Just normal American Utopia...

Archy1221 said:
Page 2 section 3 subsection 18 semi colon 24 paragraph 8 third sentence of the fourth Column in code 27.   Or just take it as meme?   I’m confused with you though.  Do we take things too literally or do we not?  You seem to be all over the page on this issue lately by your replies.  
 

But Pete did say he agreed the law would kill kids :dunno   and classifying the law as “don’t say gay” is disingenuous and lazy reporting.  Glad we settled that. 
Click to expand...
Edit:  to those that haven’t read it, Archy made up the part of the bill that talks about restricting teaching “humping”.  I caught the sarcasm, but others might not have.

LGBT kids attempt suicide four times as often as straight kids.  Why do you think that is?  Could it be that they don’t feel “normal”?

This law has no teeth in regards to “sex Ed” outside of making a point to make talking about sexual orientation and gender identity a “crime”.  It won’t change anything that has been or will be taught.  The concern isn’t for the 6 year olds, it’s for the 16 year old that just had a law passed that will make him/her feel “not normal”

If you could get passed the whole “it doesn’t have the word gay in it!!!” nonsense, you might actually see that section 3 is nothing but a unnecessary swipe at a group of people.   A group filled with teens that already face depression at a higher rate than straight teens.

More LGTB kids die of suicide because of who they are than kids that died from wearing masks and getting vaccines.  Why does Florida seem to care about one and not the other?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
Edit:  to those that haven’t read it, Archy made up the part of the bill that talks about restricting teaching “humping”.  I caught the sarcasm, but others might not have
Click to expand...
Just to clarify for everyone, I didn’t make up anything as funhusker falsely eludes.  I shared a meme attached to video clip.   The meme doesn’t reference any sexual preferences.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Just to clarify for everyone, I didn’t make up anything as funhusker falsely eludes.  I shared a meme attached to video clip.   The meme doesn’t reference any sexual preferences.  
Click to expand...
But you did, albeit sarcastically.

However, you did push a false narrative.  Very similar to what you keep complaining about.  

But I’m not worried about any of that.  I just wanted to explain why I didn’t think Buttigieg was out of line by saying what he did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
Good catch on sarcasm.  Glad the first comment tripped you up so much you couldn’t catch on.     Let me explain further for those that need it.  

The context of the discussion was if people choose to be Gay/lesbian.  That said….The only true choice in life we don’t have is to not die.   We all do it.  Every single one of us.  

Now I clearly said I believe some people are born in a way that they prefer the company of the same sex.  They could choose to live life a different way in unhappiness and some actually do.  We’ve all heard the stories of married people with kids who divorce because one can’t live the lie anymore.  It was a choice to not live the life with another gay/lesbian person but didn’t mean they weren’t gay/lesbian.   Others choose to live a gay/lesbian sexual lifestyle because they can’t find a straight partner or like the example @BigRedBuster said.   
 

asexual people not being able to get laid is a choice that seems like a forced choice in that they want to live as a Priest/Nun or they can’t get laid and want to be labeled something so I guess that group created asexual.   
 

I’ll remember to tag sarcasm on further posts for your benefit. 
Click to expand...


I'm a little late to this thread, but wow. Your futher explanation only makes it worse.

The uhm "choice" to live as a heterosexual when you are in fact homosexual is based on the historical treatment of gays, which typically involved humiliation, banishment, loss of job, physical violence, and even death. That's not "choosing" your sexuality. It's choosing to avoid consequences brought on by people who think you are choosing to do something God abhors. 

You and Teach appear to have mixed up asexuality with Incels. If you don't know about the Incel community, look it up. Or don't. It's both comical and scary.  The idea that some people would be born without, or lose a chemical sex drive should surprise no one. 

A few years ago the analogy was made that homosexuality is a lot like left-handedness:  it appears in about 8-10% of the population, and has done so throughout history and races and cultures. As a minority, society makes it a little more difficult to be left-handed, but we generally find work-arounds as no one blames someone for being left-handed. If you can throw a decent slider left-handed, you might even be rewarded with a big MLB contract. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I'm a little late to this thread, but wow. Your futher explanation only makes it worse.

The uhm "choice" to live as a heterosexual when you are in fact homosexual is based on the historical treatment of gays, which typically involved humiliation, banishment, loss of job, physical violence, and even death. That's not "choosing" your sexuality. It's choosing to avoid consequences brought on by people who think you are choosing to do something God abhors. 

