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

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

1st grades learning about gay equality isn't age appropriate

Why is it not age appropriate?

Why specifically is it not age appropriate to mention that it used to be not allowed for two men or two women to get married, but now it is?

Most of these kids in school have parents who are married, they know what marriage is.

These are issues for PARENTS to convey to kids, not teachers.

Whether that is right or wrong is the role of the PARENT to teach.  Not the school.  And not some teacher with a political agenda.  (The pandemic has certainly brought out in the open the naked political agendas that many, many public school teachers seek to advance through "teaching" OUR children (not THEIR children, but OURS).  

Our youngest son is 16 years old.  He's grown up in a Christian environment, where he's not been in a Public school since 5th grade.  He has secular activities where kids have LGBTQ parents who are openly LGBTQ.  We have taught him what the Bible says on homosexuality (and, indeed, about what it says on ALL sexual activity outside that between a man and woman married to each other).  We have also taught him that not everyone he meets in the secular World is going to be a Christian and we have informed him about SSM and such.  Lastly, we have taught him boundaries; it's not his job to correct others.  It's his job to do the right thing for himself, first.

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, because even if you avoid all such people like me, there are millions and millions of Americans that believe as I do.  This is not education; this is indoctrination and indoctrination by teachers who are members of a union with a wide-ranging political agenda that wish to indoctrinate students so that their agenda can someday come to pass.  That's called "being a user of people".  There's really nothing noble about this; it is an attack against the rights of parents, it places public education in direct conflict with religion (and not just taking a neutral posture) and it is indoctrination of young school students worthy of authoritarian societies.  It is unjustifiable by any standard.  My son is now homeschooled, and he's beyond the ages that this bill affects.  I will resist this on behalf of those kids who are still in pulbic schools whose parents are not in the posision of having other options with which to teach their children.

I think queer kids getting to learn about who they are and non-queer kids understanding queerness and accepting it is more important than their parents bigoted religious beliefs going unchallenged. In general, parents don't have a right to isolate their kids from reasonable viewpoints; you are not entitled to isolate your child in a bubble.

Honestly its ironic that you're complaining about public schools "indoctrinating" kids considering that your problem with teaching queerness in public schools is literally that you're not getting to indoctrinate your child with no challenging viewpoints.

[Saint Milei]

1st grades learning about gay equality isn't age appropriate

Why is it not age appropriate?

Why specifically is it not age appropriate to mention that it used to be not allowed for two men or two women to get married, but now it is?

Most of these kids in school have parents who are married, they know what marriage is.

These are issues for PARENTS to convey to kids, not teachers.

Whether that is right or wrong is the role of the PARENT to teach.  Not the school.  And not some teacher with a political agenda.  (The pandemic has certainly brought out in the open the naked political agendas that many, many public school teachers seek to advance through "teaching" OUR children (not THEIR children, but OURS).  

Our youngest son is 16 years old.  He's grown up in a Christian environment, where he's not been in a Public school since 5th grade.  He has secular activities where kids have LGBTQ parents who are openly LGBTQ.  We have taught him what the Bible says on homosexuality (and, indeed, about what it says on ALL sexual activity outside that between a man and woman married to each other).  We have also taught him that not everyone he meets in the secular World is going to be a Christian and we have informed him about SSM and such.  Lastly, we have taught him boundaries; it's not his job to correct others.  It's his job to do the right thing for himself, first.

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, because even if you avoid all such people like me, there are millions and millions of Americans that believe as I do.  This is not education; this is indoctrination and indoctrination by teachers who are members of a union with a wide-ranging political agenda that wish to indoctrinate students so that their agenda can someday come to pass.  That's called "being a user of people".  There's really nothing noble about this; it is an attack against the rights of parents, it places public education in direct conflict with religion (and not just taking a neutral posture) and it is indoctrination of young school students worthy of authoritarian societies.  It is unjustifiable by any standard.  My son is now homeschooled, and he's beyond the ages that this bill affects.  I will resist this on behalf of those kids who are still in pulbic schools whose parents are not in the posision of having other options with which to teach their children.

I think queer kids getting to learn about who they are and non-queer kids understanding queerness and accepting it is more important than their parents bigoted religious beliefs going unchallenged. In general, parents don't have a right to isolate their kids from reasonable viewpoints; you are not entitled to isolate your child in a bubble.

Honestly its ironic that you're complaining about public schools "indoctrinating" kids considering that your problem with teaching queerness in public schools is literally that you're not getting to indoctrinate your child with no challenging viewpoints.

