LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBT+ Thread (2 Viewers)

[bigbottom]

Told you all Florida was just going to be the start. This would make it illegal and prohibit discussion of anything remotely related to LGBTQ issues, such as even acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ folks.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1583129744060870656

Republican Mike Johnson of Louisiana and 32 other House Republicans have introduced a national version of Don't Say Gay legislation — it would prohibit federal money from being used to teach children under 10 about ANYTHING related to LGBTQ issues.

Oh, good. Not seeing a problem here. Seems like it's a step in the right and proper direction. I mean, even the headline can't get the name of the bill right so you know it must be good.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!!!!

Not the literal headline of the bill, but if you bothered to actually read what it actually calls for, it is will literally be prohibiting the mentioning of the existence of LGBTQ folks.

And heterosexual folks and any other folks not covered under the alphabet mob.

Again, a good bill and proper step forward.

Your cavalier dismissal as "the alphabet mob" tells everyone where you are really coming from.

And your irresponsible, inflammatory and incorrect use of "Don't Say Gay Bill" tells everyone where YOU are coming from.

That is what it is, no? If they mention LGBTQ folks it will be a violation of this bill?

Uhm, no, it is NOT what it is and you know it. Your doe in the woods shtick isn't working.

Under this bill NO ONE, even heterosexual folks and any other folks not covered under the alphabet mob, can say anything.

Have either of you actually read the text of the bill? Honest question because the text doesn’t appear to be available yet on Congress.gov.

 

[jon_mx]

Isn't the gist of the bill to keep the groomers from brainwashing children under 10 with their sexual orientation and gender identity non-sense? It has nothing to do with teaching of the existence or nonexistence of any people. It has to do with is this sexualized material appropriate for 5 to 9 years olds? It raises a lot of questions of what the motivation is of people pushing this material down to an age where children really don't comprehend sex. Kids need to learn to read and add and very basic material. Kids do not need to know that their teacher likes to be tied up and have animals explore his/her anal cavity.

 

[squistion]

Isn't the gist of the bill to keep the groomers from brainwashing children under 10 with their sexual orientation and gender identity non-sense? It has nothing to do with teaching of the existence of any people. It has to do with is this sexualizwd material appropriate for 5 to 9 years olds? It raises a lot of questions of what the motivation is of people pushing this material down to an age where children really don't comprehend sex. Kids need to learn to read and add and very basic material. Kids do not need to know that their teacher likes to be tied up and have animals explore his/her anal cavity.

It has nothing to do with teaching of the existence of any people.

But that will be the real world actual result.

 

[jon_mx]

Isn't the gist of the bill to keep the groomers from brainwashing children under 10 with their sexual orientation and gender identity non-sense? It has nothing to do with teaching of the existence of any people. It has to do with is this sexualizwd material appropriate for 5 to 9 years olds? It raises a lot of questions of what the motivation is of people pushing this material down to an age where children really don't comprehend sex. Kids need to learn to read and add and very basic material. Kids do not need to know that their teacher likes to be tied up and have animals explore his/her anal cavity.

It has nothing to do with teaching of the existence of any people.

But that will be the real world actual result.

Makes no logical sense.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Kids do not need to know that their teacher likes to be tied up and have animals explore his/her anal cavity.

Damn gotta change tomorrow’s lesson plan.

 

[squistion]

Isn't the gist of the bill to keep the groomers from brainwashing children under 10 with their sexual orientation and gender identity non-sense? It has nothing to do with teaching of the existence of any people. It has to do with is this sexualizwd material appropriate for 5 to 9 years olds? It raises a lot of questions of what the motivation is of people pushing this material down to an age where children really don't comprehend sex. Kids need to learn to read and add and very basic material. Kids do not need to know that their teacher likes to be tied up and have animals explore his/her anal cavity.

It has nothing to do with teaching of the existence of any people.

But that will be the real world actual result.

Makes no logical sense.

Geez...of course it does.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Told you all Florida was just going to be the start. This would make it illegal and prohibit discussion of anything remotely related to LGBTQ issues, such as even acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ folks.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1583129744060870656

Republican Mike Johnson of Louisiana and 32 other House Republicans have introduced a national version of Don't Say Gay legislation — it would prohibit federal money from being used to teach children under 10 about ANYTHING related to LGBTQ issues.

