Rep. Mike Johnson elected 56th Speaker of the House
-
@raphjd May well be.
Still, sad examples like Milo - he was molested at 13 I think - and it has taken him decades to sort the concepts involved, & even then, he still shows instability as a person. (Unstable changes of direction, drama addict etc)
It's soooooo important that kids at least hear or get told, "When the grownup came & did this to you, it was very wrong" or "Grownups should never be around you with this matter."
Even if the words change nothing, they still help the kid build internal mental boundaries & sort the concepts right.
-
Sadly, liberals want to normalize fucking kids. That's why they created MAP (Minor Attracted Person).
It's similar to normalizing criminal by calling them "justice-involved persons" instead of criminals.
-
I believe that the people propounding the Grooming Libel are doing so because they care for children about as much as I believe the racists propounding the Blood Libel against Jews just care about protecting Christian babies.
The Grooming Libel is just political correctness cover for being an open homophobe. It's a dog whistle. The true goal is to oppress homosexuals, and they'll use "protecting children" as the pretextual justification.
Do some gays molest children? Sure. However, the vast, vast, vast majority of sexual molestation of underage children is heterosexual. Why does it seem like the conservatives are only concerned with male/male grooming?
For example, where's the outrage at Matt Gaetz for paying for underage and "barely legal" prostitutes using his public VENMO account? I guess you can fuck an underage girl so long as you're an older man.
-
You got angry and called me an asshole because I'm against giving K-5 kids pornography.
First you accused me of being a liar, but when I posted links about 2 schools having in the library available to look at, you called me an asshole.
Why were you so angry that I am against that?
I also see that yo are the one equating grooming with being gay. That makes YOU the homophobe.
-
@raphjd Your quantum leap from my supporting children being able to ask questions about sexuality to "giving them pornography" pretty much sums up the complete weakness of most far-right "arguments." Are you willfully disingenuous? Completely unable to see gray? Or do you just love speaking in bumper stickers?
-
It was your side that put the porn in schools and it is youside that gets angry when we question it.
How many threads do we need to have to show the school board screech "that's obscene" when a parent reads from one of the books in the school library. If the book is ok for a K-5 school library, then it should be equally ok for a school board meeting.
I will give you credit though, at least you aren't linking being gay with being a pedo.
-
@raphjd said in Rep. Mike Johnson elected 56th Speaker of the House:
I will give you credit though, at least you aren't linking being gay with being a pedo.
No. That's what your side does.
Your hammering the porn thing is tiresome. No one supports that. It's a boogieman, like CRT, late-term abortions, floods of immigrants, crippling inflation and all the other rot you lot regurgitate in order to avoid a serious discussion.
It's all "your side" with you. It's sophomoric and pointless.
-
Actually, you are very wrong.
Your side deems any hatred of pedos to be hatred of LGBTs.
Your side created Minor Attracted Person, in hopes to normalize it.
-
@raphjd said in Rep. Mike Johnson elected 56th Speaker of the House:
Your side created Minor Attracted Person, in hopes to normalize it.
Now you are just embarrassing yourself.
-
-
@raphjd Yes, MAP, also don't forget "pansexual".
We def had a thread where @jaroonn tried to have "pansexual" in official LGBTQ+blahbarf acronym.
But if you fuck consenting adults: Bisexual, Trans & Queer already cover idea that you'll fuck all kinds.
ONLY reason to push "pansexual" then, is............... if you don't fuck consenting adults. If you normalize fucking kids & animals. If.
It can hardly be doubted that Pedos & other Predators & Perverts, see acronym 'P' and go "haha we made everyone say it's pansexual snicker snicker - it's us"
-
@raphjd The Groomer Libel is homophobic because the proponents of it, including yourself, support things like "Don't Say Gay" bills. Such bills are explicitly homophobic.
For example, under Florida's bill young children could be read the following book by their teacher in school:
But those same students could NOT be read this book:
And the only difference between the two books is that the first one features a heteronormative family unit, and the second one does not. That's a bigoted policy.
Teaching children about the existence of LGBT families doesn't involve pornography. It no more involves discussing ass fucking than talking about mommies and daddies involves talking about pussy pounding.
-
"Groomer" began with Jeffrey Epstein scandal ie. heterosexual.
What he & his clients - you know, Bill Clinton with his 26+ visits to Epstein Island - did to young girls.
Only YOU & your ilk, link it to homosexuality.