Lol there isn't some queer viewpoint stop it and you don't need school for queers to "learn about who they are". Most kids don't learn about themselves due to classes in grade school

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Lol there isn't some queer viewpoint stop it and you don't need school for queers to "learn about who they are". Most kids don't learn about themselves due to classes in grade school

We literally have schools teach kids about sex. A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools. I would have been helped a lot if I was taught about trans people in Kindergarten, for example.

[Person Man]

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?

I have this fantasy of you two working on a joint syllabus "teaching the facts of Christian doctrine." When you get done please send me a copy. Thank you.

Define "Christian". Nicean Christianity? Orthodox Christianity? Evangelical Christianity? Fundamentalist Christianity?

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

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.

No, that's not what we think.  We do believe that what children learn in their public schools ought not be a frontal assault on Scriptural teachings, but that is exactly what the proponents of this law want.

Public, secular schools should not give a flying flamingo what religious groups want them to do; knowledge is knowledge, whether your religious doctrine likes it or not.

[T'Chenka]

We do believe that what children learn in their public schools ought not be a frontal assault on Scriptural teachings, but that is exactly what the proponents of this law want.

Okay, and I'm sure Hindu parents would prefer that public schools aren't teaching things contrary to the Rig Veda. Scientologist parents would prefer that public schools don't contradict their doctrines. You're making a valid point, but I don't understand why you think that what christians want "matters" to public schools. There is a very clear separation of church and state in North America, and if you want to teach your child to believe things that society as a whole doesn't necessarily believe, it is 100% your right to do so. The public school system doesn't need to go out of it's way to help you with that, though.

[Saint Milei]

Lol there isn't some queer viewpoint stop it and you don't need school for queers to "learn about who they are". Most kids don't learn about themselves due to classes in grade school

We literally have schools teach kids about sex. A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools. I would have been helped a lot if I was taught about trans people in Kindergarten, for example.

Teaching about sex from a biological standpoint + safe sex is not the same as a queer viewpoint. False equivalence.

A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools.

Aka indoctrinate my kids with nonsense

[Badger]

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.

No, that's not what we think.  We do believe that what children learn in their public schools ought not be a frontal assault on Scriptural teachings, but that is exactly what the proponents of this law want.

Let parents raise this issue with their own children, especially the age groups of children covered in this bill.  What's wrong with that, other than not every family will provide the information others demand the children receive.

So public school teaching about sex ed must be compliant with the doctrines of particular fundamentalist religious sects. Got it.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Lol there isn't some queer viewpoint stop it and you don't need school for queers to "learn about who they are". Most kids don't learn about themselves due to classes in grade school

We literally have schools teach kids about sex. A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools. I would have been helped a lot if I was taught about trans people in Kindergarten, for example.

Teaching about sex from a biological standpoint + safe sex is not the same as a queer viewpoint. False equivalence.

A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools.

Aka indoctrinate my kids with nonsense

"Anything I don't like is indoctrination, a reactionary culture warriors guide to political discussion".

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Lol there isn't some queer viewpoint stop it and you don't need school for queers to "learn about who they are". Most kids don't learn about themselves due to classes in grade school

We literally have schools teach kids about sex. A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools. I would have been helped a lot if I was taught about trans people in Kindergarten, for example.

Teaching about sex from a biological standpoint + safe sex is not the same as a queer viewpoint. False equivalence.

A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools.

Aka indoctrinate my kids with nonsense

Seriously, the 'queer viewpoint' is the viewpoint of people who understand basic reality. Anyone who thinks "homosexuality is wrong" is a reasonable position can be safely ignored on the topic without losing anything of value.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Lol there isn't some queer viewpoint stop it and you don't need school for queers to "learn about who they are". Most kids don't learn about themselves due to classes in grade school

We literally have schools teach kids about sex. A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools. I would have been helped a lot if I was taught about trans people in Kindergarten, for example.

Teaching about sex from a biological standpoint + safe sex is not the same as a queer viewpoint. False equivalence.

A lot of people will not get a good understanding of queer issues(which is very important to have, especially for queer kids) unless we teach it in schools.

Aka indoctrinate my kids with nonsense

"Anything I don't like is indoctrination, a reactionary culture warriors guide to political discussion".

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

[John Dule]

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?

I have this fantasy of you two working on a joint syllabus "teaching the facts of Christian doctrine." When you get done please send me a copy. Thank you.

I think we could pull it off. Fuzzy would write the entire thing himself, and then I would insert [citation needed] at the end of every sentence.