Oh, good. Not seeing a problem here. Seems like it's a step in the right and proper direction. I mean, even the headline can't get the name of the bill right so you know it must be good.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!!!!

Not the literal headline of the bill, but if you bothered to actually read what it actually calls for, it is will literally be prohibiting the mentioning of the existence of LGBTQ folks.

And heterosexual folks and any other folks not covered under the alphabet mob.

Again, a good bill and proper step forward.

Your cavalier dismissal as "the alphabet mob" tells everyone where you are really coming from.

And your irresponsible, inflammatory and incorrect use of "Don't Say Gay Bill" tells everyone where YOU are coming from.

That is what it is, no? If they mention LGBTQ folks it will be a violation of this bill?

Uhm, no, it is NOT what it is and you know it. Your doe in the woods shtick isn't working.

Under this bill NO ONE, even heterosexual folks and any other folks not covered under the alphabet mob, can say anything.

Have either of you actually read the text of the bill? Honest question because the text doesn’t appear to be available yet on Congress.gov.

The bill prohibits federal funds from being used for this stuff. It also would prohibit federal buildings from being used for dumb things like drag queen story hour.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Link to bill can be found Here

 

[parasaurolophus]

Told you all Florida was just going to be the start. This would make it illegal and prohibit discussion of anything remotely related to LGBTQ issues, such as even acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ folks.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1583129744060870656

Republican Mike Johnson of Louisiana and 32 other House Republicans have introduced a national version of Don't Say Gay legislation — it would prohibit federal money from being used to teach children under 10 about ANYTHING related to LGBTQ issues.

Oh, good. Not seeing a problem here. Seems like it's a step in the right and proper direction. I mean, even the headline can't get the name of the bill right so you know it must be good.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!!!!

Not the literal headline of the bill, but if you bothered to actually read what it actually calls for, it is will literally be prohibiting the mentioning of the existence of LGBTQ folks.

Tell us you didnt read the bill without telling us you didnt read the bill

 

[jon_mx]

Nothing harmful about this charade.

Transgender Volleyball Player Spikes Ball in Face of Girl Opponent, Causes Severe Head and Neck Injuries​

 

[bigbottom]

Link to bill can be found Here

Thanks! Here are the relevant excerpts;

11 (a) FEDERAL FUNDS LIMITATION.—No Federal
12 funds may be made available to develop, implement, facili-
13 tate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
14 erature for children under the age of 10, including hosting
15 or promoting any program, event, or literature involving
16 sexually-oriented material, or any program, event, or lit-
17 erature that exposes children under the age of 10 to nude
18 adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious
19 dancing.
20 (b) PROHIBITION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.—A fed-
21 erally-owned facility or property may not be used to host
22 or promote any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
23 erature for children under the age of 10, including any
24 program, event, or literature listed in subsection (a).

16 (1) SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The
17 term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means any depic-
18 tion, description, or simulation of sexual activity,
19 any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of
20 human genitals, or any topic involving gender iden-
21 tity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual ori-
22 entation, or related subjects.
23 (2) STRIPPING.—The term ‘‘stripping’’ means
24 any act which involves the removal or simulated re-
1 moval of clothing in a sexual manner for the enter-
2 tainment of one or more individuals.

 

[jon_mx]

Link to bill can be found Here

Thanks! Here are the relevant excerpts;

11 (a) FEDERAL FUNDS LIMITATION.—No Federal
12 funds may be made available to develop, implement, facili-
13 tate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
14 erature for children under the age of 10, including hosting
15 or promoting any program, event, or literature involving
16 sexually-oriented material, or any program, event, or lit-
17 erature that exposes children under the age of 10 to nude
18 adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious
19 dancing.
20 (b) PROHIBITION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.—A fed-
21 erally-owned facility or property may not be used to host
22 or promote any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
23 erature for children under the age of 10, including any
24 program, event, or literature listed in subsection (a).

16 (1) SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The
17 term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means any depic-
18 tion, description, or simulation of sexual activity,
19 any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of
20 human genitals, or any topic involving gender iden-
21 tity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual ori-
22 entation, or related subjects.
23 (2) STRIPPING.—The term ‘‘stripping’’ means
24 any act which involves the removal or simulated re-
1 moval of clothing in a sexual manner for the enter-
2 tainment of one or more individuals.

