Florida's "don't say gay" bill passes state house

[Hammy]

It only affects up to 3rd grade.

Yes and that is extremely bad. We shouldn't expose 3rd graders and younger to child abuse.

Failing to teach sex ed =/= child abuse.

Why do you continue to ignore the part of the bill that would out children to their parents? This is like the third or fourth time I've asked you to defend it, and you just ignore me.

3rd graders don't have sexual or romantic attraction and therefore can't be gay (or straight for that matter).

Most third graders have had at least a couple of crushes already.

[Hammy]

It only affects up to 3rd grade.

Yes and that is extremely bad. We shouldn't expose 3rd graders and younger to child abuse.

Failing to teach sex ed =/= child abuse.

Why do you continue to ignore the part of the bill that would out children to their parents? This is like the third or fourth time I've asked you to defend it, and you just ignore me.

3rd graders don't have sexual or romantic attraction and therefore can't be gay (or straight for that matter).

Most third graders have had at least a couple of crushes already.

That is not sexual attraction.

His claim is lack of sexual attraction means they can't be gay. That children have crushes blatantly proves otherwise. You're really off your game if that had to be spelled out for you.

[Hammy]

It only affects up to 3rd grade.

Yes and that is extremely bad. We shouldn't expose 3rd graders and younger to child abuse.

Failing to teach sex ed =/= child abuse.

Why do you continue to ignore the part of the bill that would out children to their parents? This is like the third or fourth time I've asked you to defend it, and you just ignore me.

3rd graders don't have sexual or romantic attraction and therefore can't be gay (or straight for that matter).

Most third graders have had at least a couple of crushes already.

That is not sexual attraction.

His claim is lack of sexual attraction means they can't be gay. That children have crushes blatantly proves otherwise. You're really off your game if that had to be spelled out for you.

I don't follow.

Sexual feelings aren't required for romantic feelings, crushes fall under the latter. If you still don't follow, then you're intentionally missing the point.

[Hammy]

Sexual feelings aren't required for romantic feelings, crushes fall under the latter. If you still don't follow, then you're intentionally missing the point.

I don't really understand the delineation you're drawing between romantic feelings and sexual feelings. What would you say is the difference?

One can think someone is cute, want to date, have physical affection (hugging/cuddling/doting etc), want to spend all your time with and marry, and be your other half so to speak, without wanting to partake in sexual activities like intercourse or foreplay or anything related to that, or thinking they're hot, wanting to see them naked, or lusting after them, or getting turned on.

I had both a girlfriend, and a crush on a boy (that I didn't act on out of fear), both before I was 10, obviously completely absent of sexual feelings at that age, so I can attest you can be gay/straight/bi at that age without sexual feelings being attached.

There's a reason why people use straight/gay/bi without the 'sexual' added--people can have romantic feelings and crushes before developing sexual feelings, or while never developing them even into adulthood.

[Hammy]

Sexual feelings aren't required for romantic feelings, crushes fall under the latter. If you still don't follow, then you're intentionally missing the point.

I don't really understand the delineation you're drawing between romantic feelings and sexual feelings. What would you say is the difference?

One can think someone is cute, want to date, have physical affection (hugging/cuddling/doting etc), want to spend all your time with and marry, and be your other half so to speak, without wanting to partake in sexual activities like intercourse or foreplay or anything related to that, or thinking they're hot, wanting to see them naked, or lusting after them, or getting turned on.

I had both a girlfriend, and a crush on a boy (that I didn't act on out of fear), both before I was 10, obviously completely absent of sexual feelings at that age, so I can attest you can be gay/straight/bi at that age without sexual feelings being attached.

There's a reason why people use straight/gay/bi without the 'sexual' added--people can have romantic feelings and crushes before developing sexual feelings, or while never developing them even into adulthood.

Sure, but children who grow up to be straight often show similar signs of affection for same-sex friends. Maybe there's some weak correlation, but definitely not one that adults should act upon by prejudging their kids as gay or straight. Trying to infer a child's future sexual orientation based solely on who he spends time with is borderline creepy.

