Don't say gay goes national?

[tallslenderguy]

For those who believe we as gays live in a more friendly and accepting world, here's some balance tipping legislation from those who still believe being gay is perverse and unnatural.

[think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/national-dont-say-gay-law-republicans-introduce-bill-restrict-lgbtq-re-rcna53064?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np&utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

[Guest]

we still hear words like:  god hate fags or : death penalty for gay....... I have to deal with homophobia too.  why all this hate ?

[hntnhole]

When cultural upheavals occur, and they always do throughout history, the group who feels most threatened wants to blame some group (other than themselves, natch), and looks for the most easily-blamed group.  We happen to fit that bill, as history has taught.  There's nothing new under the sun - again.   

[topblkmale]

Has anyone read the article or are we just suppose to react to the Don't Say Gay headline (which is intentionally misleading)?

[badubydo]

On 10/22/2022 at 8:41 AM, topblkmale said:

Has anyone read the article or are we just suppose to react to the Don't Say Gay headline (which is intentionally misleading)?

You can tell nobody did. Because the bill, like the one in Florida, has nothing to do with “don’t say gay” 

the media is doing it to scare people to vote one way, because the midterms are coming up 

[BootmanLA]

13 minutes ago, badubydo said:

You can tell nobody did. Because the bill, like the one in Florida, has nothing to do with “don’t say gay” 

the media is doing it to scare people to vote one way, because the midterms are coming up 

Actually, the bill in Florida, and the bill introduced in Congress, are exactly "Don't say gay" bills - at least insofar as in the places they apply, such as schools.

They pose as standards about "appropriateness" - a bunch of bullshit about how we shouldn't "sexualize" children and topics of "sexual orientation" shouldn't be discussed in schools below a certain grade. 

But they don't mean ALL sexual orientations - they mean LGBT ones. Because I guarantee you, no second grade teacher is ever going to get in trouble for mentioning that she has a husband, and no boy's PE coach will ever get in trouble for mentioning that he's got a girlfriend. A heterosexually married female teacher will never get in trouble for acknowledging to her students that she's expecting a child.

What this is aimed at is not letting LGBT teachers acknowledge having a same-sex partner - an acknowledgement that presents no problem if the partner is the opposite sex, because small-minded bigots want to control what their children think about such issues. If they're presented with a positive role model in a school setting, their iron-clad religious grip on the child's thought process may loosen.

And THAT boils down to "don't say gay" - just don't mention it, or else you're likely to lose your job.

[tallslenderguy]

Here are excerpts from the proposed bill and a link to the bill if one wishes to bypass media reporting about the bill and see exactly what is being proposed:

 

"5  (2) Federal funds should not be used to expose

6  children under 10 years of age to sexually-oriented

7  material.

15  (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

16  (1) SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The

17  term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means...

any topic involving gender iden-

21  tity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual ori-

22  entation, or related subjects."

[think before following links] https://mikejohnson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/johnla_083_xml.pdf

 

 

[tallslenderguy]

By the standards set forth in this proposed law, the Jewish and Christian bible would be prohibited, here's an example from  2 Samuel 6:16; 1 Samuel 19:24:

16 As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul lookedout of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, and she despised him in her heart. 

24 And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

 

"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."

i remember when i was 8 years old laughing  with my boy friends while at church as we shared and discussed these bible verses with each other. The double standards of some religious folk overlook heteronormative stuff and call this: "God's word."

 

"1 Kings 1:1-4-1-4 The Message (MSG)

King David grew old. The years had caught up with him. Even though they piled blankets on him, he couldn’t keep warm. So his servants said to him, “We’re going to get a young virgin for our master the king to be at his side and look after him; she’ll get in bed with you and arouse our master the king.” So they searched the country of Israel for the most ravishing girl they could find; they found Abishag the Shunammite and brought her to the king. The girl was stunningly beautiful; she stayed at his side and looked after the king, but the king did not have sex with her."

Ezekiel 23:19-20

Evangelical Heritage Version

19 Yet she increased her whoring. She remembered the days of her youth when she acted like a prostitute in the land of Egypt. 20 She lusted after her paramours, whose genitals[a] were like the genitals of donkeys and whose ejaculation was like the ejaculation of horses.

Edited October 24, 2022 by tallslenderguy

[hntnhole]

HAHAHAHAHA .......... Somehow, I don't recall any of these verses taught to us kids - at ALL !!!!!   Reminds me of some plump, painted scion of society on tv, defending her hatreds with that old Leviticus snippet:  "Whealll ... it's in th Bih-bul;, an thayt's good enuff fur mye"   I wonder if she ever read much more that that though.

[viking8x6]

On 10/24/2022 at 1:17 AM, BootmanLA said:

But they don't mean ALL sexual orientations - they mean LGBT ones.

How do we know this? Because, boys and girls, the text reads...

On 10/24/2022 at 8:45 AM, tallslenderguy said:

Here are excerpts from the proposed bill ...

 

(2) Federal funds should not be used to expose children under 10 years of age to sexually-oriented  material.

(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means...  any topic involving gender identity...

Literally, that means any topic involving boys and girls. Which would mean that federal funds could not be used for any materials that discuss anyone of any gender (including het-cis-male and het-cis-female) with reference to their gender in any context in which it is relevant.

Hell, just close the schools now.

[topblkmale]

7 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

How do we know this? Because, boys and girls, the text reads...

Literally, that means any topic involving boys and girls. Which would mean that federal funds could not be used for any materials that discuss anyone of any gender (including het-cis-male and het-cis-female) with reference to their gender in any context in which it is relevant.