So absolutely nothing in it that explicitly relates to LBGT people. Just don't strip, act lewd, or provide porn to children. Unless you believe those are what the LBGT community wants to do with 6 year olds.

 

[bigbottom]

Link to bill can be found Here

Thanks! Here are the relevant excerpts;

11 (a) FEDERAL FUNDS LIMITATION.—No Federal
12 funds may be made available to develop, implement, facili-
13 tate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
14 erature for children under the age of 10, including hosting
15 or promoting any program, event, or literature involving
16 sexually-oriented material, or any program, event, or lit-
17 erature that exposes children under the age of 10 to nude
18 adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious
19 dancing.
20 (b) PROHIBITION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.—A fed-
21 erally-owned facility or property may not be used to host
22 or promote any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
23 erature for children under the age of 10, including any
24 program, event, or literature listed in subsection (a).

16 (1) SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The
17 term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means any depic-
18 tion, description, or simulation of sexual activity,
19 any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of
20 human genitals, or any topic involving gender iden-
21 tity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual ori-
22 entation, or related subjects.
23 (2) STRIPPING.—The term ‘‘stripping’’ means
24 any act which involves the removal or simulated re-
1 moval of clothing in a sexual manner for the enter-
2 tainment of one or more individuals.

So absolutely nothing in it that explicitly relates to LBGT people. Just don't strip, act lewd, or provide porn to children. Unless you believe those are what the LBGT community wants to do with 6 year olds.

I think there is some ambiguity that could result in confusion. For example, if a teacher shows a movie on movie day that features a gay character or a character that cross-dresses (Mulan?), I can see a parent suing (the law provides for a private right of action) the teacher or school under this law. I think there’s a strong counter argument to such a lawsuit for the reason you mention, but I can see there being a lot of confusion.

 

[jon_mx]

Link to bill can be found Here

Thanks! Here are the relevant excerpts;

11 (a) FEDERAL FUNDS LIMITATION.—No Federal
12 funds may be made available to develop, implement, facili-
13 tate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
14 erature for children under the age of 10, including hosting
15 or promoting any program, event, or literature involving
16 sexually-oriented material, or any program, event, or lit-
17 erature that exposes children under the age of 10 to nude
18 adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious
19 dancing.
20 (b) PROHIBITION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.—A fed-
21 erally-owned facility or property may not be used to host
22 or promote any sexually-oriented program, event, or lit-
23 erature for children under the age of 10, including any
24 program, event, or literature listed in subsection (a).

16 (1) SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The
17 term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means any depic-
18 tion, description, or simulation of sexual activity,
19 any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of
20 human genitals, or any topic involving gender iden-
21 tity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual ori-
22 entation, or related subjects.
23 (2) STRIPPING.—The term ‘‘stripping’’ means
24 any act which involves the removal or simulated re-
1 moval of clothing in a sexual manner for the enter-
2 tainment of one or more individuals.

So absolutely nothing in it that explicitly relates to LBGT people. Just don't strip, act lewd, or provide porn to children. Unless you believe those are what the LBGT community wants to do with 6 year olds.

I think there is some ambiguity that could result in confusion. For example, if a teacher shows a movie on movie day that features a gay character or a character that cross-dresses (Mulan?), I can see a parent suing (the law provides for a private right of action) the teacher or school under this law. I think there’s a strong counter argument to such a lawsuit for the reason you mention, but I can see there being a lot of confusion.

A lot of laws are too vague and when taken to an extreme could be abused. I find the courts position on the FACE Act is extreme and prejudicially enforced where minor instances are turned into crimes with punishment suited for a murderer. I support what this act is trying to do, but I would be in favor of eliminating some of the wording that could be taken to an extreme.

 

[jon_mx]

Nothing harmful about this charade.

Transgender Volleyball Player Spikes Ball in Face of Girl Opponent, Causes Severe Head and Neck Injuries​

Girl gets her neck broken and no comment from the groomer supporters. It is funny how little the left cares about women or blacks when there are no political points involved.

 

[bigbottom]

Nothing harmful about this charade.