You and Teach appear to have mixed up asexuality with Incels. If you don't know about the Incel community, look it up. Or don't. It's both comical and scary.  The idea that some people would be born without, or lose a chemical sex drive should surprise no one. 

A few years ago the analogy was made that homosexuality is a lot like left-handedness:  it appears in about 8-10% of the population, and has done so throughout history and races and cultures. As a minority, society makes it a little more difficult to be left-handed, but we generally find work-arounds as no one blames someone for being left-handed. If you can throw a decent slider left-handed, you might even be rewarded with a big MLB contract. 
Click to expand...
How does this pertain to my discussions on the parental rights bill exactly?  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
It pertains directly to the post you made. The one I cited. That's how these things work. 
Click to expand...
Ok, then pleas explain correctly how my post makes “things worse”.    I mean it’s absolutely true that being vast majority of people living a homosexual were born that way, and it’s also true that a small minority of people were not born that way and for whatever reason have chosen to be with their same sex.  That’s quite different than incel.  Surprised you don’t know this.  

 
Archy1221 said:
What false narrative? Please explain?
Click to expand...
That this law only keeps k-3 graders from learning about sex. 
 

It doesn’t do that at all.

Actually Mr Smith can still show a 1st grader how to put a condom on a banana if it’s in the curriculum.  He just can’t talk about how some people have two dads.

 
Archy1221 said:
I did.  thanks for advice I didn’t need.  Seems you need a refresher read.  IMO, you seem really triggered about k-3rd not getting a sex education at school in Florida  :dunno
Click to expand...
Where are you getting the impression that this law bans “sex education” or the discussion of sex in k-3rd?

This is a serious question.

This law does not ban discussion of sex.  I’ve mentioned before that I would actually be okay with it if it actually did.

edit: I’ve actually read the thing like 5 times today just to see if I’m missing something.  What part are you referencing when you say it bans talking about sex or sex Ed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
Where are you getting the impression that this law bans “sex education” or the discussion of sex in k-3rd?

This is a serious question.

This law does not ban discussion of sex.  I’ve mentioned before that I would actually be okay with it if it actually did.

edit: I’ve actually read the thing like 5 times today just to see if I’m missing something.  What part are you referencing when you say it bans talking about sex or sex Ed?
Click to expand...
Section 5/6 specifically 6.  In our school district, well being education encompasses sex education.   My assumption is it’s the same in Florida.  If it’s not, I’m wrong.  If it is, then I guess that’s where parents get to to choose whether or not they those discussions are appropriate for their kid.  It disallows Mr. Smith from teaching how to put a condom on a banana to anyone who thinks that’s bulls#!t (even if was in some fairy tail 1st grade curriculum that it will never be in). 
 

If I used ban in earlier posts in the wrong context (I’ll try and go back to look) explaining my position in haste then that’s on me, but it doesn’t really change what my position is in that kids k-3 don’t need to be taught sex education in school and this seems to codify a parents ability to “ban” that from happening for their child.   

 
Archy1221 said:
Section 5/6 specifically 6.  In our school district, well being education encompasses sex education.   My assumption is it’s the same in Florida.  If it’s not, I’m wrong.  If it is, then I guess that’s where parents get to to choose whether or not they those discussions are appropriate for their kid.  It disallows Mr. Smith from teaching how to put a condom on a banana to anyone who thinks that’s bulls#!t (even if was in some fairy tail 1st grade curriculum that it will never be in). 
 

If I used ban in earlier posts in the wrong context (I’ll try and go back to look) explaining my position in haste then that’s on me, but it doesn’t really change what my position is in that kids k-3 don’t need to be taught sex education in school and this seems to codify a parents ability to “ban” that from happening for their child.   
Click to expand...
You may want to reread those sections.  They’re about health screenings and services.  Not health education.

 5. At the beginning of the school year, each school
107 district shall notify parents of each healthcare service offered
108 at their student's school and the option to withhold consent or
109 decline any specific service. Parental consent to a health care
110 service does not waive the parent's right to access his or her
111 student's educational or health records or to be notified about
112 a change in his or her student's services or monitoring as
113 provided by this paragraph.
114 6. Before administering a student well-being questionnaire
115 or health screening form to a student in kindergarten through
116 grade 3, the school district must provide the questionnaire or
117 health screening form to the parent and obtain the permission of
118 the parent.

 

and you’re correct that no one is teaching condoms to first graders.  It is crazy to think sex is being taught in k-3. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top