[T'Chenka]

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

How is teaching children "this is what a gay person is, this is what a transgender person is" different from teaching children "this is what a christian person is, this is what a muslim person is", or "this is what a black person is, this is what a white person is"? The school doesn't tell children "being a christian or muslim is good (or bad)", and they wouldn't tell children "being LGBTQ is good (or bad)". They just TEACH the children and educate them so they understand things properly without learning misinformation or believing counter-factual propaganda.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

How is teaching children "this is what a gay person is, this is what a transgender person is" different from teaching children "this is what a christian person is, this is what a muslim person is", or "this is what a black person is, this is what a white person is"? The school doesn't tell children "being a christian or muslim is good (or bad)", and they wouldn't tell children "being LGBTQ is good (or bad)". They just TEACH the children and educate them so they understand things properly without learning misinformation or believing counter-factual propaganda.

This particular subject is the job of parents.  Let public schools teach children so that they can read to grade level.  Let public schools teach children to write so they can express thoughts coherently and in a businesslike manner.  (They'll need that skill someday.)  Let public schools teach science and history, and let public schools teach children basic tenets of citizenship.

Let families teach children the right and wrong of issues like this.  God gave children to parents.  He did not give them to the pubic school.  If that is inconvenient for people, well, that's just Too Bad On Your Birthday (cue the Joan Jett music).

[John Dule]

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

How is teaching children "this is what a gay person is, this is what a transgender person is" different from teaching children "this is what a christian person is, this is what a muslim person is", or "this is what a black person is, this is what a white person is"? The school doesn't tell children "being a christian or muslim is good (or bad)", and they wouldn't tell children "being LGBTQ is good (or bad)". They just TEACH the children and educate them so they understand things properly without learning misinformation or believing counter-factual propaganda.

This particular subject is the job of parents.  Let public schools teach children so that they can read to grade level.  Let public schools teach children to write so they can express thoughts coherently and in a businesslike manner.  (They'll need that skill someday.)  Let public schools teach science and history, and let public schools teach children basic tenets of citizenship.

Let families teach children the right and wrong of issues like this.  God gave children to parents.  He did not give them to the pubic school.  If that is inconvenient for people, well, that's just Too Bad On Your Birthday (cue the Joan Jett music).

Is tolerance for those different from oneself not a "basic tenet of citizenship" in a pluralistic democracy?

[T'Chenka]

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

How is teaching children "this is what a gay person is, this is what a transgender person is" different from teaching children "this is what a christian person is, this is what a muslim person is", or "this is what a black person is, this is what a white person is"? The school doesn't tell children "being a christian or muslim is good (or bad)", and they wouldn't tell children "being LGBTQ is good (or bad)". They just TEACH the children and educate them so they understand things properly without learning misinformation or believing counter-factual propaganda.

This particular subject is the job of parents.  Let public schools teach children so that they can read to grade level.  Let public schools teach children to write so they can express thoughts coherently and in a businesslike manner.  (They'll need that skill someday.)  Let public schools teach science and history, and let public schools teach children basic tenets of citizenship.

Let families teach children the right and wrong of issues like this.  God gave children to parents.  He did not give them to the pubic school.  If that is inconvenient for people, well, that's just Too Bad On Your Birthday (cue the Joan Jett music).

Maybe you should read my post again. I said the school doesn't teach children if being a christian or muslim is right or wrong, and it wouldn't teach children if being straight or LGBTQ is right or wrong. It would simply educate them. "What is a christian? What is a transgender person?" You have not provided any reasoning as to why simply educating children about this without taking any sort of moral stance on it is unreasonable.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

How is teaching children "this is what a gay person is, this is what a transgender person is" different from teaching children "this is what a christian person is, this is what a muslim person is", or "this is what a black person is, this is what a white person is"? The school doesn't tell children "being a christian or muslim is good (or bad)", and they wouldn't tell children "being LGBTQ is good (or bad)". They just TEACH the children and educate them so they understand things properly without learning misinformation or believing counter-factual propaganda.

This particular subject is the job of parents.  Let public schools teach children so that they can read to grade level.  Let public schools teach children to write so they can express thoughts coherently and in a businesslike manner.  (They'll need that skill someday.)  Let public schools teach science and history, and let public schools teach children basic tenets of citizenship.

Let families teach children the right and wrong of issues like this.  God gave children to parents.  He did not give them to the pubic school.  If that is inconvenient for people, well, that's just Too Bad On Your Birthday (cue the Joan Jett music).

Is tolerance for those different from oneself not a "basic tenet of citizenship" in a pluralistic democracy?

