The New National Don't-Say-Gay Bill

[Oleg]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

It is a wonder why the left is so enthusiastically interested in the sex lives of children. It’s almost as of the goal is to normalize sex at an early age so as to lower or do away with the age of consent. We’ve already a name for people who seek private sexual conversations with children. Chris Hanson told them to take a seat.

Does the FBI need to check your computer?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*misinformation media snip*

Today we discuss why the alt-right won't stop talking about your children and sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

It is a wonder why the left is so enthusiastically interested in the sex lives of children. It’s almost as of the goal is to normalize sex at an early age so as to lower or do away with the age of consent. We’ve already a name for people who seek private sexual conversations with children. Chris Hanson told them to take a seat.

Does the FBI need to check your computer?

What an apt metaphor!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

More on this part:

To add--some things in the bill are also hard to measure and subjective. For example, what one parent may consider to be lewd or "lascivious dancing" another parent may consider not to be so. The most extreme parent can sue, though, even if the vast majority think the dancing is a nothing burger.

Take a look at the wording of the bill:

No Federal funds may be made available to develop, implement, facilitate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or literature for children under the age of 10, including hosting or promoting any program, event, or literature involving sexually-oriented material, or any program, event, or literature that exposes children under the age of 10 to nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing.

Not just instructions and programs but also any event...any literature...children 9 and under could be exposed to.

Lascivious dancing is a term that the Christian Taliban often refer to. Here is some reading material:

B. What Is Dancing?​

According to Merriam-Webster, the noun and verb forms of "dance" are "a series of rhythmic and patterned bodily movements usually performed to music; to move or seem to move up and down or about in a quick or lively manner." That covers a pretty broad range of activities. With a definition this general, dancing could include:
· Children playing leap-frog or musical chairs
· Ice skating and roller skating
· Gymnastics and other athletic activities
· Aerobic exercise routines
· Square dancing and line dancing
· Ethnic dances, such as clogging or polka
· Ballroom dancing, such as a waltz or tango
· Modern dance, such as the twist or the jitterbug
· Theatrical dancing, such as choreography, ballet, or tap dancing
...

1. Indecent bodily movements​

Lasciviousness is applicable to any form of dance that, outside the bonds of marriage, would provoke lustful thoughts by bodily movements. This will include any dancing that draws visual attention to those body parts pertaining to sexuality. This condemns the typical popular fast dance that involves swirling and gyrating the hips, buttocks, and pelvis and shaking the breasts.

2. Unchaste handling of males and females​

Lasciviousness is applicable to any form of dance that, outside the bonds of marriage, would involve touching body areas that are sensitive to sexual stimulation. This will include any dancing that brings couples too close or touching in full frontal contact. This condemns the typical popular slow dance that involves a full body embrace for long time with swaying and rubbing the bodies together.

...

1. Dangers and pitfalls​

Dancing often presents a temptation for inappropriate dress. For example ballet and gymnastics are typically performed today wearing apparel that is indecent due to tightness to reveal detail of bodily form or scantiness to be inadequately covered. Take the moral stand that, if you choose to become involved in these art forms that are otherwise not lascivious, you will always do so dressed decently as a Christian should.
...

 

[Jarhyn]

More on this part:

To add--some things in the bill are also hard to measure and subjective. For example, what one parent may consider to be lewd or "lascivious dancing" another parent may consider not to be so. The most extreme parent can sue, though, even if the vast majority think the dancing is a nothing burger.

Take a look at the wording of the bill:

No Federal funds may be made available to develop, implement, facilitate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or literature for children under the age of 10, including hosting or promoting any program, event, or literature involving sexually-oriented material, or any program, event, or literature that exposes children under the age of 10 to nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing.

Not just instructions and programs but also any event...any literature...children 9 and under could be exposed to.

Lascivious dancing is a term that the Christian Taliban often refer to. Here is some reading material:

B. What Is Dancing?​

According to Merriam-Webster, the noun and verb forms of "dance" are "a series of rhythmic and patterned bodily movements usually performed to music; to move or seem to move up and down or about in a quick or lively manner." That covers a pretty broad range of activities. With a definition this general, dancing could include:
· Children playing leap-frog or musical chairs
· Ice skating and roller skating
· Gymnastics and other athletic activities
· Aerobic exercise routines
· Square dancing and line dancing
· Ethnic dances, such as clogging or polka
· Ballroom dancing, such as a waltz or tango
· Modern dance, such as the twist or the jitterbug
· Theatrical dancing, such as choreography, ballet, or tap dancing
...

