Gotta pray the gay away. And when that fails, put them in a conversion camp. That'll fix 'em. No long-term psychological damage done there, no ma'am no sir.
Parents taking their children to church and enrolling them in Religious Education classes is indoctrination? Does that mean that parents enrolling their children in Public schools is indoctrination?
The implication is in the very vaguely written law... "prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels;"
Could also be heterosexual orientation. Just don't force the topic onto young children at all. @The Real Shady posted plenty of examples of exactly the fanatical activism Governor de Santis is rightfully aiming to prevent. You guys keep arguing it's not even happening, but it is.
This comes from the exact draft you posted saying no one has read the law... "prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner..." "3. 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..."
The issue is: "in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students". You are ignoring the obvious fact that conservatives in this country are far more likely to view homosexual orientations as age inappropriate compared to heterosexual orientations, even if discussion around the topic is not sexually explicit. I asked a simple question to a member of this forum. If he is OK with a children story featuring a man kissing a woman in a non-sexually explicit manner (he was), would he be similarly OK with a children story featuring a man kissing a man in the same manner? His answer was no -- that's not age appropriate. And he saw this law as a way for him to express this disapproval by threatening action against a school that includes such a story. You can't get around the bias in this law by saying that it never mentions the word "gay". It doesn't have to, but we all know what the intent of the law was.
You are reading things into the law it doesn't say. Just because one member of this forum expressed his opinion in that manner doesn't mean that's actually what the law says. And yes, laws are vague to a degree, by design. I don't think "kissing" is really something children associate with sex or sexual orientation anyway. Fathers kiss their sons, mothers their daughters, etc. I am not denying that people have the biases you are referring to. But the bias is in their or your or others' interpretation of the law, not in the law itself. But to be really clear, I personally wouldn't worry about a story featuring anyone kissing anyone in a non-sexual manner. I don't know which member you are referring to that wouldn't have a problem with a man kissing a woman, but would have a problem with a man kissing a man - but it wasn't me, and wouldn't be me. Some of y'all are either playing dumb or actually approve of the stuff @The Real Shady quoted in his post. This stuff is happening, and that's what the law targets. Not a male teacher having a photo of his husband on his desk, or mentioning he is married to a man. I don't have a problem with this, and I trust that the courts would ultimately not allow winning lawsuits based on something as small as that. But the kind of indoctrination @The Real Shady quoted in his post? Yes, I have a problem with that, and I think it is good that this law addresses that. If @fchowd0311 thinks that makes it ok to call me a fascist who will end up murdering people...well, people can form their own opinion about that. At least I have not seen a single one of you tell him he is out of bounds. See below if you missed it.
