Just explain how your kid learning about a couple or mentioning gender/sex during a lesson is the schooL encouraging a classroom discussion (which in your example didn't occur) ABOut "sexual orientation or gender identity." Being a couple is not a discussion of gender identity or orientiaton. And merely mentioning gender/sex is not a discussion either.

You could claim anything you want - like that water is dry, but that doesn't mean your claim makes any sense. It doesn't.

It would be like this: "Plaintiff claIms that his child was t school and learned about a couple of people."

"well, was there a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity?"

So, in your view, what about your example is a "classroom discussion?" Did the teacher sit the kids in a circle and talk about the couple's sexual orientation and gender identity? What?

 

[AGENT J]

Based on the text of the law. You said that you could claim a violation because a child learned about a couple. But the text of the law only prohibits the school from encouraging discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity. Its text does not prohibit a child just learning about a couple. You can CLAIM anything you want, but unless it amounts to the school encouraging a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity, then it's not a violation, based on the literal text of the law. If you hae some evidence otherwise, then have at it.

Your argument is silly. It's like saying that because I can sue someone for negligence, I can just make up that they hurt me and sue them. Sure, I can "claim" whatever I want. That doesn't mean the claim is worth shit. And your suggestion that it would remotely be considered a violation of the law for there to be any mention of a family or for a child to learn about a couple is ridiculous, because the literal text of the law requires encouragement of a CLASSROOM DISCUSSION ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, and what you've described is neither a "classroom discussion," nor "about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Just explain how your kid learning about a couple or mentioning gender/sex during a lesson is the schooL encouraging a classroom discussion (which in your example didn't occur) ABOut "sexual orientation or gender identity." Being a couple is not a discussion of gender identity or orientiaton. And merely mentioning gender/sex is not a discussion either.

You could claim anything you want - like that water is dry, but that doesn't mean your claim makes any sense. It doesn't.

It would be like this: "Plaintiff claIms that his child was t school and learned about a couple of people."

"well, was there a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity?"

So, in your view, what about your example is a "classroom discussion?" Did the teacher sit the kids in a circle and talk about the couple's sexual orientation and gender identity? What?

Cool story, more retarded dishonest strawmen and waste more of your meaningless feelings
meltdown and lie over this all you want, thers nothign you said that matters, youre not changing anything just making your posts look more and more stupid and triggered and its hilarious LMAO

fact remains the shit way the bill is written I could file a complaint and bring action against the school if my kid learns about ANY couple whatsoever or ANY mention of gender/sex during lessons, I very easily could claim that is the school "encouraging" talk about sexual orientation and gender identity that is not age and developmentally appropriate since the bill is written so poorly.

Like i said there's nothing to debate, this isnt an argument . . .
its the reality and facts of how the bill is written and this is why the bill is nonsense

 

[MrNiceGuy]

You're talking to someone who is strongly suggesting that kids should not learn about consent in schools (Post #243). Let that sink in.

You think 1st graders should taught by schoolteachers in reading, writing, history, math and art class about the manner and reasons for giving consent to sexual activity? Is that what you're referring to when you say "learn about consent?" Consent to what?

I mean, kids learn about consent all the time in general school discipline and rule situations. No hitting, no bullying, no touching other kids unless they say it's ok, etc. Parental consent is needed to get in a car at car line. That kind of thing - consent applies to many human behavioral situations. If you're talking about my kid's third grade reading and math teacher telling my kid her view of how to give consent during sexual activity, whether it has to be verbal, the definition of rape, whether consent to sex has to be every discrete sexual activity, etc., then I'm pretty sure 1st through 3rd grade is a tad early for those concepts.

 

[BirdinHand]

You think 1st graders should taught by schoolteachers in reading, writing, history, math and art class about the manner and reasons for giving consent to sexual activity? Is that what you're referring to when you say "learn about consent?" Consent to what?

I mean, kids learn about consent all the time in general school discipline and rule situations. No hitting, no bullying, no touching other kids unless they say it's ok, etc. Parental consent is needed to get in a car at car line. That kind of thing - consent applies to many human behavioral situations. If you're talking about my kid's third grade reading and math teacher telling my kid her view of how to give consent during sexual activity, whether it has to be verbal, the definition of rape, whether consent to sex has to be every discrete sexual activity, etc., then I'm pretty sure 1st through 3rd grade is a tad early for those concepts.

I don’t think he has any clue what age appropriate is

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Biden claims to be a practicing Catholic but he doesn't follow the teachings and beliefs of his religion. Telling children they are ok in being gay is just teaching the wrong things. It's wrong in every way, from a biological stand point to a religious one.

