Jump to content

“Don’t Say Gay” Comes to Pennsylvania


Horizon Flame
 Share

Recommended Posts


 

Pennsylvania State Senators Scott Martin (R – Lancaster County) and Ryan Aument (R – Lancaster County) announced last week, during Pride month, their intention to introduce a pair of bills as their version of the controversial and harmful Florida “Don’t Say Gay” bill in the Pennsylvania Senate.

 

The bills, SB1277 and SB1278, would seek to ban books that discuss LGBTQ topics from Pennsylvania public schools labeling them as “sexually explicit” and prevent the discussion of LGBTQ identities in the classroom with a requirement for teachers and school administrators to notify parents and guardians when a student indicates that they are questioning their sexual or gender identities.

 

State Senator Lindsey Williams (D – Allegheny County) said in a statement on Facebook “The effect that similar legislation in other states has had is to tie the hands of educators when dealing with delicate discussions in the classroom. These conversations don’t necessarily come up in the course of classroom lessons, but rather when circumstances present teachable moments. We shouldn’t be legislating how trusted adults in our school buildings provide support to our students, particularly those most vulnerable students, when they need it most.”

Edited by Horizon Flame
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual with the United States, they need an "enemy that want to destroy families and the country" in order to survive.  

 

Russia back in the Cold War, muslims, black people. Now it's the gays. We're the next in line and they're not going to stop. It's necessary to the survival of the "American Dream". 

 

Such a pathetic country. 

Edited by Blade Runner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both look like they take it up the ass at coke infested parties :skull: **** off and I hope Fetterman wins in November

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Blade Runner said:

As usual with the United States, they need an "enemy that want to destroy families and the country" in order to survive.  

 

Russia back in the Cold War, muslims, black people. Now it's the gays. We're the next in line and they're not going to stop. It's necessary to the survival of the "American Dream". 

 

Such a pathetic country. 

It’s always been the gays. They put referendums on gay marriage to get people to the polls all through the 2000s. However, this includes gender identity, which has really motivated their base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans literally turning America into Russia. :rip: NO wonder Trumpster Dumpsters like Putin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There never was a "Don't say gay bill." You just made that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LustSpell said:

They both look like they take it up the ass at coke infested parties :skull: **** off and I hope Fetterman wins in November

:ahh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jynx672 said:

There never was a "Don't say gay bill." You just made that up.

Bills are given nicknames all the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they must really think this will lessen the amount of "born" gay people. 

 

I remember being gay my entire life, and I grew up super religious in a small town with ZERO gay people around me.  So what does that tell you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator
3 hours ago, Jynx672 said:

There never was a "Don't say gay bill." You just made that up.

“There never was an ‘Obamacare bill.’ People just made that up.”

 

Bills are always given nicknames for convenience. Being pedantic to ignore the reality of legislation that is criminalizing the acknowledgement of gay people in school is not helpful or intelligent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jynx672 said:

There never was a "Don't say gay bill." You just made that up.

Exactly. The media keeps misinterpreting the bill which prohibits class room discussion regarding sexual orientation or gender identity from Kinder through 3rd gradewhich I don’t see anything wrong with that. Kids haven’t even gone thru puberty during those grades like let kids be kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator
54 minutes ago, Raver said:

Exactly. The media keeps misinterpreting the bill which prohibits class room discussion regarding sexual orientation or gender identity from Kinder through 3rd gradewhich I don’t see anything wrong with that. Kids haven’t even gone thru puberty during those grades like let kids be kids. 

So, let’s imagine a scenario where a kindergarten student has two mommies. This student goes to school and is made fun of for having two mommies. This harassment interferes with class. Another student even goes so far as to ask the teacher directly, in class, why said student is a freak that has two mommies. 
 

Do you think the teacher’s response should be, “I’m not legally allowed to answer that question”? Because any other answer would be referencing the existence homosexuality which you are saying should be criminalized in grades K-3. 
 

You can reference sexual orientation without describing the physical act of sex. Content catered to children have always done this, just for heterosexuals. Sexual orientation also involves love, family, etc. Acknowledging the existence of people should never be criminal. 
 

So, it’s a “don't say gay” bill because they effectively disallow teachers to even mention the existence of a very real group of people that will be in K-3 classrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Do you think the teacher’s response should be, “I’m not legally allowed to answer that question”? Because any other answer would be referencing the existence homosexuality which you are saying should be criminalized in grades K-3. 

The teacher’s response should be to talk to the parents of the student who is bullying other kids and let them know what is going on. Have them deal with it and if the problem persist then start giving detention or referrals to the bully. 
 

13 minutes ago, Bloo said:

You can reference sexual orientation without describing the physical act of sex. Content catered to children have always done this, just for heterosexuals. Sexual orientation also involves love, family, etc. Acknowledging the existence of people should never be criminal. 

Sexual orientation or gender identity should not be taught in kinder through 3rd grade. Should be taught when kids are learning about sexual education when they’re much older. What’s the need to introduce kids this information so early on? It’s unnecessary and most of the time too complex for them. Let kids be kids. 

 


I saw a video of a teacher taking about how hard it is for their students to comprehend that they (the teacher) is non binary. Their students are in 2nd grade and when they came out as non-binary, they tried to explain to the students what non-binary is and after they were done the students said “that makes no sense”. Kids at that age aren’t worried about gender or sexual orientation and I highly doubt a 5year old is going to extensively bully another student over their lesbian parents to the point it interrupts class room discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the bill that it shouldn't be taught at that specific age, but is it really a rampant problem that needs a bill to begin with?  Is there an epidemic of teachers discussing these issues in class throughout the country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Raver said:

Sexual orientation or gender identity should not be taught in kinder through 3rd grade. Should be taught when kids are learning about sexual education when they’re much older. What’s the need to introduce kids this information so early on? It’s unnecessary and most of the time too complex for them. Let kids be kids. 