Transgender Volleyball Player Spikes Ball in Face of Girl Opponent, Causes Severe Head and Neck Injuries​

Girl gets her neck broken and no comment from the groomer supporters. It is funny how little the left cares about women or blacks when there are no political points involved.

The topic was discussed in another thread. Your response here is really ugly. Makes me not want to participate in these threads anymore. Honestly.

 

[jon_mx]

Nothing harmful about this charade.

Transgender Volleyball Player Spikes Ball in Face of Girl Opponent, Causes Severe Head and Neck Injuries​

Girl gets her neck broken and no comment from the groomer supporters. It is funny how little the left cares about women or blacks when there are no political points involved.

The topic was discussed in another thread. Your response here is really ugly. Makes me not want to participate in these threads anymore. Honestly.

I am becoming very jaded at the level of corruption that is occurring in many of our institutions. In one hand it is very positive that someone like a Matt Walsh can expose the evil practices and workings at a respected institution like Vanderbilt and have their destructive and strong-armed practiced shutdown. But then you see the response from a respective organization like the AMA is to write a letter to the FBI wanting social media people like Matt Walsh criminally investigated and it is apparent how high up the corruption goes. In this case, I find it utterly sick that the victim's school is the one who has to fold and just cancel their volleyball teams games. But the offending school is more concerned with political correctness than the safety of young girls. This insane wokeness has a grip over many schools and virtually every university. There are DA offices around the country which are overrun by a woke agenda as well as the DOJ and FBI. And then there is Google, Amazon, YouTube, TikTok and other internet giants using their vast influence to advance this nonsense. Musk taking over Twitter might be a lone beacon of hope on the internet, but the left and their band of warriors will make life tough on Twitter. This is not a simple disagreement over some policies, this is a fight to restore independence to our institutions which is essential to maintaining our free society. The path the woke left is taking us down is an authoritarian nightmare right out of the pages of '1984'.

 

[bigbottom]

Nothing harmful about this charade.

Transgender Volleyball Player Spikes Ball in Face of Girl Opponent, Causes Severe Head and Neck Injuries​

Girl gets her neck broken and no comment from the groomer supporters. It is funny how little the left cares about women or blacks when there are no political points involved.

The topic was discussed in another thread. Your response here is really ugly. Makes me not want to participate in these threads anymore. Honestly.

I am becoming very jaded at the level of corruption that is occurring in many of our institutions. In one hand it is very positive that someone like a Matt Walsh can expose the evil practices and workings at a respected institution like Vanderbilt and have their destructive and strong-armed practiced shutdown. But then you see the response from a respective organization like the AMA is to write a letter to the FBI wanting social media people like Matt Walsh criminally investigated and it is apparent how high up the corruption goes. In this case, I find it utterly sick that the victim's school is the one who has to fold and just cancel their volleyball teams games. But the offending school is more concerned with political correctness than the safety of young girls. This insane wokeness has a grip over many schools and virtually every university. There are DA offices around the country which are overrun by a woke agenda as well as the DOJ and FBI. And then there is Google, Amazon, YouTube, TikTok and other internet giants using their vast influence to advance this nonsense. Musk taking over Twitter might be a lone beacon of hope on the internet, but the left and their band of warriors will make life tough on Twitter. This is not a simple disagreement over some policies, this is a fight to restore independence to our institutions which is essential to maintaining our free society. The path the woke left is taking us down is an authoritarian nightmare right out of the pages of '1984'.

Be as jaded as you want to be. Hold whatever views you like . But your post was an ugly and unwarranted attack on the posters here simply because they didn’t respond to your link, which had already been discussed in another thread.

 

[jon_mx]

Nothing harmful about this charade.

Transgender Volleyball Player Spikes Ball in Face of Girl Opponent, Causes Severe Head and Neck Injuries​

Girl gets her neck broken and no comment from the groomer supporters. It is funny how little the left cares about women or blacks when there are no political points involved.

The topic was discussed in another thread. Your response here is really ugly. Makes me not want to participate in these threads anymore. Honestly.

