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

[DaleCooper]

good

You think it's "good" that LGBT kids are going to die?

From now on, I'm going to start saying that every new rent control law and income tax is "literally going to kill people" on the basis that, statistically speaking, someone will probably end up killing themselves as a result of these policies being enacted.

It's because of people like you that LGBT youth are 4x as likely to try and take their own lives.

Please expand on the causal connection you see here.

Liberals think that LGBT youth are weak.

[DaleCooper]

good

You think it's "good" that LGBT kids are going to die?

From now on, I'm going to start saying that every new rent control law and income tax is "literally going to kill people" on the basis that, statistically speaking, someone will probably end up killing themselves as a result of these policies being enacted.

It's because of people like you that LGBT youth are 4x as likely to try and take their own lives.

Please expand on the causal connection you see here.

Liberals think that LGBT youth are weak.

Suffering the consequences of societal discrimination doesn't make someone 'weak' it makes them HUMAN, ffs. You either WANT to see LGBT kids abused or at the very least are indifferent to it, and it's frankly sick.

LGBT youth deal with far worse problems than debate bros online. Blaming Dule and people like him for their deaths is absurd and insulting.

[DaleCooper]

good

You think it's "good" that LGBT kids are going to die?

From now on, I'm going to start saying that every new rent control law and income tax is "literally going to kill people" on the basis that, statistically speaking, someone will probably end up killing themselves as a result of these policies being enacted.

It's because of people like you that LGBT youth are 4x as likely to try and take their own lives.

Please expand on the causal connection you see here.

Liberals think that LGBT youth are weak.

Suffering the consequences of societal discrimination doesn't make someone 'weak' it makes them HUMAN, ffs. You either WANT to see LGBT kids abused or at the very least are indifferent to it, and it's frankly sick.

LGBT youth deal with far worse problems than debate bros online. Blaming Dule and people like him for their deaths is absurd and insulting.

As someone who was/is an LGBT youth, I am more than aware of that. When did I, or anyone else here, seriously accuse any one poster of causing anyone's death? That being said, bad and discriminatory policy like this does contribute negatively to the mental health of LGBT Youth who already have to face discrimination at school.

Forcing them back into the closet in one of the few places where they may feel safe being themselves is only going to worsen the feelings of isolation that many of them feel. How can you not understand that? And this bill is very likely to cause at least some kids to be forcibly outed to families who are not accepting of their sexuality, which is likely to lead to abuse or worse. That's a simple fact.

good

You think it's "good" that LGBT kids are going to die?

From now on, I'm going to start saying that every new rent control law and income tax is "literally going to kill people" on the basis that, statistically speaking, someone will probably end up killing themselves as a result of these policies being enacted.

It's because of people like you that LGBT youth are 4x as likely to try and take their own lives.

[DaleCooper]

good

You think it's "good" that LGBT kids are going to die?

From now on, I'm going to start saying that every new rent control law and income tax is "literally going to kill people" on the basis that, statistically speaking, someone will probably end up killing themselves as a result of these policies being enacted.

It's because of people like you that LGBT youth are 4x as likely to try and take their own lives.

Please expand on the causal connection you see here.

Liberals think that LGBT youth are weak.

Suffering the consequences of societal discrimination doesn't make someone 'weak' it makes them HUMAN, ffs. You either WANT to see LGBT kids abused or at the very least are indifferent to it, and it's frankly sick.

LGBT youth deal with far worse problems than debate bros online. Blaming Dule and people like him for their deaths is absurd and insulting.

As someone who was/is an LGBT youth, I am more than aware of that. When did I, or anyone else here, seriously accuse any one poster of causing anyone's death? That being said, bad and discriminatory policy like this does contribute negatively to the mental health of LGBT Youth who already have to face discrimination at school.

Forcing them back into the closet in one of the few places where they may feel safe being themselves is only going to worsen the feelings of isolation that many of them feel. How can you not understand that? And this bill is very likely to cause at least some kids to be forcibly outed to families who are not accepting of their sexuality, which is likely to lead to abuse or worse. That's a simple fact.

good

You think it's "good" that LGBT kids are going to die?

From now on, I'm going to start saying that every new rent control law and income tax is "literally going to kill people" on the basis that, statistically speaking, someone will probably end up killing themselves as a result of these policies being enacted.

It's because of people like you that LGBT youth are 4x as likely to try and take their own lives.

Okay, well I don't think JD or any one poster on here is personally responsible for that tragic fact. Is that what you wanted to hear? But policy proposals and bills like this which they support certainly are.