 

This is a clear example of (internalized) homophobia. You can talk about sexual orientation without talking about sexual acts. There's no reason why young kids shouldn't learn from an early age that it's okay to love whoever you want to love. It is homophobic to think of homosexuality as simply they ACT of having sex.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

This is a clear example of (internalized) homophobia.

 

Yeah ok whatever you say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator
1 hour ago, Raver said:

The teacher’s response should be to talk to the parents of the student who is bullying other kids and let them know what is going on. Have them deal with it and if the problem persist then start giving detention or referrals to the bully. 

So, teachers should completely forego saying a child shouldn't be bullied about something related a child's family? Yeah, no thanks.

Quote

Sexual orientation or gender identity should not be taught in kinder through 3rd grade. Should be taught when kids are learning about sexual education when they’re much older. What’s the need to introduce kids this information so early on? It’s unnecessary and most of the time too complex for them. Let kids be kids. 

So we shouldn't have boys vs. girls activities in school because that mentions gender identity? If you cannot see that this is a blatant attempt at bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community, you're beyond reproach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator
59 minutes ago, spree said:

I agree with the bill that it shouldn't be taught at that specific age, but is it really a rampant problem that needs a bill to begin with?  Is there an epidemic of teachers discussing these issues in class throughout the country?

Why is the existence of gay people sexually explicit? Why is the existence of straight people no sexually explicit? This is abject homophobia. People can acknowledge gay people exist without discussing the physical act of sex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bloo said:

If you cannot see that this is a blatant attempt at bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community, you're beyond reproach.

It’s not an attack against the LGBT community to make students wait until their older to learn about sexuality, gender identity, or sexual preference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator
7 minutes ago, Raver said:

It’s not an attack against the LGBT community to make students wait until their older to learn about sexuality, gender identity, or sexual preference. 

It is. Until they start blocking the countless content depicting heterosexual relationships aimed for children, then they're signaling gay is abnormal and straight is acceptable. That's abject homophobia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bloo said:

It is. Until they start blocking the countless content depicting heterosexual relationships aimed for children, then they're signaling gay is abnormal and straight is acceptable. That's abject homophobia.

It is not and you’re being extremely deceitful by saying that it is. I’d agree with you had they completely banned it for all grades but that’s not the case. It’s only not allowed from kinder to 3rd grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Raver said:

It is not and you’re being extremely deceitful by saying that it is. I’d agree with you had they completely banned it for all grades but that’s not the case. It’s only not allowed from kinder to 3rd grade.

You're acting willfully obtuse. Nobody is talking about blatant sex in those grades, straight or gay.

 

But you're smart enough to know that people who are homophobic will use this to be able to punish those who even mention homosexuality at all, i.e. in the example the above user gave about simply talking about "two mommies or daddies"

 

And if you're not smart enough to know that would happen? Then maybe you shouldn't speak on any of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, scenekiller said:

You're acting willfully obtuse. Nobody is talking about blatant sex in those grades, straight or gay.

 

 

All I said was keep sexual orientation and gender identity out of those 4 grades. I never once mentioned sex is being discussed but you and two other members keep bringing it up. What’s the issue with keeping those topics out of kinder, first grade, second grade, and third grade? This isn’t the hill our community needs to die on. Read the room and let kids be kids 
 

12 minutes ago, scenekiller said:

But you're smart enough to know that people who are homophobic will use this to be able to punish those who even mention homosexuality at all, i.e. in the example the above user gave about simply talking about "two mommies or daddies"

I gave a perfect response as to how a teacher should handle that situation.

 

13 minutes ago, scenekiller said:

And if you're not smart enough to know that would happen? Then maybe you shouldn't speak on any of this.

A 5 year old is going to be bullying another 5 year old to the point it interrupts classroom discussion because the kid has lesbian parents? Yeah I don’t see that happening but if you do then you’re always thinking the worst possible case scenario that most likely won’t happen :sorry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Raver said:

All I said was keep sexual orientation and gender identity out of those 4 grades. I never once mentioned sex is being discussed but you and two other members keep bringing it up. What’s the issue with keeping those topics out of kinder, first grade, second grade, and third grade? This isn’t the hill our community needs to die on. Read the room and let kids be kids 
 

I gave a perfect response as to how a teacher should handle that situation.

 

A 5 year old is going to be bullying another 5 year old to the point it interrupts classroom discussion because the kid has lesbian parents? Yeah I don’t see that happening but if you do then you’re always thinking the worst possible case scenario that most likely won’t happen :sorry:

It doesn't matter if it's a "worst possible case", intelligent people strategically plan out for any ways a policy, rule, or situation can be abused, which is exactly why I and other members are pointing out this exact issue.

 

Homophobic people, particularly in many states, will use those loopholes to entirely abuse it. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If you don't think that'll happen in the current climate, especially in Republican-run areas, you clearly have no handle on anything political, especially in 2022.

Edited by scenekiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Raver said:

let kids be kids 

Also, since you're so keen on pointing out you "never once mentioned sex being discussed", I'd like for you to explain exactly what this means?

 

I don't see you going this hard for kids movies that show a straight couple kissing, or them celebrating mother's day and father's day, etc. So why does it always only apply to homosexuality, and not heterosexuality? Think long and hard before you answer with a knee-jerk reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...