I am becoming very jaded at the level of corruption that is occurring in many of our institutions. In one hand it is very positive that someone like a Matt Walsh can expose the evil practices and workings at a respected institution like Vanderbilt and have their destructive and strong-armed practiced shutdown. But then you see the response from a respective organization like the AMA is to write a letter to the FBI wanting social media people like Matt Walsh criminally investigated and it is apparent how high up the corruption goes. In this case, I find it utterly sick that the victim's school is the one who has to fold and just cancel their volleyball teams games. But the offending school is more concerned with political correctness than the safety of young girls. This insane wokeness has a grip over many schools and virtually every university. There are DA offices around the country which are overrun by a woke agenda as well as the DOJ and FBI. And then there is Google, Amazon, YouTube, TikTok and other internet giants using their vast influence to advance this nonsense. Musk taking over Twitter might be a lone beacon of hope on the internet, but the left and their band of warriors will make life tough on Twitter. This is not a simple disagreement over some policies, this is a fight to restore independence to our institutions which is essential to maintaining our free society. The path the woke left is taking us down is an authoritarian nightmare right out of the pages of '1984'.

Be as jaded as you want to be. Hold whatever views you like . But your post was an ugly and unwarranted attack on the posters here simply because they didn’t respond to your link, which had already been discussed in another thread.

What is unwarranted is the tens of thousands of children being medically castrated all with the backing of the medical establishments. Me being pissed off at people defending or excusing this agenda is very warranted. The groomers have taken a condition which legitimately effects a tiny amount of people who in 70 to 90 percent of cases simply outgrew the condition and have expanded it nearly a hundred fold where everyone is fast-tracked into life-destroying medical conversions. Yes, I think it is warranted.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

This video explains a lot

https://twitter.com/LPofDelaware/status/1583078489430798336

“It’s close to madness, but it isn’t. It’s a social contagion, carefully constructed and released among the susceptible to deconstruct all stable aspects of society. They want young people at odds with their families and friends so that socialist institutions can fill the void.”

 

[BladeRunner]

This video explains a lot

https://twitter.com/LPofDelaware/status/1583078489430798336

“It’s close to madness, but it isn’t. It’s a social contagion, carefully constructed and released among the susceptible to deconstruct all stable aspects of society. They want young people at odds with their families and friends so that socialist institutions can fill the void.”

Yep. Turns out the Red Scare was about 65 years too early. What we're seeing now is a dangerous infestation of Commies/Marxists/Socialists. These New Bolsheviks talk about "Nazis' and "Fascism" being unacceptable without realizing that Communists, Marxists and Socialists - of which THEY are - are not acceptable either. Nazis/Fascism is just the opposite side of the coin of Communism/Marxism/Socialism.

Well, Communism and Marxism both fall under the Socialist umbrella so using "Communism/Marxism/Socialism" might be redundant.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This video explains a lot

https://twitter.com/LPofDelaware/status/1583078489430798336

“It’s close to madness, but it isn’t. It’s a social contagion, carefully constructed and released among the susceptible to deconstruct all stable aspects of society. They want young people at odds with their families and friends so that socialist institutions can fill the void.”

I read statements like this and my initial reaction is come on, that's crazy talk.

But then I see over and over people defending pushing sex on kids. And I say Jesus, that's crazy talk, what is wrong with people.

As always I am sure the truth is in the middle, but obviously when people bend over backwards to defend men bending over backwards and putting their crotches in front of kids, I guess anything is fair game.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

Thank god every single poll shows this is a loser.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

 

[John123]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

Yeah. And one day LGBT+ people will have rights!!!!

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You forgot to add it’s for children 10 and under. Why do you want to sexualize children? Do you have any?

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

 

[bigbottom]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

By my read, just mentioning it isn’t enough. It has to be part of a program, event or literature.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

By my read, just mentioning it isn’t enough. It has to be part of a program, event or literature.

OK, let's see how it is interpreted and implimented, if it is ever passed.

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

If democrats were politically savvy, they'd quickly "clean up" one of these bills and pass it. Take away one of the silly talking point about the imaginary alternative universe that they allow themselves to be beat up with accusations of defending. Since this is all a stray anecdote here or there being turned into a national crisis why bother?

But democrats are not.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

Fun Fact: Your opinion doesn't make ANYTHING fact. No where in the Bill does it specify alphabet people. or non-alphabet people for that matter.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

Fun Fact: Your opinion doesn't make ANYTHING fact. No where in the Bill does it specify alphabet people. or non-alphabet people for that matter.

I did not state an opinion, I stated a fact, which is that being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation.