1. Indecent bodily movements​

Lasciviousness is applicable to any form of dance that, outside the bonds of marriage, would provoke lustful thoughts by bodily movements. This will include any dancing that draws visual attention to those body parts pertaining to sexuality. This condemns the typical popular fast dance that involves swirling and gyrating the hips, buttocks, and pelvis and shaking the breasts.

2. Unchaste handling of males and females​

Lasciviousness is applicable to any form of dance that, outside the bonds of marriage, would involve touching body areas that are sensitive to sexual stimulation. This will include any dancing that brings couples too close or touching in full frontal contact. This condemns the typical popular slow dance that involves a full body embrace for long time with swaying and rubbing the bodies together.

...

1. Dangers and pitfalls​

Dancing often presents a temptation for inappropriate dress. For example ballet and gymnastics are typically performed today wearing apparel that is indecent due to tightness to reveal detail of bodily form or scantiness to be inadequately covered. Take the moral stand that, if you choose to become involved in these art forms that are otherwise not lascivious, you will always do so dressed decently as a Christian should.
...

The thing is, the only people who would ever actually conform to that are the people that don't have normal sexual interests.

And of course it's fine to have atypical sexual interests but it's very important to understand consent and boundaries.

The whole thing about consent and boundaries is what really terrifies the GOP.

They don't want that bother.

They object to their kids learning that their parents don't understand consent. That their parents are the bad guys.

In many ways the core concepts of health and human development re socio-sexual behavior is linked fundamentally to consent which, of taught in particular ways, may be taught entirely without discussion of sexuality.

 

[Elixir]

Top three people to NOT let anywhere near your kids:

1) Anti-gay Republicans
2) Gay Republicans
3) Other Republicans

You probably shouldn't let them near adults either; they're determined to litigate every reproductive act in which you can, could, might or might ever want to indulge. All the while screaming about the sexual proclivities of democrats. Which have zero effect upon them, much to their chagrin.
Yup, they're THAT perverted.

Lascivious dancing is a term that the Christian Taliban often refer to.

Is it any different from what the OTHER Taliban proscribes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

You mean, basic "normal" stuff, like when they read a book from the library, the parents in the book have to be straight?

Exactly. Can't have anything other than the approved sexuality.

 

[Elixir]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

You mean, basic "normal" stuff, like when they read a book from the library, the parents in the book have to be straight?

Exactly. Can't have anything other than the approved sexuality.

The scary thing is that once Republicans are given that authority, "approval" will probably involve all kinds of inanimate "sacred" objects. Not to mention snakes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

It is a wonder why the left is so enthusiastically interested in the sex lives of children. It’s almost as of the goal is to normalize sex at an early age so as to lower or do away with the age of consent. We’ve already a name for people who seek private sexual conversations with children. Chris Hanson told them to take a seat.

You have it backwards. It's the right that has such an interest in children's sexuality--specifically, in ensuring they aren't aware of options other than the traditional one. The left isn't interested in children's sexuality, they're interested in letting children recognize their own sexuality.

Many years back I paid attention to the events of a trip to a buffet with someone we knew--and I counted a dozen indications of sexuality over the course of lunch. Little things like we had chosen opposite sides of the buffet but met in the middle at the carving station--and I put my arm around her. The right is obsessed with kids not seeing the equivalent homosexual actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As much as the pedophiles want to gaslight and say this is some fundamentalist crusade to protect traditional marriage, even gays and lesbians see the current threat to children.

Gays Against Groomers

A coalition of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of minors under the guise of "LGBTQIA+"

www.gaysagainstgroomers.com

Basically every attack from the right is a case of projection. The groomers are on the right!

The best way to defend children from groomers is knowledge of what is and isn't acceptable.

 

[Jarhyn]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

It is a wonder why the left is so enthusiastically interested in the sex lives of children. It’s almost as of the goal is to normalize sex at an early age so as to lower or do away with the age of consent. We’ve already a name for people who seek private sexual conversations with children. Chris Hanson told them to take a seat.

You have it backwards. It's the right that has such an interest in children's sexuality--specifically, in ensuring they aren't aware of options other than the traditional one. The left isn't interested in children's sexuality, they're interested in letting children recognize their own sexuality.

Many years back I paid attention to the events of a trip to a buffet with someone we knew--and I counted a dozen indications of sexuality over the course of lunch. Little things like we had chosen opposite sides of the buffet but met in the middle at the carving station--and I put my arm around her. The right is obsessed with kids not seeing the equivalent homosexual actions.

So, I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to say that the rhetoric is designed specifically to favor, and so capture, those who are atypical, so that they never learn to question.