Your way of thinking is cruel and would only lead to more depression and suicide among gay and lesbian kids.

It is perfectly okay if your son or daughter is gay because there is nothing wrong with being gay. It is normal just like being heterosexual is normal. There are kids with same sex parents at home and that is normal just like it's normal for kids to have heterosexual parents at home.

It is really sad that in 2022, there are still people that think the way you seem to think on this.

 

[j brown's body]

I don’t think he has any clue what age appropriate is

Might that definition not vary depending on one's own point of view?

 

[j brown's body]

Based on the text of the law. You said that you could claim a violation because a child learned about a couple. But the text of the law only prohibits the school from encouraging discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity. Its text does not prohibit a child just learning about a couple. You can CLAIM anything you want, but unless it amounts to the school encouraging a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity, then it's not a violation, based on the literal text of the law. If you hae some evidence otherwise, then have at it.

[/QUOTE]

Your argument is silly. It's like saying that because I can sue someone for negligence, I can just make up that they hurt me and sue them. Sure, I can "claim" whatever I want. That doesn't mean the claim is worth shit. And your suggestion that it would remotely be considered a violation of the law for there to be any mention of a family or for a child to learn about a couple is ridiculous, because the literal text of the law requires encouragement of a CLASSROOM DISCUSSION ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, and what you've described is neither a "classroom discussion," nor "about sexual orientation or gender identity."


Just explain how your kid learning about a couple or mentioning gender/sex during a lesson is the schooL encouraging a classroom discussion (which in your example didn't occur) ABOut "sexual orientation or gender identity." Being a couple is not a discussion of gender identity or orientiaton. And merely mentioning gender/sex is not a discussion either.

You could claim anything you want - like that water is dry, but that doesn't mean your claim makes any sense. It doesn't.

It would be like this: "Plaintiff claIms that his child was t school and learned about a couple of people."

"well, was there a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity?"

So, in your view, what about your example is a "classroom discussion?" Did the teacher sit the kids in a circle and talk about the couple's sexual orientation and gender identity? What?
[/QUOTE]

A couple is inherently a reflection of sexual orientation.

 

[BirdinHand]

Might that definition not vary depending on one's own point of view?

In what point of view is it at all appropriate for teachers to speak to children age 8 and under about sexual consent?

Specifics please.

 

[j brown's body]

Your way of thinking is cruel and would only lead to more depression and suicide among gay and lesbian kids.

It is perfectly okay if your son or daughter is gay because there is nothing wrong with being gay. It is normal just like being heterosexual is normal. There are kids with same sex parents at home and that is normal just like it's normal for kids to have heterosexual parents at home.

It is really sad that in 2022, there are still people that think the way you seem to think on this.

There solution to the problem of suicide among gay and lesbian kids is to not be one.

 

[j brown's body]

In what point of view is it at all appropriate for teachers to speak to children age 8 and under about sexual consent?

Specifics please.

When the 8 year old brings it up.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

In what point of view is it at all appropriate for teachers to speak to children age 8 and under about sexual consent?

Specifics please.

I am pretty sure we want to address sexual abuse in an age appropriate manner in schools very early on.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So teachers are not supposed to offer any kind of protection for their students. Mommy and Daddy always know best.

[/QUOTE]
No, teachers are to offer protection to students while in school, certainly from other students, from staff/teachers, and from themselves, so the kids don't hurt themselves, don't misbehave and aren't hurt by other things/people.

As for whether mommy and daddy knowing best, if there is evidence that mommy and daddy are acting out of legal bounds or are a danger to the child, then there is absolutely a reporting obligation. However, just because a teacher thinks mommy and daddy do not know best, or that the parents hold views on some social issue which the teacher thinks are wrongheaded, that doesn't mean the teacher's opinion trumps the parents' right to parent their children. Just as mommy and daddy don't always know best, so too is it true that teachers do not always know best. The very idea that 1st through 3rd grade teachers are somehow well-trained in child psychology, child rearing, philosophy, and general parenting such that their opinions would usurp the parents' role is absurd.

Try hard to understand how bad it looks for you to say that children should not learn what consent is. Try very hard.