Very much so, yes.  But "tolerance", like "marriage" is a term that has been deliberately redefined.

Tolerance used to mean that you could be you and I could be me and I'd leave you alone and vice versa.  It DIDN'T mean that I had to affirm that your choices were moral or right, or "just as good" as mine.  Today, "tolerance" means that I have to affirm the virtue in the choices and values of others, and that I will not do.  I will live and let live.  I will not discriminate.  But I will not affirm as Good and Right what God, in His Word, has said is Wrong.  I'm not going to holler at people on the street who wish to be left alone on the issue.  But I'm not going to give up my right to preach the whole Counsel of God (whatever that is), and I'm not going to have my arm twisted into affirming the morality of anything I consider to be immoral.

I thought at one time that Libertarians believed in this.  Judging from most of the Yellow Avatars on Atlas, it seems as if "Libertarian" has been redefined as well.

[John Dule]

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

How is teaching children "this is what a gay person is, this is what a transgender person is" different from teaching children "this is what a christian person is, this is what a muslim person is", or "this is what a black person is, this is what a white person is"? The school doesn't tell children "being a christian or muslim is good (or bad)", and they wouldn't tell children "being LGBTQ is good (or bad)". They just TEACH the children and educate them so they understand things properly without learning misinformation or believing counter-factual propaganda.

This particular subject is the job of parents.  Let public schools teach children so that they can read to grade level.  Let public schools teach children to write so they can express thoughts coherently and in a businesslike manner.  (They'll need that skill someday.)  Let public schools teach science and history, and let public schools teach children basic tenets of citizenship.

Let families teach children the right and wrong of issues like this.  God gave children to parents.  He did not give them to the pubic school.  If that is inconvenient for people, well, that's just Too Bad On Your Birthday (cue the Joan Jett music).

Is tolerance for those different from oneself not a "basic tenet of citizenship" in a pluralistic democracy?

Very much so, yes.  But "tolerance", like "marriage" is a term that has been deliberately redefined.

Tolerance used to mean that you could be you and I could be me and I'd leave you alone and vice versa.  It DIDN'T mean that I had to affirm that your choices were moral or right, or "just as good" as mine.  Today, "tolerance" means that I have to affirm the virtue in the choices and values of others, and that I will not do.  I will live and let live.  I will not discriminate.  But I will not affirm as Good and Right what God, in His Word, has said is Wrong.  I'm not going to holler at people on the street who wish to be left alone on the issue.  But I'm not going to give up my right to preach the whole Counsel of God (whatever that is), and I'm not going to have my arm twisted into affirming the morality of anything I consider to be immoral.

I thought at one time that Libertarians believed in this.  Judging from most of the Yellow Avatars on Atlas, it seems as if "Libertarian" has been redefined as well.

Where did I say that you should have to affirm other people's choices as "moral and right?"

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This IS indoctrination.  It's goal is to raise a generation to believe something their parents object to.

This is not the purpose of schools, especially not with regard to elementary school students, which this bill is aimed at.

How is teaching children "this is what a gay person is, this is what a transgender person is" different from teaching children "this is what a christian person is, this is what a muslim person is", or "this is what a black person is, this is what a white person is"? The school doesn't tell children "being a christian or muslim is good (or bad)", and they wouldn't tell children "being LGBTQ is good (or bad)". They just TEACH the children and educate them so they understand things properly without learning misinformation or believing counter-factual propaganda.

This particular subject is the job of parents.  Let public schools teach children so that they can read to grade level.  Let public schools teach children to write so they can express thoughts coherently and in a businesslike manner.  (They'll need that skill someday.)  Let public schools teach science and history, and let public schools teach children basic tenets of citizenship.

Let families teach children the right and wrong of issues like this.  God gave children to parents.  He did not give them to the pubic school.  If that is inconvenient for people, well, that's just Too Bad On Your Birthday (cue the Joan Jett music).

Is tolerance for those different from oneself not a "basic tenet of citizenship" in a pluralistic democracy?

Very much so, yes.  But "tolerance", like "marriage" is a term that has been deliberately redefined.

Tolerance used to mean that you could be you and I could be me and I'd leave you alone and vice versa.  It DIDN'T mean that I had to affirm that your choices were moral or right, or "just as good" as mine.  Today, "tolerance" means that I have to affirm the virtue in the choices and values of others, and that I will not do.  I will live and let live.  I will not discriminate.  But I will not affirm as Good and Right what God, in His Word, has said is Wrong.  I'm not going to holler at people on the street who wish to be left alone on the issue.  But I'm not going to give up my right to preach the whole Counsel of God (whatever that is), and I'm not going to have my arm twisted into affirming the morality of anything I consider to be immoral.

