DeSantis and GITMO - yep, you read that right

Being trans is called gender dysphoria for a reason. Normalizing trans and gay behaviors and sexual orientations to 5 year olds is a sickness. Common among pedophiles and child rapist. If you can't figure out why its not reasonable to expose 5 year olds to gay and trans sexuality issues, or trying to normalize those behaviors, you shouldn't be raising or actually conversing with any child. You should be seeking professional help.

For some odd reason its not in any way vague to parents. Just vague to those who want to indoctrinate 5 year olds.
Weird, huh.

 

I said nothing of trans issues — I asked a specific question that you in typical fascination blew past to lob personal insults.

So again,
Why is a prince kissing a princess ok but a prince kissing a prince sexual indoctrination / pedophilia / grooming / or whatever other fun buzz word you have been told to say.

How is an opposite sex couple not indoctrination but a same sex couple is?

Thank you for proving what this bill is meant to do, I can always rely on you people to eventually admit it — even if you don’t want to. The purpose is to ban any homosexual representation while giving heterosexual representation a pass and that is the reason it is as vague as it is.

 

The anti-Trump brigade loved their 1/6 chair, Liz Cheney, who wanted to make torture great again....

 

I have no problem with those wishing to save the lives of others. The O/P premise fails.

 

I didn't lob any insults. I stated facts. If you decided on your own that those facts represent you, then that is of your own design.

I didn't make any claim like that. But you knew that.
I stated, its normalizing the behavior which is not appropriate for 5 year olds. But for some reason people like yourself find that vague.
Go figure

I never admitted anything. I only stated what the bill says. Probably the same reason you find things you are against so vague. You seem to have a difficult time keeping on track with the information exchange.

Kind of like when I stated normalizing behavior, your first instinct was to try and claim that means, indoctrination, pedophilia, and grooming. But its nice to confirm the accuracy of the Pew research poll. We all appreciate that. It certainly explains a lot.

For someone who thinks its vague, you have no problem understanding what it represents or its purpose. And all in a single sentence.
You just can't make this stuff up. You really can't lol

Trying to normalize gay and/or trans sexuality issues to 5 year olds is a sickness. Only in the mind of a sick person could you even for a second try and rationalize such thoughts upon a child of that age group. So do you think its appropriate to introduce gay and trans sexuality to 5 year olds? Is that question too vague? Whats your answer?

 

And this is why it was called the don't say gay bill.

Bravo, you went from denying it to understanding it completely in less than two pages.

It isn’t about shielding children from sexuality as you have no issues if it is a heterosexual relationship. It only kicks over when it is a homosexual relationship.

 

Still running are ya? lol
So answer the question or is it too vague for you?
Do you think its appropriate to introduce gay and trans sexuality issues to 5 year olds?

 

I am not running from anything — your premise was that it was wrongly called the “don’t say gay bill” and your side has asserted numerous times that it doesn’t do that.

You have acknowledged that was its entire purpose and now I have a nice quote for your ilk going forward.

As to your question “Do you think it’s appropriate to introduce gay and trans sexuality issues to 5 year olds?” I have no issues with non-sexual relationships from heterosexual or homosexual characters being introduced.

That you have an issue with one but not the other show that your narrative isn’t based on protecting children, it’s based on your own animosity.

 

Really, just a few minutes ago you thought introducing a prince kissing a prince was just fine.

The fact you so conveniently and willingly tend to ignore how impressionable a 5 year old is for your own political cause says it all.
You would introduce these children to trans and gay characters, normalizing their behavior just so you can claim how woke you are.
Which is why such a bill had to be introduced. To protect the rights of parents over individuals who shouldn't have access to children because they are so diluted with leftist ideology that being woke takes precedence over the well being of all children.

Which is why even Democrats overwhelmingly supported DeSantis bill in the first place. So you have to ask yourself, why would anyone attack a law that protects 5 year olds from the indoctrination of gay and trans sexuality issues?
And the answer couldn't have been any more plain.

You are in a very very small and severe minority and these laws were put in place to protect children from your exact ideology.
Which is why you attack it so much.

 

Why do you keep dodging the question — why is non-sexual and perfectly fine when it is a male and female character and suddenly becomes sexual indoctrination when it is two same characters?

 

So first everything was so vague to you.
Next you didn't have a problem with a prince kissing a prince.
Now you can't seem grasp the reality of whats already been in practice, not to mention, the risk and exposure of moving to the next step that never stops.

They already have LGBTQ books for children.
So whats the rush for you to expose 5 year olds to these ideas? Why are you so adamant about getting gay and trans material and characters in front of 3-5 year olds?
What is your fascination with 3-5 year olds learning about gay and trans issues?

 

Of course because it would have been much better to let them starve to death...

 

"It's only a matter of time until he implements torture on Floridians"......lol.

You get the award for the most emotionally driven hyperbolic hysteria seen here on the forum today.

 

What a stupid post. I can name at least 95% of countries on a map. Except for the tiniest of Nations and I can name some of those as well.

But I'm sure your anti-American post will remain up. But if I give my opinion of your country, my post will be deleted and I will be told that this is an international forum and I can't rip on people for their country.