Hell, just close the schools now.

Why would the bolded items need to be discussed with a child under 10 years of age? Genuinely curious. Seems pedo to me but I could be wrong.

 

I'm including the complete text below for more context:

 

(1) SEXUALLY-ORIENTED MATERIAL.—The term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means 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.

[viking8x6]

13 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Why would the bolded items need to be discussed with a child under 10 years of age? Genuinely curious. Seems pedo to me but I could be wrong.

You miss my point. First, let's presume that no sane teacher anywhere is exposing children under 10 to "any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals". I think that's fair. In that case, why are they really making this law? To make it illegal for teachers to discuss "any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects". Which, in the context of materials intended for children under 10, means material such as "Daddy's Roommate" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy's_Roommate)  But basically ALL materials for children under 10 that portray ANY kind of "STRAIGHT" relationship portray a (cis-hetero) gender identity in completely comparable terms and contexts. Cis-hetero gender identity is completely pervasive in nearly every context to which they are exposed. These materials would be just as illegal under the proposed law. But they are "programming" or "grooming" children to be straight rather than gay, bi, non-binary, trans, or rainbow unicorn. So no one would ever prosecute it.

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Why would the bolded items need to be discussed with a child under 10 years of age? Genuinely curious. Seems pedo to me but I could be wrong.

As Viking so clearly pointed out: it's not that anyone WANTS to provide sexually explicit material to kids under 10. And if that's all the bill did, and it clearly defined what was, and was not, sexually explicit in an orientation-neutral way, that would be one thing.

But the bill goes much farther. It forbids "sexually-oriented" material, and then goes on to define what "sexually-oriented" material is, to include ANY reference to "sexual orientation".

Imagine how many kid's books with fairy tales (the classic kind, not "fairy" as a slang term for gay) there are, where the handsome prince wins the hand of the fair maiden. Strictly speaking, that covers "sexual orientation" because it's describing the onset of a relationship between two people and it specifies that one's male and one's female, so it's referring to "sexual orientation". Now, nobody - no one, nowhere, no how, no way - is going to censor these books under the rubric that they discuss "sexual orientation".

Imagine, however, if someone had an alternate book of fairy tales in their classroom, where the handsome prince wins the hand of the knight who defeats the dragon, or whatever. Not one word otherwise is said in the book about men who like men, what they do when the bedroom door closes, or whatever, but under this bill, you can bet that (a) the book would swiftly be banned in conservative communities, (b) the teacher who brought it into the classroom would be fired, and (c) the teacher would be barred from future jobs working with children because she brought "sexually-oriented" material to a classroom.

It's a double standard, because for the right, "sexual orientation" means "anything except straight".

Or as I've pointed out: If Mrs. Smith tells her class that her husband, Mr. Smith, is a doctor or fireman or whatever, no one's going to bat an eye. But if Mrs. Smith-Jones tells her class that her wife, also Mrs. Smith-Jones, even exists, she'll be charged under this law with discussing "sexual orientation", which breaks the law.

And if you don't think this is how it's going to be used - you don't know much about how the right is trying to seize control of the educational process. Two areas in which the far right have made major gains in officeholding, in the last couple of years, are on local and state school boards, and in offices that manage and control elections. They've figured out that if they get control of the local boards, and the state boards that set the curriculums and choose the textbooks, they can ban this kind of thing from even coming up and make it so uncomfortable for an LGBTQ teacher that he quits or gets fired. That way, there's no way kids in those communities can get "corrupted" in public schools by learning that LGBTQ people exist and should be treated with respect.

(And while LGBTQ issues aren't the driving force behind the takeover of election offices, it's part and parcel of the same thing: they know if they control the ballot acceptance, ballot counting, and certification processes, they stand a much greater chance of changing the outcome of elections (say, by rigidly enforcing ID rules in Democratic-leaning areas, while being lax in conservative ones). And once you control who gets elected, carrying out all the other objectives is a lot easier.

[viking8x6]

What @BootmanLA said.  Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article I referenced above:

Quote

In 1992, the school chancellor of the New York City public school system proposed the Multicultural Children of the Rainbow Curriculum.[12][13] Two of the suggested reading materials were Daddy's Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies.[12][13] When it was publicized that New York City's public schools would be teaching about homosexual relationships, debates broke out on Nightline, Larry King Live, and in The New York Times, demonstrating why it was the most challenged book in America the next two years.[12][14]

Lon Mabon, an Oregon politician, used Daddy's Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies in his campaign to amend the state constitution to allow for discrimination against lesbians and gay men.[15] He used the two books as evidence of a militant homosexual agenda that threatened childhood development.[15] However, citizens of Oregon voted to defeat the measure on November 3, 1992.[15]

Daddy's Roommate became a point of discussion during the 2008 US Presidential Election when it was alleged that Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin had attempted to remove the book from a public library in Wasilla, Alaska.[16] In 1995, then-councilwoman Palin requested that the local library remove the book three separate times. After the librarian refused, Palin fired her, before eventually rehiring her due to public backlash.[17][16] Fellow councilwoman Laura Chase asked Palin if she had read Daddy's Roommate, and Palin responded that she "didn't need to read that stuff."[18] The McCain-Palin campaign denied Palin's involvement in the case despite witness accounts claiming otherwise.[19]

Of course, the books are not evidence of a militant homosexual agenda.

But these kinds of power plays by right wing assholes make it seem like there ought to be one. To protect the innocent children, if nothing else.