Deb, go relax and have a beer/wine/spirit of your choice. I agree with you but sometimes it's best to let it go for a while. Unless you're AA sober then that's different...
What are you talking about? It was in response to that post? Sorry, but I think anyone who proposed no age limits on marriage is setting up young girls to become victims of pedophiles luring a child to marry. You don't think there is something sick about that? I could see dirty pervs with money bribing parents to basically sell their kid for approval. I know that's common practice in some countries, but it's just basically a legal law for pedophiles to have their way with child brides.
Anyone who supports a law (or votes for politicians who support such a law) that forces school officials to out a student to their parents is a ****ing monster. The reason so many young gay people are vulnerable to groomers is because they are either abused by their family for their sexual identity or they're outright thrown out. This bill won't make kids any less vulnerable - it just ensure that gay kids from "Christian" homes won't have anywhere safe to be themselves.
Again... then why didn't the bill include heterosexual language so well? That's the simple question. If folks don't want their K-3 exposed to sexual teachings or discussions, I have no problem with that. This bill did NOTHING to dissuade heterosexual discussion. Also, that gay 2nd grade teacher is going to be unable to display pictures of his/her partner in case some curious second grader casually asks who that person is in the picture. Straight teachers don't have that same concern.
I can't imagine any teachers talking about sex to little kids, gay or straight. I think the bill was just a jab at the LGBTQ community. Just because kids learn that some kids or parents have two mommies or two daddies that love each other isn't teaching about sex. If a teacher isn't straight they shouldn't have to hide that they love their partner. That isn't talking about sex, so it shouldn't be affected by that law. They are just playing with words for in their views of anyone who isn't straight.
Idiotic tweet. Teachers aren't teaching sexual content. But if they read a story about a kid with two dads or two moms, that isn't okay anymore. Whereas if they read a story about a female mom and male dad that is okay. That places one group of people in a different category and excludes people. It's a bigoted bill. Either you on board with that bigotry or you aren't. Nobody is suggesting teaching sexuality of any kind to K-3 students.
If students use bigoted language like f****t, teachers won't be allowed to deal with the underlying issue Apparently, some posters are okay with that.
My point was they call it teaching sex if teachers say two men or two women can love each other, but don't push using words with hate towards others to be illegal.
Hell yeah they do. That's the problem. Reading stories with female moms and male dads as parents would like allowed. Reading stories with tow dads and two moms wouldn't.
I think we are saying the same thing here. I can't tell by your responses. I don't agree with the bill.
Acknowledging sexual orientation isn't the same as showing sexual content. It was already illegal to do the latter.
Did any of those polled comprehend the vagueness of the law as written? Or, did they just read "don't teach K-3 about sexual orientation"? Folks should read this article or similar ones as well to see the issues that exist with the use as written... https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...al-rights-education-violates-free-ncna1293466
Aren't you German? Kids see like a dozen dicks in the morning before the school bus arrives, and that's just from cereal commercials.
