Poll of the Day > I heard Texas is trying to ban gays again

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or gay sex and marriage That would suck But Im not really in a position to move, so guess Ill break the law of whatever
---

great link

---

I dont have one. Hence why I didnt post one. Just something I saw on Reddit Can find it since it was a phone notification that I already clicked on. So its whatever
---

Yeah Link should provide a well... link but this wouldn't surprise me.

---

Also some pizza should be provided

in all seriousness though wtf is going on with Texas lately

---

Mead posted...

in all seriousness though wtf is going on with Texas lately

Its just broken The problem is there will be way too many people who will be fine with this
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Yeah Link should provide a well... link but this wouldn't surprise me.

Pretty much, yeah.

LinkPizza posted... I dont have one. Hence why I didnt post one. Just something I saw on Reddit Can find it since it was a phone notification that I already clicked on. So its whatever

Probably why you should have looked into it? >_>

---

Zeus posted...

Probably why you should have looked into it? >_>

I would have, but I feel asleep. I can get you a picture from earlier though

https://i.imgur.com/3msjie3.jpg
---

ya, I made a topic a couple hours ago 'cuz Texas wanted to make Bail Bonds cash only to prevent charities from bailing out the disenfranchised

---

I'm all for free love.

---

Mead posted...

Also some pizza should be provided

in all seriousness though wtf is going on with Texas lately

The problem is that the parties have become utterly bipolar and galvanized to the point where your only choice is between two extremes. For example, in this case you either agree with the party that's demanding LGBT representation in basically everything or the party that resents the very notion. A middleground where you think it should be legal but that the people who, say, demand 6 year olds be read pro-LGBT content in schools are wrong simply no longer exists politically. It's one or the other and a lot of people choose option 1 and a lot choose option 2; especially if one of the options represents an issue they care about and said issue isn't, in this case, LGBT rights.

I like how your examples of 2 extremes are one side thinks we should inform kids about gay people and one side wants to make being gay illegal lmaoooo

---

Unbridled9 posted...

The problem is that the parties have become utterly bipolar and galvanized to the point where your only choice is between two extremes. For example, in this case you either agree with the party that's demanding LGBT representation in basically everything or the party that resents the very notion. A middleground where you think it should be legal but that the people who, say, demand 6 year olds be read pro-LGBT content in schools are wrong simply no longer exists politically. It's one or the other and a lot of people choose option 1 and a lot choose option 2; especially if one of the options represents an issue they care about and said issue isn't, in this case, LGBT rights.

no, you are wrong

some issues should not even be political

---

TheSlinja posted...

I like how your examples of 2 extremes are one side thinks we should inform kids about gay people and one side wants to make being gay illegal lmaoooo

That's not what I said though. Honestly, all this really tells me is that you're a liberal and probably agree with 90% of their talking points simply because.

Mead posted...

no, you are wrong

some issues should not even be political

I agree, but they are. My point here is that any issue with even slight political leanings has devolved down to bipolar representations in which you are forced to agree with an extreme of one party simply because you may agree with said party on a completely unrelated issue (that is relevant to you). Like, for example, your opinion on border security should be completely unrelated to your opinion on global warming; yet that's not what we see. You take a position on one, you're more or less forced to take a position that aligns with your party on the other. Even if you don't care one bit about one of the issues for whatever reason.

What was the famous line again about only two types coming from Texas?

texas has to be the most closeted state in the us. Their level of happyness would probably jump if more of them traded their brown cowboy hats and boots for pink ones.

thats why Texas as a whole has so much anti gay rhetoric. Their culture is so intolerant against gays that gays feel the need to hide themselves.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

You take a position on one, you're more or less forced to take a position that aligns with your party on the other.

no, you arent

---

TheSlinja posted...

I like how your examples of 2 extremes are one side thinks we should inform kids about gay people and one side wants to make being gay illegal lmaoooo

Centrism in a walnut shell

I also don't think it's crazy how positions tend to align. I guess there are weird people out there who love the gays but think climate change is fake, or environmentalist homophobes... but neither of those people are thinking very straight.

Well I can kind of see what you're saying because I hate a lot of stuff that Dems do, but that's because it's not left enough, so it's not like republicans are an alternative. And it's still not the kind of thing that makes me say stuff like "Are we sure the people who want to criminalize gays are all bad?"

I do understand what Unbridled9 is saying. I was talking about this with someone a little while ago. The problem is you have to choose a person. But not person is probably going to 100% along with everything you agree with
---

Unbridled9 posted...

That's not what I said though.

It really is. Pushing for more LGBT representation in media and school curricula is literally just a matter of ensuring that media and school curricula say "gay people exist and that's okay." "Pro-LGBT content" is simply stuff that says "some people are gay and that's not a bad thing," not some kind of insidious propaganda that's going to turn all the frogs gay. That is the "extreme" to which you're referring, so characterizing the issue as "both sides just take it to unreasonable extremes" is blatantly ridiculous.

