Why do the gays love the dems so much ?

[BillStime]

Ask Amy: Parent pressures gay son to change

 

Quote

 

DEAR AMY: I recently discovered that my son, who is 17, is a homosexual. We are part of a church group and I fear that if people in that group find out they will make fun of me for having a gay child.

 

He won’t listen to reason, and he will not stop being gay. I feel as if he is doing this just to get back at me for forgetting his birthday for the past three years — I have a busy work schedule.

 

Please help him make the right choice in life by not being gay. He won’t listen to me, so maybe he will listen to you. -- Feeling Betrayed

 

DEAR BETRAYED: You could teach your son an important lesson by changing your own sexuality to show him how easy it is. Try it for the next year or so: Stop being a heterosexual to demonstrate to your son that a person’s sexuality is a matter of choice — to be dictated by one’s parents, the parents’ church and social pressure.

 

I assume that my suggestion will evoke a reaction that your sexuality is at the core of who you are. The same is true for your son. He has a right to be accepted by his parents for being exactly who he is.

 

When you “forget” a child’s birthday, you are basically negating him as a person. It is as if you are saying that you have forgotten his presence in the world. How very sad for him.

 

Pressuring your son to change his sexuality is wrong. If you cannot learn to accept him as he is, it might be safest for him to live elsewhere.

A group that could help you and your family figure out how to navigate this is Pflag.org. This organization is founded for parents, families, friends and allies of LGBT people, and has helped countless families through this challenge. Please research and connect with a local chapter.

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

4 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

It's not grooming. It's a resource that could ACTUALLY HELP PREVENT SUICIDES... but then again, you freaks don't care about kids - you only parrot what your keepers tell YOU what to think.

 

Quit the charade.

 

 

 

So you clearly know nothing about parenting.  

 

Just a reminder to Parents in this country that have stopped adulting - that phone isn't the kids - it is the parents phone.  The kid uses it.  Check their texts.  Check their apps.  Check the whole f...ing thing.  Ask them about the "your eyes only" feature or whatever the hell it is in Snap Chat.   

 

I respect my kids privacy.  Unfortunately it's 2022 and the problems that these kids are having (aside from their lives being ruined by the Branch Covidians) start on their freaking cell phones and how many *likes* their Instagram post got or didn't.

 

Once they get to a certain age - for me it's Sophomore or Junior year in high school - that phone can and should be randomly inspected as a practice.  You don't have to accuse them of anything - you make it clear this is about keeping them safe and wanting to know exactly what they're seeing in the fake world.  

 

And if any entity has created something anonymous for kids say under 15 or 16 to discuss anything of significance like say sexuality or suicide and parents aren't notified they should be shut down immediately.  

 

 

Somehow the left managed to bastardize parenting so badly that you can't even ask your 11 year old to see their phones and that any talk about LGBTQ issues that 11 year olds should have no business knowing about - specifically the T and the Q - could and should be anonymous or in the public  schools is a crime against humanity.  

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Big Blitz

[BillStime]

36 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

So you clearly know nothing about parenting.  

 

Just a reminder to Parents in this country that have stopped adulting - that phone isn't the kids - it is the parents phone.  The kid uses it.  Check their texts.  Check their apps.  Check the whole f...ing thing.  Ask them about the "your eyes only" feature or whatever the hell it is in Snap Chat.   

 

I respect my kids privacy.  Unfortunately it's 2022 and the problems that these kids are having (aside from their lives being ruined by the Branch Covidians) start on their freaking cell phones and how many *likes* their Instagram post got or didn't.

 

Once they get to a certain age - for me it's Sophomore or Junior year in high school - that phone can and should be randomly inspected as a practice.  You don't have to accuse them of anything - you make it clear this is about keeping them safe and wanting to know exactly what they're seeing in the fake world.  

 

And if any entity has created something anonymous for kids say under 15 or 16 to discuss anything of significance like say sexuality or suicide and parents aren't notified they should be shut down immediately.  

 

 

Somehow the left managed to bastardize patenting so badly that you can't even ask your 11 year old to see their phones and that talk about LGBTQ issues that 11 year old should have no business knowing about it - specifically the T and the Q - is a crime against humanity.  

 

 

So, do nothing and let these kids kill themselves. Got it. Great parenting.