I figured you weren't asking in good faith and had a predetermined twisted answer you had ready to fire out there, but I gave you a shot anyway, oh well.

You are right that trying to determine a child's sexual orientation for them is creepy--and that's exactly what the people who support these bills, and even you in your argument--claiming they'll "grow up to be straight" anyway--rather than letting them come to these conclusions themselves.

People who support bills like this are going out of their way to make children and teenagers feel guilty, ignored, and outcast because they feel something different than how the adults around them want them to. They are not given an opportunity to know who they are, and many grow up with an engrained fear later on if they do end up being gay.

It's deeply ironic, and extremely disturbing, that you feel allowing children and teens to figure out on their own who they are is somehow "adults judging for them" as you do exactly this by claiming most of them "grow up to be straight" and denying them the ability to figure this out for themselves.

[Hammy]

I figured you weren't asking in good faith and had a predetermined twisted answer you had ready to fire out there, but I gave you a shot anyway, oh well.

You are right that trying to determine a child's sexual orientation for them is creepy--and that's exactly what the people who support these bills, and even you in your argument--claiming they'll "grow up to be straight" anyway--rather than letting them come to these conclusions themselves.

People who support bills like this are going out of their way to make children and teenagers feel guilty, ignored, and outcast because they feel something different than how the adults around them want them to. They are not given an opportunity to know who they are, and many grow up with an engrained fear later on if they do end up being gay.

It's deeply ironic, and extremely disturbing, that you feel allowing children and teens to figure out on their own who they are is somehow "adults judging for them" as you do exactly this by claiming most of them "grow up to be straight" and denying them the ability to figure this out for themselves.

Huh? Look back through this thread. I have been a vocal opponent of this bill. All I'm saying is that I find it creepy when adults try to project sexual roles and modalities onto children (gay or straight). It feels like you're responding to a comment I didn't write.

Again, these aren't sexual roles, as I tried to explain--that society has to look at literally everything through the lens of sexual attraction is in itself part of the problem.

[Hammy]

I figured you weren't asking in good faith and had a predetermined twisted answer you had ready to fire out there, but I gave you a shot anyway, oh well.

You are right that trying to determine a child's sexual orientation for them is creepy--and that's exactly what the people who support these bills, and even you in your argument--claiming they'll "grow up to be straight" anyway--rather than letting them come to these conclusions themselves.

People who support bills like this are going out of their way to make children and teenagers feel guilty, ignored, and outcast because they feel something different than how the adults around them want them to. They are not given an opportunity to know who they are, and many grow up with an engrained fear later on if they do end up being gay.

It's deeply ironic, and extremely disturbing, that you feel allowing children and teens to figure out on their own who they are is somehow "adults judging for them" as you do exactly this by claiming most of them "grow up to be straight" and denying them the ability to figure this out for themselves.

Huh? Look back through this thread. I have been a vocal opponent of this bill. All I'm saying is that I find it creepy when adults try to project sexual roles and modalities onto children (gay or straight). It feels like you're responding to a comment I didn't write.

Again, these aren't sexual roles, as I tried to explain--that society has to look at literally everything through the lens of sexual attraction is in itself part of the problem.

And again, I'm not convinced by that delineation, given that "romantic homosexuality" overlaps pretty neatly with "sexual homosexuality." If you want to prevent parents from pigeonholing their kids into certain roles, then shouldn't you discourage them from trying to make major inferences like this based on a few aspects of their child's personality?

Regarding the bold, I'm asexual, so no matter what you want to convince yourself into believing, one can have romantic feelings entirely absent of sexual feelings. Your claim either denies I exist, or denies that I would be gay or bi were I to fall in love with and want to marry somebody of the same gender.

There are good reasons why few people (at least those who want to approach the subject honestly) use "homosexual/heterosexual" anymore and instead opt for bi/gay/straight. I will agree, even though this isn't your point in the least, that the language around this certainly needs to change to acknowledge this.