Unbridled9 posted...

I agree, but they are. My point here is that any issue with even slight political leanings has devolved down to bipolar representations in which you are forced to agree with an extreme of one party simply because you may agree with said party on a completely unrelated issue (that is relevant to you). Like, for example, your opinion on border security should be completely unrelated to your opinion on global warming; yet that's not what we see. You take a position on one, you're more or less forced to take a position that aligns with your party on the other. Even if you don't care one bit about one of the issues for whatever reason.

That's mostly the fault of the two-party system. You can't vote for one position without also voting for all of the associated ones according to party lines, which is indeed a problem and fuels the "football politics" sort of attitudes we see so commonly because that inevitably results in supporting some positions that the other side sees as unacceptable (i.e. voting for tax breaks for small businesses also entails voting to make gay marriage illegal).

---

It really is. Pushing for more LGBT representation in media and school curricula is literally just a matter of ensuring that media and school curricula say "gay people exist and that's okay." "Pro-LGBT content" is simply stuff that says "some people are gay and that's not a bad thing," not some kind of insidious propaganda that's going to turn all the frogs gay. That is the "extreme" to which you're referring, so characterizing the issue as "both sides just take it to unreasonable extremes" is blatantly ridiculous.

*sigh*

Whatever. Tried to explain it to you, you didn't listen, now you're just gonna see this whole thing repeated again and again with no clue as to why it's happening.

maybe the reason you cant find anyone in the middle grpund you are looking for is because you arent actually in the middle ground buddy

---

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh*

Whatever. Tried to explain it to you, you didn't listen, now you're just gonna see this whole thing repeated again and again with no clue as to why it's happening.

you arent half as wise as you seem to think you are if you think the two sides of this and many other issues are at all equitable, even in their extremes

---

Now I know whose house Im crashing in when Im in TX.

---

adjl posted...

It really is. Pushing for more LGBT representation in media and school curricula is literally just a matter of ensuring that media and school curricula say "gay people exist and that's okay." "Pro-LGBT content" is simply stuff that says "some people are gay and that's not a bad thing," not some kind of insidious propaganda that's going to turn all the frogs gay. That is the "extreme" to which you're referring, so characterizing the issue as "both sides just take it to unreasonable extremes" is blatantly ridiculous.

That's mostly the fault of the two-party system. You can't vote for one position without also voting for all of the associated ones according to party lines, which is indeed a problem and fuels the "football politics" sort of attitudes we see so commonly because that inevitably results in supporting some positions that the other side sees as unacceptable (i.e. voting for tax breaks for small businesses also entails voting to make gay marriage illegal).

Exactly! Its so hard to be in the middle and be forced to vote for one extreme or the other! Well, one extreme. Im in California and our Democrat politicians are flushing this state down the toilet so Im hesitant to vote Democrat anymore.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh*

Whatever. Tried to explain it to you, you didn't listen, now you're just gonna see this whole thing repeated again and again with no clue as to why it's happening.

This. It is amazing how people think 6 year olds need to hear that stuff. You can tell they haven't been around many school kids.

adjl posted...

that inevitably results in supporting some positions that the other side sees as unacceptable (i.e. voting for tax breaks for small businesses also entails voting to make gay marriage illegal).

So you're saying that all small business owners are homophobes?
---

Revelation34 posted...

So you're saying that all small business owners are homophobes?

way to take things to an extreme

---

11110111011 posted...

This. It is amazing how people think 6 year olds need to hear that stuff. You can tell they haven't been around many school kids.

Actually, hearing it when younger can help to normalize it. And younger kids are actually pretty good with this stuff
---

LinkPizza posted...

Actually, hearing it when younger can help to normalize it. And younger kids are actually pretty good with this stuff

I work with kids in this age range almost every day. They still think they can be spider man when they grow up. . . .

Why do kids need to not hear it? Heterosexuality is normalized all the time. It's so normalized that people don't even realize when it's happening. Kinda shows how even people with good intentions have some latent homophobia. People say shit like "I just don't see why they needed to show a gay couple" about a movie but don't bat an eye at the tens of thousands of straight romances in film. If it's okay when it's straight people why is it not okay when it's gay people?

Revelation34 posted...

So you're saying that all small business owners are homophobes?

I'll spell it out for you because that's not what's stated at all.

He's talking about how we vote for representatives in a two party system. When you vote for a candidate who holds one conservative view, due to party affiliations, you're probably voting for a candidate who is also supportive of (different conservative view). As opposed to representatives that carry a mix of views, or voting on issues themselves (i.e. direct democracy).

---

11110111011 posted...

I work with kids in this age range almost every day. They still think they can be spider man when they grow up. . . .

And They still seem to be at that range where they can learn that anyone can love anyone
---

LinkPizza posted...