It's an attempt to capture and distort the atypical mind, the mind capable of learning when and how and why to say NO. It traps the mind capable of such feats as creation and understanding of the universe in a confusing maze of mirrors, of laws and clever-seeming circularities that are so wide, many minds simply cannot fit around them so as to see where they connect upon themselves.

 

[bilby]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child?

Yes; parents are very variable in their competence.

Many, perhaps most, would either fail their children by not telling them things that they need to know; or by telling them things that are untrue, and possibly harmful; or by not educating them at all, leaving their "education" to peer rumour, traditional myths, and community bias.

Sex and sexuality are a part of life, and there is no benefit (other than to the agendas of paedophiles) in leaving children ignorant of these topics.

That ignorance in children is characterised as "innocence", is itself a disgusting perversion of reality. It has no value, other than to older relatives and friends who view children as pets and chattel property who exist for their entertainment, rather than as human beings to whom they owe a responsibility to prepare for adulthood.

The entire stupidity is tied back to puritan nonsense that suggests that anything enjoyable must be sinful. That's why it's a very American phenomenon to obsess about this stuff, and why the obsession is most concentrated in the GOP and the Bible Belt.

Not teaching children about reality is a purely religious phenomenon, and imposing religion on everyone is fundamentally wrong (and also, in the USA, unconstitutional). Children should be protected from the religious beliefs of their parents. Parents have no right to "protect" their children from learning facts about reality.

 

[blastula]

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.

Some of these things are not like the others...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's like they took something from one out-dated anti-porn bill, then added a comma and went to town.

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, innuendo, anything remotely about naughty bits, discussion on Supreme Court cases regarding gender, sex, gay sex, gay marriage, abortion, The Kids in the Hall, discussions of orientation (landscape or portrait), women being taught to read, discussions about what a "football move" entails, topics involving cats including cheezburger cat, or related topics.

 

[Patooka]

As much as the pedophiles want to gaslight and say this is some fundamentalist crusade to protect traditional marriage, even gays and lesbians see the current threat to children.

Gays Against Groomers

A coalition of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of minors under the guise of "LGBTQIA+"

www.gaysagainstgroomers.com

Jaimee Mitchell is doing the same grift Dave Rubin is doing. If you're gay and want to be a shill for the right, you've gotta be more transphobic than straight people.

Every accusation from a reich winger is a confession. Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore and Randy Kaufman agree with me. But keep on being outraged about litter boxes in Kindergarten, that'll make you sound sane.

 

[ZiprHead]

You’re comparing the Iraq invasion with adults wanting to sexualize children?

Who wants to do this, besides the pedos that almost always seem to turn out to be Republicans?

 

[atrib]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

It is a wonder why the left is so enthusiastically interested in the sex lives of children. It’s almost as of the goal is to normalize sex at an early age so as to lower or do away with the age of consent. We’ve already a name for people who seek private sexual conversations with children. Chris Hanson told them to take a seat.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. I find it hard to believe that you are able to say this with a straight face. What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Jarhyn]

Is there a particular reason why such subject matter can't be taught and discussed at home by the kids' parents at a depth and age level they deem appropriate for their child? That way schools can focus on, you know, reading, writing and arithmetic...like in the olden days?

I just saw a news clip yesterday about how poorly kids are faring due to the covid lockdown. There's a lot catching up to do. Let's keep kids focused on the basics.

It is a wonder why the left is so enthusiastically interested in the sex lives of children. It’s almost as of the goal is to normalize sex at an early age so as to lower or do away with the age of consent. We’ve already a name for people who seek private sexual conversations with children. Chris Hanson told them to take a seat.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. I find it hard to believe that you are able to say this with a straight face. What the fuck is wrong with you?

As much as I agree with this position (clearly), you can be sure that the tried and true reaction the right has canned up for just this occasion is :

Pretend not to hear. (Deny)

Tell everyone who will believe you that it is the other way around. (Reverse victim and offender to Rube population)

Let everyone who doesn't believe you but is in concordance with your views to see you doing it and take the cue to act like they believe. (Metastasize)

Use the assembled weight of evil and idiocy as an argument from popularity, to overcome claims of selection bias. (Spin)

When bad faith actors are revealed, discuss the sincerity of idiots. When the sincerity of idiots is pointed as insufficient, take bad faith indignation on behalf of idiots. (Spin++)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A literal reading of that law would make To Kill A Mockingbird as a required reading a potential issue.

Do we know any of the actual sponsors of these bill?

Mike Johnson from Louisiana.