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion

noun

1. a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

Fun Fact: Your opinion doesn't make ANYTHING fact. No where in the Bill does it specify alphabet people. or non-alphabet people for that matter.

I did not state an opinion, I stated a fact, which is that being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation.

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun

1. a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

Except that's not what we are debating. You conveniently moved the goalposts and then argued against the new position of the posts after the old position proved you were flat out wrong.

The debate has been and always will be your misinterpretation (willfully or ignorantly - unsure) of the bill by calling it the "Don't say Gay Bill" and saying it exclusively singles out the alphabet crew despite the Bill not having ANY of the language you insist it does.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

Fun Fact: Your opinion doesn't make ANYTHING fact. No where in the Bill does it specify alphabet people. or non-alphabet people for that matter.

I did not state an opinion, I stated a fact, which is that being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation.

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun

1. a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

Except that's not what we are debating. You conveniently moved the goalposts and then argued against the new position of the posts after the old position proved you were flat out wrong.

The debate has been and always will be your misinterpretation (willfully or ignorantly - unsure) of the bill by calling it the "Don't say Gay Bill" and saying it exclusively singles out the alphabet crew despite the Bill not having ANY of the language you insist it does.

The Alphabet Crew? What do you mean by that as it sounds somewhat pejorative.

 

[supermike80]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

Fun Fact: Your opinion doesn't make ANYTHING fact. No where in the Bill does it specify alphabet people. or non-alphabet people for that matter.

I did not state an opinion, I stated a fact, which is that being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation.

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun

1. a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

Except that's not what we are debating. You conveniently moved the goalposts and then argued against the new position of the posts after the old position proved you were flat out wrong.

The debate has been and always will be your misinterpretation (willfully or ignorantly - unsure) of the bill by calling it the "Don't say Gay Bill" and saying it exclusively singles out the alphabet crew despite the Bill not having ANY of the language you insist it does.

The media called it the dont say gay law. Squish only repeats what his media tells him to repeat. Come on, you guys should that by now

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The media called it the dont say gay law. Squish only repeats what his media tells him to repeat.

There comes a point when they're no longer merely falling for the hoaxes, but rather are part of them.

 

[supermike80]

The media called it the dont say gay law. Squish only repeats what his media tells him to repeat.

There comes a point when they're no longer merely falling for the hoaxes, but rather are part of them.

Guys like squish are the targets of the media. Easily manipulated, eager to grab the latest saying and repeat it. Both sides need people like that to populate their talking points.

 

[The Commish]

There are a lot of arguments popping up in this thread that are eerily similar to the ones that popped up in the days when people were arguing over gay marriage. I thought we'd moved on from a lot of that, but I guess we haven't

 

[parasaurolophus]

The real issue here is that some members of the lgbt++++ group see themselves pretty much exclusively through those letters.

I dont think about being straight. I dont demand people acknowledge I am straight. I certainly dont talk to kids about being straight.

Thats not how the really vocal members of the lgbt++++ group go through their day. Talking about that is super important to them. It is so important to them that they think explaining to kids about anal sex and comparing it to reproduction is normal and actually virtuous.

They cross sex for pleasure with sex as a reproductive action as the same thing. For adults those things are much more interchangable. For kids that is a super confusing topic. It is also why most parents would be apalled at teaching 1st graders about blow jobs.

 

[squistion]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

Fun Fact: Your opinion doesn't make ANYTHING fact. No where in the Bill does it specify alphabet people. or non-alphabet people for that matter.

I did not state an opinion, I stated a fact, which is that being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation.

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun

1. a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

Except that's not what we are debating. You conveniently moved the goalposts and then argued against the new position of the posts after the old position proved you were flat out wrong.

The debate has been and always will be your misinterpretation (willfully or ignorantly - unsure) of the bill by calling it the "Don't say Gay Bill" and saying it exclusively singles out the alphabet crew despite the Bill not having ANY of the language you insist it does.

The media called it the dont say gay law. Squish only repeats what his media tells him to repeat. Come on, you guys should that by now

The media called it the dont say gay law.

No that was not the title of the law but that is the practical and real world effect.

Recall that I posted in the so called "Don't Say Gay" thread, about the HS Class President in Florida who was a gay activist and was told by the principal if that he talked about being gay and/or his activism, the mic would be cut, so he creatively had to work around it.