And They still seem to be at that range where they can learn that anyone can love anyone

They're SIX! Their knowledge of 'love' begins and ends at 'I love my mommy/daddy/brother/sister/puppy/kitty.' They have little to no understanding of romance period. The concept of 'straight' eludes them, never-mind 'LGBT'. There's probably a decent portion who would hear the LGBT explanation and think it means it's okay for them to love their same-sex siblings the same as their opposite-sex siblings because, at this point, 'boy/girl' is pretty much defined more by if they like blue/pink and hair length than anything about their bodies or anything. Yet you're saying they should be introduced to something sexual when they could reasonably have their age doubled and not hit puberty? To most of them 'romance' is a care-bear kissing another on the cheek and one of them getting red cheeks and acting funny.

I'm not against LGBT stuff being taught in schools, but as part of a lesson aimed at teens who are actually in a position where they can understand it. Not children who think they can grow up to be a cheetah.

Edit: And I don't even understand why this is an issue. Because the purpose of my original post was to point out that a middle ground is rapidly shrinking if it even still exists and you're effectively put in a position where you have to agree with an extreme instead of a more moderate/central position. Not if LGBT should or shouldn't be taught in schools or not. That was just an example I picked where the positions were getting vastly divided.

Unbridled9 posted...

They're SIX! Their knowledge of 'love' begins and ends at 'I love my mommy/daddy/brother/sister/puppy/kitty.' They have little to no understanding of romance period. The concept of 'straight' eludes them, never-mind 'LGBT'. There's probably a decent portion who would hear the LGBT explanation and think it means it's okay for them to love their same-sex siblings the same as their opposite-sex siblings because, at this point, 'boy/girl' is pretty much defined more by if they like blue/pink and hair length than anything about their bodies or anything. Yet you're saying they should be introduced to something sexual when they could reasonably have their age doubled and not hit puberty? To most of them 'romance' is a care-bear kissing another on the cheek and one of them getting red cheeks and acting funny.

I'm not against LGBT stuff being taught in schools, but as part of a lesson aimed at teens who are actually in a position where they can understand it. Not children who think they can grow up to be a cheetah.

Edit: And I don't even understand why this is an issue. Because the purpose of my original post was to point out that a middle ground is rapidly shrinking if it even still exists and you're effectively put in a position where you have to agree with an extreme instead of a more moderate/central position. Not if LGBT should or shouldn't be taught in schools or not. That was just an example I picked where the positions were getting vastly divided.

Between the ages of 2 and 3, kids start understanding relationships. And they know that mommy and daddy love each other. So, at 6, its fine if they learn that some families are different. And that some people are different. Its better to try to normalize this stuff while theyre young

And because the concept of straight eludes them, thats why its the perfect time to teach them that people can love whoever, regardless of gender

And I didnt say anything about anything sexual, did I? Im talking about things like some families have two mommies or two daddies. I never said give them a sex ed class Thats your own perverted mind

Children understand a lot more than people give them credit for
---

LinkPizza posted...

Between the ages of 2 and 3, kids start understanding relationships. And they know that mommy and daddy love each other. So, at 6, its fine if they learn that some families are different. And that some people are different. Its better to try to normalize this stuff while theyre young

And because the concept of straight eludes them, thats why its the perfect time to teach them that people can love whoever, regardless of gender

And I didnt say anything about anything sexual, did I? Im talking about things like some families have two mommies or two daddies. I never said give them a sex ed class Thats your own perverted mind

Children understand a lot more than people give them credit for

That's a solid point, may as well normalise children seeing adults displaying whatever surface level relationships they have, it's no harm to them to acknowledge other people living their own lives. They're too young to give a flying fuck about sexual relationships, it's just not as important as running in circles.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh*

Whatever. Tried to explain it to you, you didn't listen, now you're just gonna see this whole thing repeated again and again with no clue as to why it's happening.

Oh, I understand the point you're making, and it's fairly valid. Gay rights just isn't an example of it, given that the left-wing "extreme" position is just a very simple matter of letting gay people live their lives in comfort and good health instead of harassing them for no reason. The sense that a moderate position is vanishing there is not because the moderate position is actually becoming forbidden, it's because the "extreme" position is actually a perfectly moderate and reasonable one.

To invoke Godwin's law, "We should murder all the Jews" and "we shouldn't murder any Jews" are in fact opposite extreme viewpoints. The compromise position of "we should just murder some Jews," however, is not a moderate one. The "extreme" position of "not committing genocide at all" is what moderate, reasonable people will adopt, and the fact that they have adopted as extreme a position as is possible on this matter doesn't mean they aren't being moderate or reasonable in making that decision.

11110111011 posted...

This. It is amazing how people think 6 year olds need to hear that stuff. You can tell they haven't been around many school kids.