 

PS: This is 100% you: Ask Amy: Parent pressures gay son to change

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

32 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

So, do nothing and let these kids kill themselves. Got it. Great parenting.

 

PS: This is 100% you: Ask Amy: Parent pressures gay son to change

 

 

Are you a parent? 

[Orlando Tim]

17 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

So, do nothing and let these kids kill themselves. Got it. Great parenting.

 

PS: This is 100% you: Ask Amy: Parent pressures gay son to change

 

 

Your so self righteous it is pathetic. Telling a kid that being gay is "evil" is a terrible thing, telling a kid they are "special" because they are gay or trans is also bad though. The reason that the gay and trans students I teach love me is I treat the the same as if they were not, all accomplishments are unrelated to that status. Being told you are special without accomplishing anything is highly detrimental to someone's health 

[BillStime]

21 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Your so self righteous it is pathetic. Telling a kid that being gay is "evil" is a terrible thing, telling a kid they are "special" because they are gay or trans is also bad though. The reason that the gay and trans students I teach love me is I treat the the same as if they were not, all accomplishments are unrelated to that status. Being told you are special without accomplishing anything is highly detrimental to someone's health 

WTF are you talking about? 

 

I’m self righteous?
 

You’re the one who supports a party that wants to erase LGTBQ people.

 

You're the one who supports a party that wants to ban gay marriage.

 

You're the one whose party tried to argue that the Civil Rights Act did not cover gay or transgender employees. 

 

Trump says ‘we live’ with SCOTUS decision on LGBTQ worker rights

You’re a teacher? In Florida? Makes total sense.

 

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, BillStime said:

WTF are you talking about? 

 

I’m self righteous?
 

You’re the one who supports a party that wants to erase LGTBQ people.

 

You're the one who supports a party that wants to ban gay marriage.

 

You're the one whose party tried to argue that the Civil Rights Act did not cover gay or transgender employees. 

 

Trump says ‘we live’ with SCOTUS decision on LGBTQ worker rights

You’re a teacher? In Florida? Makes total sense.

 

FYI: Being a ‘teacher’ is not synonymous with being a sexuality coach. 

[BillStime]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

FYI: Being a ‘teacher’ is not synonymous with being a sexuality coach. 

 

Thanks for putting words in my mouth - keep up the great work you do here champ.

 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Thanks for putting words in my mouth - keep up the great work you do here champ.

 

YOU called out the guy for being a teacher…not me….champ! 

[Orlando Tim]

28 minutes ago, BillStime said:

WTF are you talking about? 

 

I’m self righteous?
 

You’re the one who supports a party that wants to erase LGTBQ people.

 

You're the one who supports a party that wants to ban gay marriage.

 

You're the one whose party tried to argue that the Civil Rights Act did not cover gay or transgender employees. 

 

Trump says ‘we live’ with SCOTUS decision on LGBTQ worker rights

You’re a teacher? In Florida? Makes total sense.

 

Not one thing you list I have ever said but you did get upset when adults could not discuss who was touching their genitals. So I have logic as usual and you have strawmen

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

YOU called out the guy for being a teacher…not me….champ! 

 

Yea, given this guys body of work here I am SHOCKED to learn he is a teacher... but then again, it's FloriDUH.

 

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Not one thing you list I have ever said but you did get upset when adults could not discuss who was touching their genitals. So I have logic as usual and you have strawmen

 

Keep deflecting.

 

Your party hates anyone not white, straight and male.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Yea, given this guys body of work here I am SHOCKED to learn he is a teacher... but then again, it's FloriDUH.

 

 

Keep deflecting.

 

Your party hates anyone not white, straight and male.

 

 

The Florida law wasn’t written by teachers you nitwit. If anything it was written in opposition to teachers. Sheesh 

 

Put your rage away for a second. 

[BillStime]

 

 

Thank you Trump voters for inciting culture wars on ALL fronts - because you are VOID of any meaningful legislation and can only serve hate.

[BillStime]

21 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

But don't call it "Grooming"

 

 

 

Yea grooming... 

 

 

 

[dickleyjones]

Canadian parent of a lesbian child here. i am curious about what's going on in florida. but as usual it's difficult to get proper info.

 

is this about not allowing sexuality to be taught as a class for young kids? or is it more strict than that? for example, if a kid asks teacher "how can Timmy have two moms?" is a teacher allowed to give any answer at all?