I thought at one time that Libertarians believed in this.  Judging from most of the Yellow Avatars on Atlas, it seems as if "Libertarian" has been redefined as well.

Where did I say that you should have to affirm other people's choices as "moral and right?"

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.

[T'Chenka]

Is tolerance for those different from oneself not a "basic tenet of citizenship" in a pluralistic democracy?

Very much so, yes.  But "tolerance", like "marriage" is a term that has been deliberately redefined.

Tolerance used to mean that you could be you and I could be me and I'd leave you alone and vice versa.  It DIDN'T mean that I had to affirm that your choices were moral or right, or "just as good" as mine.  Today, "tolerance" means that I have to affirm the virtue in the choices and values of others, and that I will not do.  I will live and let live.  I will not discriminate.  But I will not affirm as Good and Right what God, in His Word, has said is Wrong.  I'm not going to holler at people on the street who wish to be left alone on the issue.  But I'm not going to give up my right to preach the whole Counsel of God (whatever that is), and I'm not going to have my arm twisted into affirming the morality of anything I consider to be immoral.

I thought at one time that Libertarians believed in this.  Judging from most of the Yellow Avatars on Atlas, it seems as if "Libertarian" has been redefined as well.

Fuzzy, your entire post has NOTHING to do with schools teaching kids what gay and trans people are. I have told you repeatedly that schools do NOT need to teach children that being gay is "good". They just need to tell that what being gay IS. That's not the same thing AT ALL and you are refusing to acknowledge this. Do you have any intention of debating this in good faith?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Is tolerance for those different from oneself not a "basic tenet of citizenship" in a pluralistic democracy?

Very much so, yes.  But "tolerance", like "marriage" is a term that has been deliberately redefined.

Tolerance used to mean that you could be you and I could be me and I'd leave you alone and vice versa.  It DIDN'T mean that I had to affirm that your choices were moral or right, or "just as good" as mine.  Today, "tolerance" means that I have to affirm the virtue in the choices and values of others, and that I will not do.  I will live and let live.  I will not discriminate.  But I will not affirm as Good and Right what God, in His Word, has said is Wrong.  I'm not going to holler at people on the street who wish to be left alone on the issue.  But I'm not going to give up my right to preach the whole Counsel of God (whatever that is), and I'm not going to have my arm twisted into affirming the morality of anything I consider to be immoral.

I thought at one time that Libertarians believed in this.  Judging from most of the Yellow Avatars on Atlas, it seems as if "Libertarian" has been redefined as well.

Fuzzy, your entire post has NOTHING to do with schools teaching kids what gay and trans people are. I have told you repeatedly that schools do NOT need to teach children that being gay is "good". They just need to tell that what being gay IS. That's not the same thing AT ALL and you are refusing to acknowledge this. Do you have any intention of debating this in good faith?

Teaching this is not the province of schoolteachers, and today's public schoolteachers cannot be trusted to restrain themselves to merely give facts.  Teachers have royally earned this distrust.

[T'Chenka]

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.

Leviticus tells us what God deems as right or wrong. The bible also teaches people to simply live their lives and leave the judgement to God. If a child thinks that his gay classmate is going to burn in hell for being gay, that is perfectly fine. He is entitled to his opinion.

[T'Chenka]

Teaching this is not the province of schoolteachers, and today's public schoolteachers cannot be trusted to restrain themselves to merely give facts.  Teachers have royally earned this distrust.

Okay, so let's discipline the teachers who get too political in the way they teach it. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, at least in principle. Go ahead and punish them. That doesn't mean that the education should not be happening.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I don’t know why you all are going around in circles on Fuzzy on this when he has demonstrated he’s from the wing of “gay peoples mere existence is a political issue and simply teaching their existence is unacceptable because if my kids are exposed to the simple neutral fact that gay people are no different from anyone else then my kids are going to start asking questions I don’t want them too” evangelism

[John Dule]

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.

But this bill goes so far beyond that. I agree that young kids should not be exposed to age-inappropriate discussions of sexuality. I also do not think the state should force students to affirm beliefs they do not hold. But why does this necessitate outing kids to their parents if they come out of the closet to their friends at school? What are the parameters for the injunctive relief the bill affords to parents? Who determines what is and isn't age-appropriate?

This bill does not seem to address the limited problem you're concerned with. It's not just about preventing the "affirmation" of views you don't like in the classroom.