 

Good, glad he played a heroic role in the War on Terror!

 

I said the law was vague — your side has constantly said it isn’t designed to target specific groups but since you have acknowledged that is it’s purpose it is no longer vague for the purposes of this conversation. aka you said the quiet part out loud.

I have noticed you keep dodging the question I asked:
Why is it acceptable to have opposite sex relationships in children’s books but not same sex couples doing the exact same thing?

You deem one fine and one an act of pedophilia / grooming / sexual indoctrination / <insert buzz word>

How do you reconcile that?


Even if you fail to answer I appreciate one of you finally admitting that people calling this the “don’t say gay law” to expose its true intent was valid and not just some major instance of miscommunication.

@FatBack feel free to chime in also if capable

 

I have answered the question. Over and over. But for some reason you can't grasp it.

So I have answered your question over and over. Now here's a question you have run from over and over.
i am posting it for the 5th time and will continue to post it until you answer it.

Why are you so adamant about getting gay and trans material and characters in front of 3-5 year olds?
What is your fascination with 3-5 year olds learning about gay and trans issues?

 

Because it is normal — it is natural.

It would be like you saying we shouldn’t have black characters because it is “normalizing” it. Or red headed characters

The question that you are still not answering is why are you ok with children learning heterosexual issues but not homosexual ones? Why is it ok to sexualize children if it is heterosexual but it should be illegal if it is homosexual?

 

Yet there was never anything vague about the law to start with. You only used that as an excuse claiming nobody knew what to do about it when the law is absolutely clear about introducing anything about gay or trans issues to 3-5 year olds.

I don't have to. I never made that claim. You just made it up.

The law requires parental consent to discuss these issues with their 3-5 year olds and after all this you still can't grasp it.

 

So you think its normal or natural to indoctrinate 5 year olds with gay and trans sexuality issues.
Thats what I thought. Glad to hear you finally admit that.
Which is exactly why the law was created.

Nope, Race isn't the issue. Never was.

And the answer has always been, normalizing such behavior is inappropriate for 5 year olds.
Being black is normal
Being heterosexual is normal behavior.

Gender dysphoria is not normal behavior. Hence the word (Dysphoria) Pursuing multiple domains of gender affirmation, including social affirmation (e.g., changing one’s name and pronouns), legal affirmation (e.g., changing gender markers on one’s government-issued documents), medical affirmation (e.g., pubertal suppression or gender-affirming hormones), and/or surgical affirmation (e.g., vaginoplasty, facial feminization surgery, breast augmentation, masculine chest reconstruction, etc.).

Individuals relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex is not normal behavior.

 

The reason the bill doesn’t say it only bans gay non-sexual characters or discussions is because it would be unconstitutional targeting of a minority group. It’s why the bill says nothing about “gay” but is vague so that bigots can interpret it to attack gay representation.

So you are against heterosexual characters?

Does it require it for children to be read Snow White?

Why does it require it if the gender of one of the characters change?

 

As much so as you believe it is fine to indoctrinate 5 year olds with heterosexual issues.

That is a failure to comprehend history

As is being homosexual. That you have no issues sexualizing children (your words) to indoctrinate them to heterosexual issues shows this is a discrcimatory narrative.

Thank you for admitting such.

We are not discussing trans characters but good job trying to change the subject

It is as normal as being black or having blond hair — occouring in right around 10% of the US population. It is also a natural occurrence.

That you really really don’t like it is wholly irrelevant to the conversation as a legal principle.

 

So YOU claim it says nothing about "gay" to allow bigots to interpret it that way, Yet YOU refer to it as the Don't say Gay bill?
You can't make this stuff up.
What part of the law that states (prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3) was outside your ability to comprehend?

Nope, Still making up claims because you can't defend your own post?

Nope, Still making up claims because you can't defend your own post?

Not answering the same question over and over because you can't grasp the information.

 

You have already admitted it’s purpose

No need to backtrack

Again, I comprehend perfectly, the only issue I was trying to discuss was you people don’t have an issue’s discussion sexual orientation as long as it’s heterosexual.

Do you understand what a question mark at the end of a sentence does?

Again, a question mark asks a question. It isn’t a statement of fact.

It is just evidencing that you don’t have an issue with sexual orientation being discussed which should be a violation of this law in itself, only some sexual orientations.

You have been unable to answer why you want to indoctrinate children but only with sexual topics that you deem warranted.

 

So this is your second admission to promote indoctrinating 5 year olds with gay and trans sexuality issues.
Which again, is why the law is in place. To protect children from individuals who promote such.

There is nothing in the bill about race.
Hence the comprehension failure is you own.

So now you think children born into a heterosexual relationship can be indoctrinated into heterosexual relationships?
The more you post, the funnier this gets
Please, continue
Thank you for admitting such.
Priceless

Whats even better is your continuing admission of never reading the actual law. You just make things up as you go.
Grasping at straws that don't exist because you have no ability to defend what you post with any actual knowledge of subjects you decided to post in. lol
Thanks for the verification. Again.
The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3
Next. lol

So you would have no problem having a homosexual experience with another man?
Good for you.