I don't consider treating gay people like normal human beings, rather than as unmentionables, as woke indoctrination. One might argue that a law that allows parents to sue schools if the existence of mixed-race couples is mentioned in the classroom, or if evolution is taught, is also "strengthening parents' rights". I'm not swayed by such arguments.
That's fine for them but that wasn't a decision that you had made. So just from your own experience shows that Boebert is anything but correct.
This is a mischaracterization of the law. Follows the framing from left media. Love is love. I don't think anyone could or should successfully be sued or reported or whatever for saying they love someone (and/or are married to someone) of the same gender. Nobody in their right mind is saying anyone should be treated as an unmentionable. Certainly this isn't in that law. But I wouldn't want some weirdo teachers talking to my 5 year old about sex. There is some leftist youth TV format in Germany called "Funk", funded by mandatory fees for public broadcasts. What they do is definitely indoctrination, and super weird, too. Telling kids about S&M and sex with animals and whatever. Funded by mandatory fees from taxpayers, $ 50m per year. Spoiler
Just to add under the FL law a teacher showing a 3rd grade class could be accused of violating that law.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding her? She isn't saying you have to wait until 21 to discover your own preferences. She appears to be talking about reaching a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about gender identity. That is a reasonable take. There are examples of people regretting their decisions about changing their gender.
Good. Because that shouldn't be shown in 3rd grade class. Children should learn math and other basic skills in 3rd grade classe.
OMG, talk about triggered over something that for many is discrimination. There you go calling out groups again, and equating ignorance as truth in your narrow point of view. Tell me, what followers of Islam are proposing discriminatory laws in our country that the people you call as having an unholy alliance with Islam are ignoring? I noticed you said unholy alliance. Do you feel you are better than anyone from Islam? Dude, people are people. What religion they practice is their business. Nobody in here that I know of turns a blind eye to violence and hate from any ethnic group and calls themselves Democrats.
You prefer “y’all-Qaeda”? You start a hyperbolic thread about “masks being child abuse” but can’t get behind Christian Taliban? Fortunately our rule of law stops the Christian Taliban from implementing their theocracy. The Christian far right/Christian nationalist have more in common with radical Muslims than you care to admit.
Here is the tweet again: She doesn't just say "Gender identity" She says "sexuality and identity" Those are two things. Sexuality includes sexual preference.
I'm not talking about people in their right mind. There are people who are not in their right mind who think mentioning the existence of gay people to kids in a classroom setting is inappropriate, and they are looking at this law as a way for them to impose that belief on the school. The law allows them to sue, and (to my understanding) the law does not allow for defense costs by the school to be waived if the suit is unsuccessful. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Understandable. I assume there's wide agreement with you on this even among people who don't support the law. Some version of this law, without the vagueness and allowance for discriminatory abuse, might have been reasonable.
The law is vague enough that yes a strict reading would say that is in the law. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article259861220.html " Lines 97-101: “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." So who determines what is age appropriate or developmentally appropriate or state standards? Under the enforcement mechanism of this law a parent could decide that someone just talking about loving someone of the same gender in a classroom isn't appropriate and if a state bureaucrat agrees they can be sued.
So basically something that you believe expresses your own beliefs you don't believe should be taught at an early age. Way to stand on principle.
They could have said don't talk about sex or sex acts to children. They didn't need to add in LGBTQ, as if the mention of that group of people is synonymous with talking about sex.
So... you agree that an 18 year old shouldn't have the ability to make that life changing decision? What about Boebert, she got pregnant at 17. Should she have been allowed to make that life changing decision?
This is the nub of what is wrong with the law. The rhetoric for it keeps on using terms like "indoctrination" and "grooming" and "sexualizing" kids. The problem with that argument is that it equates discussing the existing of non-heterosexual relationships or non-binary genders with encouraging kids to do sex acts. You can acknowledge that gay and transgender people exist and they aren't a threat or should be discriminated against without discussion or encouragement of sex acts. Just like you can talk about heterosexual relationships without talking about the missionary position.