 

as someone with relevant experience, i'd like to jump in on the conversation but it's become pretty cloudy as to what this is actually about.

Edited April 28, 2022 by dickleyjones

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

Canadian parent of a lesbian child here. i am curious about what's going on in florida. but as usual it's difficult to get proper info.

 

is this about not allowing sexuality to be taught as a class for young kids? or is it more strict than that? for example, if i kid asks teacher "how can Timmy have two moms?" is a teacher allowed to give any answer at all?

 

as someone with relevant experience, i'd like to jump in on the conversation but it's become pretty cloudy as to what this is actually about.

 

Here is the law.

 

[SoCal Deek]

46 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

Canadian parent of a lesbian child here. i am curious about what's going on in florida. but as usual it's difficult to get proper info.

 

is this about not allowing sexuality to be taught as a class for young kids? or is it more strict than that? for example, if a kid asks teacher "how can Timmy have two moms?" is a teacher allowed to give any answer at all?

 

as someone with relevant experience, i'd like to jump in on the conversation but it's become pretty cloudy as to what this is actually about.

Do you not think that teachers have been asked awkward questions since the dawn of public education? Answer....yes they have. Spend a little time with kindergarten age kids and you'll get all sorts of awkward, and sometimes inappropriate questions.  The law just reinforces the public's desire that the teacher not engage in these discussions, but instead refer to the student to the school administration, or even better yet suggest that the student talk to their parents. It's been the standard for decades. This same thing applies if the student is straight. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[dickleyjones]

so, unless i missed something else,  this seems to be the relevant bit: "3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

 

so on the one hand it's pretty vague, but "classroom instruction" implies that there won't be specific curriculum or class times dedicated to sexual orientation or gender identity. it does seem discriminatory to be so specific, but at the same time there are many things that are not taught as a class.

 

if, however, it means that a teacher is to *never* reference gender or sexual orientation, i have to disagree with that. kids need to be able to ask questions and teachers need to provide answers. sure, you are not going to want teachers to explain details of sexual intercourse and the like. but explaining to a child that yes, some kids have two moms and the two moms love each other just like a mom and dad love each other, should be allowed imo.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by dickleyjones

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

so, unless i missed something else,  this seems to be the relevant bit: "3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

 

so on the one hand it's pretty vague, but "classroom instruction" implies that there won't be specific curriculum or class times dedicated to sexual orientation or gender identity. it does seem discriminatory to be so specific, but at the same time there are many things that are not taught as a class.

 

if, however, it means that a teacher is to *never* reference gender or sexual orientation, i have to disagree with that. kids need to be able to ask questions and teachers need to provide answers. sure, you are not going to want teachers to explain details of sexual intercourse and the like. but explaining to a child that yes, some kids have two moms and the two moms love each other just like a mom and dad love each other, should be allowed imo.

 

 

I'll politely disagree.  Teachers are not there to answer every question posed to them by students. Teachers are professionals and they know EXACTLY how to do this.  They are actually trained how to deflect. They do not have all the answers to life's mysteries.  They are not priests....they are teachers. There job is to deliver a state approved curriculum. Period! 

Edited April 28, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[716er]

Priests do not have answers to life's mysteries, either/

[ALF]

Parents should explain to their children their marital situation and any other questions they have. The whole class need not be involved.

[dickleyjones]

30 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I'll politely disagree.  Teachers are not there to answer every question posed to them by students. Teachers are professionals and they know EXACTLY how to do this.  They are actually trained how to deflect. They do not have all the answers to life's mysteries.  They are not priests....they are teachers. There job is to deliver a state approved curriculum. Period! 

teachers are more than just that.

 

kids get hurt, teased, bullied, whatever, i'm sure a kind word from the teacher helps at that time. i know it helped me when my parents were getting divorced when i was little. it's not like my teacher had any incredible insight that solved my problems. but even just kind words from someone you trust in a time like that is appreciated and is the right thing to do.

Edited April 28, 2022 by dickleyjones

[Orlando Tim]

12 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

teachers are more than just that.

 

kids get hurt, teased, bullied, whatever, i'm sure a kind word from the teacher helps at that time. i know it helped me when my parents were getting divorced when i was little. it's not like my teacher had any incredible insight that solved my problems. but even just kind words from someone you trust in a time like that is appreciated.