Children should be given the opportunity to learn and explore who they are with their peers--it isn't making inferences about them, it is using adjectives in the English language in the way adjectives are intended to be used--kids can be gay, straight, or bi while kids, or they could be none of these and things be a passing feeling.

And that's the sort of thing that I was arguing against in my original point--it is utterly false to say children can't be gay or straight in the absence of sexual attraction, based on childhood crushes are still a thing. Even if your claim is true that in most cases they 'grow out of it', it is false to treat it as impossibility.

[Hammy]

I have no idea what you're talking about now. I said they overlap "pretty neatly," not perfectly. I also did not bring up the "they'll grow out of it" canard. I don't understand what comments of mine you think you're responding to, or what you mean by any of this.

Sure, but children who grow up to be straight often show similar signs of affection for same-sex friends. Maybe there's some weak correlation, but definitely not one that adults should act upon by prejudging their kids as gay or straight. Trying to infer a child's future sexual orientation based solely on who he spends time with is borderline creepy.

The bold is doing the very thing your last sentence there is complaining about.

 I'll return to my original point, since you seem hell bent on avoiding that: children can be gay, they can be straight, that is not up to the adults around them to decide for them, but for them to grow into. If somebody in school has a crush on somebody of the same gender, they should not have to be afraid to bring it up to anyone as I was.

Kids often know who they are with these sort of things (between age 5-8 from assortments of studies, it seems to differ but most are in that range) even if they don't have a word to use for it or a grasp on the social implications--I knew from an early age.

But as is often the case, I was made terrified of being such by my parents and teachers and those around me, because that's not normal, and was subject to things I won't go into here until I became so terrified of being who I was that I joined in the hostility so I'd appear normal.

[Hammy]

Regarding the bold, I'm asexual, so no matter what you want to convince yourself into believing, one can have romantic feelings entirely absent of sexual feelings. Your claim either denies I exist, or denies that I would be gay or bi were I to fall in love with and want to marry somebody of the same gender.

There are good reasons why few people (at least those who want to approach the subject honestly) use "homosexual/heterosexual" anymore and instead opt for bi/gay/straight. I will agree, even though this isn't your point in the least, that the language around this certainly needs to change to acknowledge this.

Children should be given the opportunity to learn and explore who they are with their peers--it isn't making inferences about them, it is using adjectives in the English language in the way adjectives are intended to be used--kids can be gay, straight, or bi while kids, or they could be none of these and things be a passing feeling.

And that's the sort of thing that I was arguing against in my original point--it is utterly false to say children can't be gay or straight in the absence of sexual attraction, based on childhood crushes are still a thing. Even if your claim is true that in most cases they 'grow out of it', it is false to treat it as impossibility.

I have no idea what you're talking about now. I said they overlap "pretty neatly," not perfectly. I also did not bring up the "they'll grow out of it" canard. I don't understand what comments of mine you think you're responding to, or what you mean by any of this.

Sure, but children who grow up to be straight often show similar signs of affection for same-sex friends. Maybe there's some weak correlation, but definitely not one that adults should act upon by prejudging their kids as gay or straight. Trying to infer a child's future sexual orientation based solely on who he spends time with is borderline creepy.

The bold is doing the very thing your last sentence there is complaining about.

 I'll return to my original point, since you seem hell bent on avoiding that: children can be gay, they can be straight, that is not up to the adults around them to decide for them, but for them to grow into. If somebody in school has a crush on somebody of the same gender, they should not have to be afraid to bring it up to anyone as I was.

Kids often know who they are with these sort of things (between age 5-8 from assortments of studies, it seems to differ but most are in that range) even if they don't have a word to use for it or a grasp on the social implications--I knew from an early age.

But as is often the case, I was made terrified of being such by my parents and teachers and those around me, because that's not normal, and was subject to things I won't go into here until I became so terrified of being who I was that I joined in the hostility so I'd appear normal.