I don't. I link it to pedophilia alone, independent of homosexual or heterosexual.... ....except when it's in front of me locally - as sometimes in this forum - I object to it locally.
Every time YOU link groomer to homosexual, @hubrys, you confirm your homophobia & unhealed damage.
Again: I don't. - And sometimes or apparently, you do.
As to whatever laws you're going on about: they never banned gay discussions with kids - only pornographic discussions.
You know that - as it's been explained to you.
Yet you persist in your falsehoods, which SUGGESTS that being able to have pornographic discussions with kids COULD be what's important??
If yes,
-
@blablarg18 said in Rep. Mike Johnson elected 56th Speaker of the House:
As to whatever laws you're going on about: they never banned gay discussions with kids - only pornographic discussions.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Let me quote the actual Florida law language, as it currently reads after amendment in 2023.
Fla. Stat. 1001.42(8)(c)(3) states:
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in prekindergarten through grade 8, except when required by ss. 1003.42(2)(n)3. and 1003.46. If such instruction is provided in grades 9 through 12, the instruction must be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. This subparagraph applies to charter schools."
Read it with your own goddamn eyes above. It's not about pornography. It's not about sex books. The "Don't Say Gay" bill specifically and explicitly forbids school personnel from any instruction involving sexual orientation or sexual identity.
It doesn't say, "Don't show kids books with titties and cocks." It's sexual orientation. Under Florida's law, a teacher legally CANNOT read that book about a girl having two dads. That's what Florida banned. Not pornography.
Now, I understand why you thought the law did something different. That's because the forces trying to erase LGBT people sold this law on the basis of protecting children from grooming. But the law was always anti-gay.
In fact, it doesn't even stop kids from seeing pornography. So long as the material is heteronormative (i.e., a man fucking a woman) then this law doesn't even ban it. It does nothing to protect children from inappropriate heterosexual content.
You were, in fact, sold a lie.
Also please note that the law has been expanded beyond elementary school children. It was amended to apply up to the 8th grade. And it extends beyond to 12th grade so long as anyone complains, as you know a conservative will. So, it de facto covers pre-K thru 12th grade now.
Don't bullshit me when you haven't even read the law itself.
-
And just in case you're thinking, "Oh, well that's just the general language they used. The law is really just about grooming," then let me dissuade you of that delusion.
If Florida had wanted to pass an anti-grooming law, then it could have done so using clear, explicit, unambiguous language. It didn't do that, because that's not what this Bill was about.
-
There is no such thing as the "don't say gay" bill.
The bill you are referring to say that you can't talk to kids below a certain grade (can't remember if it's below 3rd grade or including 3rd grade) about sex and/or sexuality.
You people created the situation you are complaining about. You put porn in school libraries, then called anyone who objected "assholes".
These are the same books that have had parents arrested for reading out loud at school board meetings because the books are deemed too obscene except in school libraries. One mother was arrested for simply opening the book, because the same people that approved the book said the pictures were obscene.
Of course, you are too far gone to understand the hypocrisy.
-
@raphjd said in Rep. Mike Johnson elected 56th Speaker of the House:
The bill you are referring to say that you can't talk to kids below a certain grade (can't remember if it's below 3rd grade or including 3rd grade) about sex and/or sexuality.
Dumbass, I can tell you didn't read. I quote for you directly the law as it reads on Florida's law books right now. I will do so again since you couldn't read it the first time.
Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in prekindergarten through grade 8, except when required by ss. 1003.42(2)(n)3. and 1003.46. If such instruction is provided in grades 9 through 12, the instruction must be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. This subparagraph applies to charter schools.
-
@raphjd said in Rep. Mike Johnson elected 56th Speaker of the House:
You put porn in school libraries
Also, why didn't Florida pass a law to ban putting pornography in school libraries? The "Don't Say Gay" bill doesn't do that.
As I pointed out, that bill has no effect on a book featuring heterosexual pornography. If a pre-K school library has a book called, "Baby's First Titty Fuck," this bill does nothing.
Now, if there's a book about Sally having two mothers, no nudity or discussion of sexual intercourse at all, then the bill WOULD ban that book.
-
OK, so it was a higher age than I remembered.
AGAIN, you people created the situation that you are now whining about. You people put porn in school libraries and this is the blow back.
If the books are too obscene to be at school board meetings, then they definitely way too obscene to be in a K-5 school library or any other school library.
-
These are the kinds of books you want in school libraries. And if parents show the pictures and/or read from them, then you have them arrested for obscenity.