The law forbids the discussion with children until they are about 8 in schools. A teacher would not be fired or reprimanded if some kid asked about someone with two mom's and they responded unless they went into it deeply. Unfortunately there is a small minority of people who truly thought discussing their genitals with children was appropriate and this law is needed.

[BillStime]

Just now, Buffalo Timmy said:

The law forbids the discussion with children until they are about 8 in schools. A teacher would not be fired or reprimanded if some kid asked about someone with two mom's and they responded unless they went into it deeply. Unfortunately there is a small minority of people who truly thought discussing their genitals with children was appropriate and this law is needed.

 

Who thinks this is remotely appropriate OR why this law exists?

[Orlando Tim]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Who thinks this is remotely appropriate OR why this law exists?

Look at Libs of TikTok. Choosing ignorance is not a good defense. 

[BillStime]

33 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I'll politely disagree.  Teachers are not there to answer every question posed to them by students. Teachers are professionals and they know EXACTLY how to do this.  They are actually trained how to deflect. They do not have all the answers to life's mysteries.  They are not priests....they are teachers. There job is to deliver a state approved curriculum. Period! 

 

Can you point to the specific state mandated curriculum or local board approved curriculum that this law is striking down?

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Look at Libs of TikTok. Choosing ignorance is not a good defense. 

 

OH ok - I'm going to look to TIK TOK for what is allegedly happening in our schools instead of questioning the authenticity of it being staged to rally ignorant people like you.

 

Got it.

[LeviF]

Everyone needs to stop responding to leftists in these situations.

 

Any sane person knows what the law actually does - prevent situations like we've seen publicly shared on social media by multicolor-haired "educators" in their classrooms talking about their personal lives in a way that is not even close to being appropriate for the ages of the children they're supposed to be teaching mathematics and phonics to.

 

Just let the insane ones shout into the void while their IP addresses get flagged for possible CP up/downloading.

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, LeviF said:

Everyone needs to stop responding to leftists in these situations.

 

Any sane person knows what the law actually does - prevent situations like we've seen publicly shared on social media by multicolor-haired "educators" in their classrooms talking about their personal lives in a way that is not even close to being appropriate for the ages of the children they're supposed to be teaching mathematics and phonics to.

 

Just let the insane ones shout into the void while their IP addresses get flagged for possible CP up/downloading.

Any sane person should be able to point to a specific state or local sponsored curricula that this law is striking down…????

[LeviF]

Observe the classic motte-and-bailey doctrine at work in the leftoid's playbook:

 

Boring, but easily defended motte: the Florida bill is a solution in search of a problem

 

What they desire, the bailey: it's good and right for government employees to talk to children under the age of 9 about sex, sexual preference, genitalia, and gender dysphoria.

 

By substituting the motte whenever someone attacks the bailey, they believe they make the attacker out to be unreasonable for not wanting government employees to authoritatively tell small children where a penis might go.

 

This classic concept-swapping was famously all over Michael Foucault's work, a primary influence on the left's insistence in driving the west straight off a cliff.

[BillStime]

31 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Observe the classic motte-and-bailey doctrine at work in the leftoid's playbook:

 

Boring, but easily defended motte: the Florida bill is a solution in search of a problem

 

What they desire, the bailey: it's good and right for government employees to talk to children under the age of 9 about sex, sexual preference, genitalia, and gender dysphoria.

 

By substituting the motte whenever someone attacks the bailey, they believe they make the attacker out to be unreasonable for not wanting government employees to authoritatively tell small children where a penis might go.

 

This classic concept-swapping was famously all over Michael Foucault's work, a primary influence on the left's insistence in driving the west straight off a cliff.

 

If the right were in search of solution for a PROBLEM that actually exists - they would focus on meaningful gun legislation...

 

But no - the cult is obsessed with fighting and inciting manufactured culture wars because that's the only way to rally their ignorant cult.

 

CRT + Anti-LGTBQ legislation is all about HATE and DON'T you dare say GAY GAY GAY... you'll upset the closet cases out there.

[Orlando Tim]

57 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Any sane person should be able to point to a specific state or local sponsored curricula that this law is striking down…????