Children an and do learn what consent is. But it's really weird, if you're talking about sexual consent, that you think that the school's role is to teach a first grader what it means to consent to sexual intercourse, how consent is given, how often it needs to be reaffirmed, whether it needs to be verbal, and what acts are being consented to. That would be bizarre to teach to little kids. The consent a child ought to be learning is that they don't take things from the school, other children or any other people at all without consent, that they don't hit or touch people at all without consent, and that others should not do the same to them. I have a kindergarener and a third grader now, and referring to consent, I do not consent to their kindergarten and 3rd grade teachers giving them lessons on sexual consent. I think the very idea of doing that is asinine.

 

[Gaius46]

Why would they foresee a problem here?

Sure, its got nothing to do with teachers.

Don’t know. I have no real interest in the issue tbh - my kids are all adults and I don’t live in Florida. I’m only pointing that your belief that they can’t enact a law because you don’t see it as reasonable won’t fly.

As to teachers - can you point to any actual proof? Otherwise it’s just your feeling.

 

[BirdinHand]

I am pretty sure we want to address sexual abuse in an age appropriate manner in schools very early on.

The lesson is “no one should touch you”.

The pediatrician even says “now, I’m only touching you because I’m your doctor and your Mommy is here”

There’s no more conversation needed with small children unless there are actual signs of abuse and the professionals trained to deal with it (NOT TEACHERS) get involved.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I have a kindergarener and a third grader now, and referring to consent, I do not consent to their kindergarten and 3rd grade teachers giving them lessons on sexual consent. I think the very idea of doing that is asinine.

What would you think about your kid's teacher having a discussion about different types of families, how some kids have two same sex parents?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The lesson is “no one should touch you”.

The pediatrician even says “now, I’m only touching you because I’m your doctor and your Mommy is here”

There’s no more conversation needed with small children unless there are actual signs of abuse and the professionals trained to deal with it (NOT TEACHERS) get involved.

I am 45 years old and we had awareness segments about sexual abuse, in an age appropriate manner, way back when I was little in school - and that was the Reagan years.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Cool story, more retarded dishonest strawmen and waste more of your meaningless feelings
meltdown and lie over this all you want, thers nothign you said that matters, youre not changing anything just making your posts look more and more stupid and triggered and its hilarious LMAO

fact remains the shit way the bill is written I could file a complaint and bring action against the school if my kid learns about ANY couple whatsoever or ANY mention of gender/sex during lessons, I very easily could claim that is the school "encouraging" talk about sexual orientation and gender identity that is not age and developmentally appropriate since the bill is written so poorly.

Like i said there's nothing to debate, this isnt an argument . . .
its the reality and facts of how the bill is written and this is why the bill is nonsense

You're not getting it. I'm going by your specific example. You did not include conduct in your example which you would allege constitutes the school ecouraging classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity.

To rephrase, my inquiry is for you to expand on your example - what, exactly, in your example, did the teacher do to encourage a classroom discussion, and what, exactly, was discussed? Did the teacher sit the kids in a circle, for example, and talk about the sexuality and gender identity of this couple? In any litigation, the facts matter.

You simply would not be successful under the literal language of this statute if all you said was "my kid learned aabout a couple and there was mention of gender/sex." And that is what you said you could claim. Sure, claim it all you want, but unless there actually was a classroom discussion about their sexual orientation or gender identity, then the literal language of the statute wassn't violated. If, however, your example is more involved than that, with something the school did to encourage a classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity, then by all means describe it.

 

[BirdinHand]

I am 45 years old and we had awareness segments about sexual abuse, in an age appropriate manner, way back when I was little in school - and that was the Reagan years.

Im 43, I never had “sexual abuse” courses in early elementary schools.

What exactly do you want these kids taught past “don’t touch anyone and no one should touch you”?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Im 43, I never had “sexual abuse” courses in early elementary schools.

What exactly do you want these kids taught past “don’t touch anyone and no one should touch you”?

There were old projector videos showing the kind of situations that sexual abusers engaged in like the inappropriately touching old neighbor and so on. I can't remember that much about them as it was a really long time ago, but I know they did them back then, this is nothing knew. I would imagine it was because back then sexual abuse was seldom reported. In retrospect, they probably should have done a whole segment on priests.

 

[BirdinHand]

There were old projector videos showing the kind of situations that sexual abusers engaged in like the inappropriately touching old neighbor and so on. I can't remember that much about them as it was a really long time ago, but I know they did them back then, this is nothing knew. I would imagine it was because back then sexual abuse was seldom reported. In retrospect, they probably should have done a whole segment on priests.

Yeah, there were a few priests in my area also that got caught.

Ah, the 80’s.

 

[j brown's body]

Yeah, there were a few priests in my area also that got caught.

Ah, the 80’s.

If only it was limited to one decade.