Well then you're just deliberately misreading my comment in the most negative way possible. It's just as likely for children to show what you call "romantic" interest in someone of the opposite gender and then nevertheless grow up to be gay. It seems that you are coming to this conversation with a lot of animosity and baggage that I am unaware of, and that is affecting your ability to neutrally interpret my statements.

So long as we're bringing personal anecdotes into this conversation, it cuts both ways. I had a male friend when I was a little kid who I sometimes said I "loved." Had my parents taken your approach of projecting adult sexual and romantic mores onto children, they might have assumed I was gay at that point. But adults should not do this, as it will inevitably fall back into lazy stereotyping and categorizing.

There is an irony here as the bold is literally what I've been saying from the start. Literally the reply that you first replied to, was my saying kids can be gay, they can be straight, and sexual feelings are not the determining factor in the matter. And I'll repeat what I've been saying--children should be allowed to find out who they are for themselves, but Pieman's claim that a child can't be gay based on absence of sexual feelings (which is what my original reply was to) is the definition of lazy stereotyping.

I was demonstrating that was false, and why, and that children should be allowed to be who they are, and not be afraid to talk about it.

[Hammy]

There is an irony here as the bold is literally what I've been saying from the start. Literally the reply that you first replied to, was my saying kids can be gay, they can be straight, and sexual feelings are not the determining factor in the matter. And I'll repeat what I've been saying--children should be allowed to find out who they are for themselves, but Pieman's claim that a child can't be gay based on absence of sexual feelings (which is what my original reply was to) is the definition of lazy stereotyping.

I was demonstrating that was false, and why, and that children should be allowed to be who they are, and not be afraid to talk about it.

The "lazy stereotyping" I'm referring to is stuff like "My six-year old son loves The Sound of Music so I think he's gay." It's not a "stereotype" to acknowledge the basic fact that children don't have sexual feelings. And the "romantic" feelings you ascribe to them are not (from my experience) useful indicators of what they will be like when they grow up.

First, I'm not sure where my continued point that sexual =/= romantic implies that I am saying children have sexual feelings--quite the opposite. But you seem determined to pin that claim to me nonetheless.

Second, I'm not ascribing romantic feelings to children--my point continues to be that it is just as wrong to claim as an absolute that children are incapable of having romantic feelings purely because sexual feelings do not exist, any more than, in your instance, it would have been for your parents to infer you were gay from a few interactions.

Unfortunately a lot of parents will react quite differently if their child comes home from school and talks about a crush of the same gender vs a crush on the opposite, and children shouldn't have to fear how their parents or teachers will react to such things.

[Hammy]

Unless GLAAD doesn't believe that asexuals are marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary, then they do. If GLAAD doesn't believe that about asexuals, then I'd be surprised, but I'd stand corrected.

As for the links, there's plenty of information on GLAAD's website about asexuality and demisexuality if you care to read it, but I already know that you're not going to accept the links I share so I'm not going to bother. 

Asexuals are in fact marginalized--either you're treated like you're broken or defective by friends and family--essentially ostracized because you aren't horny for everything that moves--or assumed to be gay, and face what comes with that.

My parents threatened to send me to therapists to fix what they felt was wrong with me (some "late bloomer" garbage) until I lied and hid it behind a no sex before marriage moral objection. At school people unilaterally decided I was gay, which resulted in various levels of harassments and threats which are not appropriate to go into detail here. Literally not one person believed I simply didn't have sexual desires without feeling it meant I was broken or defective, and treating me as if I was mentally deficient.

Regarding demisexual, a two second google brought up a page saying it's "halfway between sexual and asexual" which I can't particularly make sense of, but to each their own. But having a definition there does not equal treating it as a marginalized group, as much as people wanting to have more personalized things to call themselves rather than falling under an umbrella. Again, I can't makes sense of this (I grew up in the 'don't label me' generation) but it's certainly being blown out of proportion.