Thank you for admitting you are not sane since you can't find this stuff 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Thank you for admitting you are not sane since you can't find this stuff 

 

You're a teacher - right? Your go to resource for backing up your arguments shouldn't be TIK TOK.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, dickleyjones said:

so, unless i missed something else,  this seems to be the relevant bit: "3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

 

so on the one hand it's pretty vague, but "classroom instruction" implies that there won't be specific curriculum or class times dedicated to sexual orientation or gender identity. it does seem discriminatory to be so specific, but at the same time there are many things that are not taught as a class.

 

if, however, it means that a teacher is to *never* reference gender or sexual orientation, i have to disagree with that. kids need to be able to ask questions and teachers need to provide answers. sure, you are not going to want teachers to explain details of sexual intercourse and the like. but explaining to a child that yes, some kids have two moms and the two moms love each other just like a mom and dad love each other, should be allowed imo.

 

 

I like your approach. 

 

It could just be me, but when little Jimmy asks why his classmate has two mommies, it seems perfectly age appropriate to say "Some children have two mommies."  

 

When little Rebecca asks why little Jimmy is wearing a dress to school, it seems perfectly age appropriate for a teacher to say "Some children choose to wear a dress.".  

 

There is a tendency for human beings to talk too much when placed in an uncomfortable situation.  The best approach is to establish a process consistent with the law, train the teacher on best practices, offer word tracks to the teachers that consider outcomes, set the expectation of behavior and hold the teacher accountable for their performance.    Simple wins, usually. 

 

Glad to hear that the relevant bit was NOT "Don't say gay ever ever ever.".  There was a rumor circulating that that was a thing. 

 

Hope your daughter is doing well. 

 

  

[Orlando Tim]

34 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You're a teacher - right? Your go to resource for backing up your arguments shouldn't be TIK TOK.

 

Primary source documents should always be you first choice, and people admitting themselves that they are doing it is a primary source. Explain a better source than someone admitting what they are doing?

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Primary source documents should always be you first choice, and people admitting themselves that they are doing it is a primary source. Explain a better source than someone admitting what they are doing?

Someone on TIK TOK has credibility how?

 

You're a teacher - in FloriDUH - you won’t put your credibility on the line? We should buy something produced on TIK TOK?

 

 

[716er]

21 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Primary source documents should always be you first choice, and people admitting themselves that they are doing it is a primary source. Explain a better source than someone admitting what they are doing?

 

A Twitter account tweeting videos it found on Tik-Tok is not a primary source.

 

smdh

Edited April 28, 2022 by 716er

[B-Man]

Just now, 716er said:

 

A Twitter account tweeting videos it found on Tik-Tok is not a primary source.

 

smdh

 

A Twitter account tweeting videos it found on Tik-Tok is not a primary source.

 

smdh

 

 

They are videos of teachers talking directly about themselves.........it IS a direct source.

 

 

You can cry Tik-Tok all you want, it doesn't change a thing.

 

 

That is the same with multiple posts by myself and others here that you dislike and falsely discount.

 

They are quotes from people, and often with links to other sources. Your sad excuse that you do not like a particular site, because you don't "approve" of it

is all too laughable

 

 

[716er]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

They are videos of teachers talking directly about themselves.........it IS a direct source.

 

 

You can cry Tik-Tok all you want, it doesn't change a thing.

 

 

That is the same with multiple posts by myself and others here that you dislike and falsely discount.

 

They are quotes from people, and often with links to other sources. Your sad excuse that you do not like a particular site, because you don't "approve" of it

is all too laughable

 

 

 

A primary source would be the video on Tik-Tok itself.

 

A secondary source is Libs of Tik Tok tweeting said video.

 

Sad a teacher does not understand basic sourcing.

[dickleyjones]

yep, looks like we are on the same page.

 

i was thinking of another very common situation in grade school - kids doing projects and presentations about their families. we all did it. so, when Jimmy gets up in front of the class and shows some pictures (not sexually explicit pictures, obviously) of his two dads, sister, and dog as he presents and talks about his family, i would hope that is considered ok in the context of this law.

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by dickleyjones

[Orlando Tim]

26 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

A primary source would be the video on Tik-Tok itself.

 

A secondary source is Libs of Tik Tok tweeting said video.

 

Sad a teacher does not understand basic sourcing.

You actually believe that when they reprint the letters of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams it is no longer a primary source? Sad anyone is dumb enough to believe that.