I didn't really want to hear anything in particular. I didn't direct that comment at you in the first place.

[DaleCooper]

good

How is this good? In what non-homophobic context?

We shouldn't be teaching sexuality in K-12. Not useful and it's just virtue signaling. Parents care about their kids being productive citizens, learning to read and write, have some skills in order to function as an adult, and simply being kids. This bill doesn't help with any of that.

Kids WILL learn about it no matter what. Believing otherwise would be embarassingly naive. They can either learn it properly or learn propaganda, half-truths and misinformation. There is no option where kids don't learn about it in the real world.

If not for the internet, which is full of disgusting misinformation regarding sex (along with everything else), then it probably would be preferable to simply teach kids the basics regarding birth control and STDs and then let them go on to figure the rest out on their own in their own ways. Again, the internet is so full of lies that unfortunately schools probably will have to shoulder more of the burden here since American parents almost certainly won't bother.

[DaleCooper]

How many votes are still out there for gay bashing these days, other than Steve Bannon?

Tons of them. There are countless authoritarian puritan parents out there.

[DaleCooper]

If my tax dollars are not going to be used to spread the Gospel or facilitating Christian prayer in school, they ought not be used to affirm doctrines that run counter to Scripture, no matter what public opinion says

I do agree with this, Fuzzy, but this does not preclude the school's responsibility to educate students about gay issues at some point. Teaching a kid about the facts of Christian doctrine and its effects on our society should be a basic element of schooling, as should teaching kids about the existence of LGBT people. Do you think it's possible for schools to prepare students for life in the real world without at some point exposing them to these ideas?

But schools already do that. I went to school in bleeding heart NY and they taught about the historical significance of Christianity. The idea that gay people’s mere existence should be denied because schools don’t force certain religious down peoples throats is just a classic example of a reactionary authoritarian viewpoint trying to disguise itself as the victim

I know-- my school did the same, and I didn't complain. The only person who seems to be complaining about kids being exposed to differing viewpoints is Fuzzy.

Christian fundamentalists believe we need to go out of our way to avoid hurting their feelings.

[DaleCooper]

The bill in question in this thread seeks to stop education that results in such affirmations, even being forced or manipulated.

Just imagine what would happen if in the midst of teaching the curricula this legislation seeks to preempt, some 10 year old kid from Junior Bible Quiz quotes from Leviticus in school when asked to comment on the subject.  Would he/she be treated with "tolerance"?  Or would the kid be in deep doo doo with his teacher and the school?  Would his/her parents be "counseled"?  "Cancelled"?

I prefer to "Just Say "NO!" to Slippery Slopes.

If a student says that a gay person should be put to death, as Leviticus 20:13 does, then he should probably be expelled for suggesting that his fellow students deserve to be killed.

Disagree. This is a student who is clearly in need of secular public schooling. The last thing you want to do is send him off to be homeschooled by whichever fruitcake put these ideas in his head to begin with.

That’s certainly fair, but his presence in the school could put the lives of LGBT students at risk. I certainly wouldn’t feel safe if a classmate told me that people like me deserve to die.

The left desperately needs to reject bleeding heart-ism and embrace a tougher outlook on interacting with questionable people. If somebody told me I deserved to die and quoted Bible verses at me, I would be ruthless in my verbal response to him and if he escalated it physically then I would try to beat him up or at the very least do my best to inflict as much damage as possible before he kicked my ass. That's how you deal with and earn the respect of bullies, especially at that age. You put them in their place. The Mean Girls game of social alienation doesn't seem to be working, as it just drives people further into their bubble.

[DaleCooper]

The difference between a believer and an unbeliever is whether or not a person believes that Jesus Christ came to Earth to pay the sin penalty for man, died on the Cross as payment for OUR sins, rose from the Dead achieving victory over Death, Hell, and the Grave, and ascended into Heaven (from where he shall come again; that He was fully Man and fully God; and that belief in HIS death and resurrection as the ONLY atonement for sin.  That is what makes one a Christian; the belief in Christ as Savior and Lord and the confession of that Faith.

Yet again Fuzzy (perhaps unintentionally?) implies that only Protestants are truly Christian.

That's not surprising at all. Most evangelicals reject other all other interpretations of Christianity.

[DaleCooper]

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."  That commandment covers all sexual activity outside marriage.