Should children of that age not be exposed to heterosexual couples? Nobody suggesting that the grade 2 reading list should be updated to include A Nymphomaniac's Guide to Sapphic Lovemaking, just that exposing them to radical ideas like "gay people exist and that's okay" is actually not radical at all and is instead perfectly sensible and healthy and will generally improve the experience of LGBTQ people on a societal level in the long run.

---

11110111011 posted...

This. It is amazing how people think 6 year olds need to hear that stuff. You can tell they haven't been around many school kids.

I think it's a pretty good idea to put it in their head that not all families are like theirs. Some of their friends might have two moms, two dads, one mom, or they might live with their grandparents. Families come in all shapes and sizes and that's alright. I doubt anyone is trying to teach anything more in depth than that because inevitably at this point kids will come across different kinds of families. Jesus, my family is a mess of a mixed family with three kids between 4 different parents, but all three of those kids are my family despite only one of them being blood related. Exposing kids to this isn't teaching them to be gay or straight or anything other than open to the fact that people love who they love and being a family isn't some cookie cutter thing.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's a solid point, may as well normalise children seeing adults displaying whatever surface level relationships they have, it's no harm to them to acknowledge other people living their own lives. They're too young to give a flying fuck about sexual relationships, it's just not as important as running in circles.

Yeah. I dont want to do sexual relationships. Just the surface stuff like you said. Some families have two mommies or daddies, and thats ok. Stuff like that Like hockey7318 said, many kids will have different types of families
---

I had a crush on a girl when I was like seven. You don't need to understand sexuality fully to understand parts of it

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. I dont want to do sexual relationships. Just the surface stuff like you said. Some families have two mommies or daddies, and thats ok.

While I agree it's okay, I don't think it's necesarily the place of schools to make a moral judgement one way or the other, like history classes. It's really the business of parents to decide the morals they want to instill in their kids and I can't see anybody who disagrees not having a really shitty reaction to it and causing disruption.

I trust that a child that's aware of gay couples and doesn't observe anything different with gay and straight couples will not apply a moral judgement anyway, but the school and parent being in direct conflict sounds like a recipe for devolution of trust all round.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

While I agree it's okay, I don't think it's necesarily the place of schools to make a moral judgement one way or the other, like history classes. It's really the business of parents to decide the morals they want to instill in their kids and I can't see anybody who disagrees not having a really shitty reaction to it and causing disruption.

I trust that a child that's aware of gay couples and doesn't observe anything different with gay and straight couples will not apply a moral judgement anyway, but the school and parent being in direct conflict sounds like a recipe for devolution of trust all round.

I trust the kid. But I dont always trust the parent
---

LinkPizza posted...

I trust the kid. But I dont always trust the parent

Sure, but it's still their kid and lives in their house and they likely still love their kid. School putting a wedge in doesn't help, school can just enforce their rules fairly on everyone and lead by example over doctrine.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

While I agree it's okay, I don't think it's necesarily the place of schools to make a moral judgement one way or the other, like history classes. It's really the business of parents to decide the morals they want to instill in their kids and I can't see anybody who disagrees not having a really s***ty reaction to it and causing disruption.

On the flip side, schools are generally permitted (if not outright obligated) to intervene when parents are abusing their children, and there's a pretty strong argument to be made that it's abusive to teach a child who ultimately grows up to be gay that the existence of gay people is immoral or illegitimate. Without any way to determine which children will grow up to be gay, it then stands to reason that it is abusive to teach that to any child, and that schools are therefore obligated to oppose those teachings by working to legitimize and normalize gay people in spite of what parents want.

Of course, that's a pretty loose interpretation of the matter, but ultimately, it boils down to schools having no reason to care what parents think on simple matters of objective truth like these. Schools will teach evolution to the children of creationists, they can teach the existence of gay people to the children of homophobes.

---

11110111011 posted...

This. It is amazing how people think 6 year olds need to hear that stuff. You can tell they haven't been around many school kids.

I somewhat agree when it comes to a school teaching. When older and being taught sexual education it's more fitting but not for a 6 year old. With that said though life and possibly parents in general will teach kids that people have different walks of life and about acceptance. They won't necessarily be accepting but still.

---

Revelation34 posted...

So you're saying that all small business owners are homophobes?

Its almost impressive how fucking stupid you can be.

As soon as kids are old enough to ask questions about things, they are old enough to hear honest answers. Its adults who are sensitive about things.

---

Cacciato posted...

Its almost impressive how fucking stupid you can be.

Just seems more willfully obtuse, which might be worse. I remember him saying he was doing therapy and saying he had a totally new outlook on things and we got about a week of him not doing this shit

Mead posted...

As soon as kids are old enough to ask questions about things, they are old enough to hear honest answers. Its adults who are sensitive about things.

While I agree, at 6 they are not always asking questions that they can understand honest answers to.