A Florida class president couldn't discuss being gay in high school graduation speech -- so he talked about his curly hair | CNN

The class president at a Florida high school says he wasn't allowed to share his experience as a gay student in his graduation speech or how the state's so-called "Don't Say Gay" law will affect students like him, so he talked about something else that makes him a little different from his...

www.cnn.com

The class president at a Florida high school says he wasn’t allowed to share his experience as a gay student in his graduation speech or how the state’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law will affect students like him, so he talked about something else that makes him a little different from his classmates – his curly hair.

 

[supermike80]

I’m old enough to remember when talking to 3rd graders about sex was something frowned upon by 99% of the population. How that morphed into a platform agenda of the Democratic Party is mind boggling.

It still is. Acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist in the world is not talking about sex.

No one is doing that.

Except in Florida with the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which Republicans are now trying to go national with:

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs

The bill’s definition of “sexually-oriented material” includes anything that relates to sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

A national 'Don't Say Gay' law? Republicans introduce bill to restrict LGBTQ-related programs​

[...]

The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”

[...]


If someone's sexual orientation is mentioned that makes it fall under the category of "sexually-oriented material" and as such, would be a prohibited topic.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if it's true. No where does it say "gay". Sounds to me like you can't say "heterosexual" either.

I mean, no matter how many OPINION pieces you try to use to affirm your point, that's all they are - opinions. The law says no such thing about the alphabet mob.

Fun Fact:

Someone who is identified as being gay or lesbian (by themselves or others, directly or indirectly) is describing a sexual orientation, so it achieves the same result without specifying that the actual words gay or lesbian are used.

ACTUAL FUN FACT: Your OPINION (and incorrect interpretation) is not fact. Never has been, never will be.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ. In fact, one could say you can't say HETEROSEXUAL either. Seems fair.

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything specifically about LGBTQ

So LGBTQ is not considered a sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Incorrect again.

Fun Fact: your opinion is NOT fact.

Sorry, but being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation and has been so since the term entered the lexicon.

Fun Fact: Your opinion doesn't make ANYTHING fact. No where in the Bill does it specify alphabet people. or non-alphabet people for that matter.

I did not state an opinion, I stated a fact, which is that being gay or lesbian is considered a sexual orientation.

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun

1. a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

Except that's not what we are debating. You conveniently moved the goalposts and then argued against the new position of the posts after the old position proved you were flat out wrong.

The debate has been and always will be your misinterpretation (willfully or ignorantly - unsure) of the bill by calling it the "Don't say Gay Bill" and saying it exclusively singles out the alphabet crew despite the Bill not having ANY of the language you insist it does.

The media called it the dont say gay law. Squish only repeats what his media tells him to repeat. Come on, you guys should that by now

The media called it the dont say gay law.

No that was not the title of the law but that is the practical and real world effect.

Recall that I posted in the so called "Don't Say Gay" thread, about the HS Class President in Florida who was a gay activist and was told by the principal if that he talked about being gay and/or his activism, the mic would be cut, so he creatively had to work around it.

A Florida class president couldn't discuss being gay in high school graduation speech -- so he talked about his curly hair | CNN

The class president at a Florida high school says he wasn't allowed to share his experience as a gay student in his graduation speech or how the state's so-called "Don't Say Gay" law will affect students like him, so he talked about something else that makes him a little different from his...

www.cnn.com

The class president at a Florida high school says he wasn’t allowed to share his experience as a gay student in his graduation speech or how the state’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law will affect students like him, so he talked about something else that makes him a little different from his classmates – his curly hair.

Point made. CNN link. LOL that's funny

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I thought we'd moved on from a lot of that, but I guess we haven't

Curious why you would have believed that? I don't want to "attack the poster" but I would think it needs a bit eternal optimism on who people are that I don't read into your posts. Am I misreading them? Or do you think that maybe in real life you are more optimistic about where people are than the PSF allows to get through?

Personally, I think we are still in the backlash phase from having Gay Marriage imposed upon the masses (which by the time it happened were a shrinking minority). Part of this backlash is digging in on other battles not yet fought. While the world hasn't crumbled, or "gone to hell in a handbasket" with Gay Marriage I didn't see a lot of reflection on other similar issues going on. Which is why I am asking.