There are going to be children in school who say that homosexual activity is sin.  Their views should not be contradicted at taxpayer expense, as this is a Biblical point of view.  School should not be a place where the religious views taught in the home are deliberately and systematically contradicted by teachers, all on the taxpayers' dime.  That's not OK, period.  There's a difference between saying "We don't do that here!" in correcting a child for advocating Old Testament penalties for homosexual acts and "No, your parents/pastor are/is wrong!" when it comes to the issue of what is and is not sin.

This actually leaves out the biblical teaching that divorce and remarriage outside of highly specific circumstances is adultery as well. By this same standard, do you think that schools should refuse to acknowledge the existence of step-parents? Realistically, society actually does have something of an interest in refusing to normalize broken homes than it does in refusing to normalize homosexuality.

[DaleCooper]

“Third graders don’t experience sexual or romantic attraction.” “Actually, many do experience romantic attraction.” “That’s not sexual attraction.”

Again, if by "romantic" you just mean "caring deeply about a person and wanting to spend time with them and be affectionate to them," then there is literally no correlation between that type of attraction and sexual attraction. Therefore there is no reason to infer "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" in a literal child who shows this type of affection for members of either gender.

A lot of that seems to be part of the attempts to shoehorn new categories under the broader "LGBT" label to artificially boost numbers. Ive seen where gigilos who want random hookups claim they are "aromantic" or "demiromantic" meaning they want to smash but not form a relationship. I think its silly to claim this is like some disfavored minority warranting a label under the "+". Just like "demisexual" which basically just means u arent a sl ut. These all seem like specious and unhelpful labels to the underlying issue. Just like the whole "kink pride" labels.

 Yes, step 47 of the well known  Gay agenda. Seeking to normalize breakdown of tradition traditional binary generals for the goal of increasing numbers who identify LGBTQ in public opinion polls.

I can't speak for Mr. Reactionary, but I actually think it's mostly straight people that are trying to do it in order to claim some kind of marginalized status without actually living anything resembling the gay experience. "Demisexual" (meaning that you prefer to only have sex with people you respect and care about) literally just means you're a normal and typical person, lol.

[DaleCooper]

“Third graders don’t experience sexual or romantic attraction.” “Actually, many do experience romantic attraction.” “That’s not sexual attraction.”

Again, if by "romantic" you just mean "caring deeply about a person and wanting to spend time with them and be affectionate to them," then there is literally no correlation between that type of attraction and sexual attraction. Therefore there is no reason to infer "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" in a literal child who shows this type of affection for members of either gender.

A lot of that seems to be part of the attempts to shoehorn new categories under the broader "LGBT" label to artificially boost numbers. Ive seen where gigilos who want random hookups claim they are "aromantic" or "demiromantic" meaning they want to smash but not form a relationship. I think its silly to claim this is like some disfavored minority warranting a label under the "+". Just like "demisexual" which basically just means u arent a sl ut. These all seem like specious and unhelpful labels to the underlying issue. Just like the whole "kink pride" labels.

 Yes, step 47 of the well known  Gay agenda. Seeking to normalize breakdown of tradition traditional binary generals for the goal of increasing numbers who identify LGBTQ in public opinion polls.

I can't speak for Mr. Reactionary, but I actually think it's mostly straight people that are trying to do it in order to claim some kind of marginalized status without actually living anything resembling the gay experience. "Demisexual" (meaning that you prefer to only have sex with people you respect and care about) literally just means you're a normal and typical person, lol.

I will just note that surveys generally indicate that ~2/3 of Americans have had one-night stands at least once. Also, generally most people will have some celebrities or something/people they don't know directly who they think are hot. 'Celebrity crushes' have long been considered a fairly normal thing, after all.

But (at least if I'm reading the definition correctly, which I'm pretty sure I am), none of these things are things demisexual people do or can do.

I don't believe that two thirds of Americans have had one-night stands with people they have no emotional relationship with. And celebrity crushes are almost always based on parasocial interaction, where the viewer feels like they do have an emotional connection to the person even though they have never met them before. Having sex with someone you appreciate beyond their physical appearance has broadly been seen as better and more fulfilling for a long time. Pretending "demisexuality" is a unique or out-of-the-ordinary sexual orientation, and a marginalized one at that, is silly.

[DaleCooper]

Pretending "demisexuality" is a unique or out-of-the-ordinary sexual orientation, and a marginalized one at that, is silly.

That statement is true, but I've never met nor even heard of anyone who does that.

Are you getting hot and bothered over some #online social media thing again?

I'm participating in a conversation with other people. I really wish Democrats would stop trying to gaslight everybody into thinking that every weird thing on the left doesn't exist. It's a big part of why your party is so intolerable.

[DaleCooper]

Pretending "demisexuality" is a unique or out-of-the-ordinary sexual orientation, and a marginalized one at that, is silly.

That statement is true, but I've never met nor even heard of anyone who does that.

Are you getting hot and bothered over some #online social media thing again?

As a general rule, people who exist on the internet also tend to exist in real life.

I think it's pretty well established that Twitter is full of grandstanders and provocateurs. The idea that there is any significant movement on "the Left" to classify "demisexuals" as another letter in the LGBTQ community is laughably out of touch with reality.

Does GLAAD count?

[DaleCooper]

Pretending "demisexuality" is a unique or out-of-the-ordinary sexual orientation, and a marginalized one at that, is silly.

That statement is true, but I've never met nor even heard of anyone who does that.

Are you getting hot and bothered over some #online social media thing again?

As a general rule, people who exist on the internet also tend to exist in real life.

I think it's pretty well established that Twitter is full of grandstanders and provocateurs. The idea that there is any significant movement on "the Left" to classify "demisexuals" as another letter in the LGBTQ community is laughably out of touch with reality.

Does GLAAD count?

GLAAD considers "demisexuals" to be marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary?

Apparently

[DaleCooper]

Pretending "demisexuality" is a unique or out-of-the-ordinary sexual orientation, and a marginalized one at that, is silly.

That statement is true, but I've never met nor even heard of anyone who does that.

Are you getting hot and bothered over some #online social media thing again?

As a general rule, people who exist on the internet also tend to exist in real life.

I think it's pretty well established that Twitter is full of grandstanders and provocateurs. The idea that there is any significant movement on "the Left" to classify "demisexuals" as another letter in the LGBTQ community is laughably out of touch with reality.

Does GLAAD count?

GLAAD considers "demisexuals" to be marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary?

Apparently

That's the best you can do? I'm inviting you to prove me wrong, got my gracious "ah-ha, you got me!" all prepared, and you can't even give link me a damn link?

They include it under the asexual spectrum, which they include in the LGBTQIA acronym.

[DaleCooper]

Pretending "demisexuality" is a unique or out-of-the-ordinary sexual orientation, and a marginalized one at that, is silly.

That statement is true, but I've never met nor even heard of anyone who does that.

Are you getting hot and bothered over some #online social media thing again?

As a general rule, people who exist on the internet also tend to exist in real life.

I think it's pretty well established that Twitter is full of grandstanders and provocateurs. The idea that there is any significant movement on "the Left" to classify "demisexuals" as another letter in the LGBTQ community is laughably out of touch with reality.

Does GLAAD count?

GLAAD considers "demisexuals" to be marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary?

Apparently

That's the best you can do? I'm inviting you to prove me wrong, got my gracious "ah-ha, you got me!" all prepared, and you can't even give link me a damn link?

They include it under the asexual spectrum, which they include in the LGBTQIA acronym.

I'm going to need a link, and a link where GLAAD states that "demisexuals" are marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary.

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. 

[DaleCooper]

Pretending "demisexuality" is a unique or out-of-the-ordinary sexual orientation, and a marginalized one at that, is silly.

That statement is true, but I've never met nor even heard of anyone who does that.

Are you getting hot and bothered over some #online social media thing again?

As a general rule, people who exist on the internet also tend to exist in real life.

I think it's pretty well established that Twitter is full of grandstanders and provocateurs. The idea that there is any significant movement on "the Left" to classify "demisexuals" as another letter in the LGBTQ community is laughably out of touch with reality.

Does GLAAD count?

GLAAD considers "demisexuals" to be marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary?

Apparently

That's the best you can do? I'm inviting you to prove me wrong, got my gracious "ah-ha, you got me!" all prepared, and you can't even give link me a damn link?

They include it under the asexual spectrum, which they include in the LGBTQIA acronym.

I'm going to need a link, and a link where GLAAD states that "demisexuals" are marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary.

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. 

What the hell is this? I already said I was itching to declare you right and me wrong. Do you think if you sent me a link from GLAAD's webpage that said "Demisexuals are marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary" I'd be like "uh, no they don't actually say that..." like some kind of raving fool? Show me where they say that. I genuinely am curious.

They discuss demisexuality in their asexual awareness articles. They don't say "Demisexuals are marginalized, unique, and out of the ordinary" in those exact words, but unless you believe that GLAAD does not think of asexuality in those terms then the implication is clear.