"The other issue here is that grooming of children by [Christians] is a known problem the [right] won't talk about."

Fixed that for you.

@JacksonNought

You haven't studied statistics I assume.

Uh huh. You might want to think a little harder about your last statement...

@JacksonNought
You might want to think a little harder about why some people are desperately trying to contrive shallow equivalences on what they consider to be the "other side".
I guess you've got to play the cards in your hand, eh? ...even if they don't amount to shit.
If I were a Democrat with any sense, I would fold.
But then, if I were a Democrat with any sense... I would have left long before pedophilia became part of the platform (which was actually a long time ago.)

@JacksonNought yeah... I didn't say anything about a bill in Florida.
But since you brought it up. I wouldn't care, if I was a Florida voter, what Baxley thinks.
When it comes to voting for new legislation... the only thing that matters, is what it says.
Even if you think you know "the real reason" for the bill.

"The existence of different gender identities or orientations" is a contentious and subjective topic. Whether you think it should be or not... your opinion is just one of many, which is what makes it contentious in the first place.
The opinions that matter in this context, are those of Floridian parents; not yours or mine.
And the sexual behavior of adults is a topic to be approached by those parents, at their discretion. How, When, and Why they do it is up to them, not the State.
The State shouldn't be meddling in (and failing dramatically at) "education" in the first place; it's not what the State is for. But they have even less business endorsing subjective positions, and explicitly no business taking any "side" on moral questions.

The Tennessee bill is in the news right now, to desperately manufacture a false equivalence.
You said it yourself, and I agree, the two have nothing to do with each other.
So... why did you bring it up?
The claim that the TN bill legalizes child brides is not "calling it out." It's just an absolute lie.
I believe the age of majority has already been established in Tennessee by existing legislation. And if it wasn't... then "child brides" were already legal, eh?

You seem to care a lot about the appearance of "hypocrisy".
I don't. It is relevant, I guess, as a side-issue if the claim from the "other side" is: "we would never do or tolerate such a thing." But that whole rabbit hole is just a diversion from the point: "such a thing" is either Right or Wrong, whether everybody's doing it or nobody at all is doing it.
Some of your examples aren't complete bullshit. But other people's actions are none of my business, unless and until they break legitimate existing Law, or affect me (or my children) in some other way.
(That's actual Liberalism, by the way.)

Either way: arguments are either right, or they are wrong; independent of who is making them, why you believe they are making them, and whether you think they are adequately living up to them, themselves.
If you want to teach my 8-year old that anally fisting each other is a common and perfectly-normal "life-choice" between beer-buddies; make that argument... convince me.
Otherwise, any conversation that would get you arrested in a public park, should also get you arrested in a public classroom; even more-so.

@rway

"a contentious and subjective topic" - contentious maybe, but no, not subjective. People are trans. People are gay. That is objective truth. Whether someone can change their gender or sex, or if someone is born gay or "made" that way, that could be debated - but these people exist regardless, and that is a fact.

"The Tennessee bill is in the news right now...why did you bring it up?"

Um, I created this post to begin with, and it was all about the Tennessee bill due to it being in the news. That was the purpose of this thread. You are the one who then came back with "false-equivalence" and "whataboutism". You tied it to the Florida law, not me. If anyone was using "whataboutism" it was you.

Yes, Tennessee already has a minimum age - one that was only established in 2018. Before then, 10 year old girls were being married off to 30 year old men. And that law was, you guessed it, fought against by Conservatives, including the Family Action Council. Originally the Tennessee Republicans opposed setting a minimum age for marriage, as it would somehow acknowledge same-sex marriage - I guess they were fine excusing pedophilia as long as gay people were burdened. This new Tennessee law was attempting to create a different path to legal marriage outside of current laws, which would have created a loophole to allow for the current minimum age to be ignored. That is why the bill had to be amended to address this.

You are also using "false equivalence" with the Florida bill. You didn't seem to read it. No one is trying to teach children about anal fisting or trying to get them to transition. Again, an amendment was proposed to specifically ban this type of instruction, and it was shot down as "ruining the purpose of the bill". Anyone could have proposed an "anti-grooming" bill or a "don't try and expose children to sexual activity or behavior" bill, and it wouldn't have had any push back. What the Florida bill does is basically lump sexual orientation and gender identity into sexual behavior and bans discussion about it. But hey, the pendulum swings both ways. As I commented elsewhere, this also means you cannot discuss cis-gender or heterosexual identities either. The letter of the law means you cannot use gendered pronouns for anyone, as it involves gender identity. The letter of the law means you cannot read books about a mom and a dad or a prince and princess living happily ever after, as that involves sexual orientation. This is just typical projection from the Right, who cannot seem to separate sex from anything. It's not surprising really - this coming from Conservatives who love to line up little girls in the hallway and measure their skirt length.

I don't know, did he pay her college tuition and set her up for life?

I guess then you would reject what the GQP is saying, that merely acknowledging sexual orientation and gender identity isn't "grooming kids". I mean you are consistent in your beliefs, aren't you?

@JacksonNought

I do in fact reject any accusation without suitable evidence.

I cannot say if John Rose groomed this girl not. And I believe neither can you.

However I dispute that teaching young children (pre-pubescent) is necessary or even a good thing. Children under the age of 12 should simply be taught that no one touches your privates and you don’t touch theirs.
Once they turn 12, or just before that they need to learn the birds and the bees.

If that constitutes grooming (as I understand the meaning of it, is a different matter and each case need to be assessed individually.

Cases where adults do teach kids about sex or sexual orientation before puberty is unnecessary and possibly harmful.

@Hanno at least you are consistent, that is good. And I agree we shouldn't be teaching little children about sex, or at most give them the tools to speak up about inappropriate touching. But if we throw a blanket on banning any discussion or subject about gender identity or orientation, then it must be a full ban. You shouldn't be able to ask a kid if they have a crush on anyone at school. You shouldn't be allowed to say a little boy is going to be a ladykiller. If you can't read a book about a family with two dads, you shouldn't be allowed to read a book with a family with a mom and dad either. No fairy tales with a prince and princess living happily ever after - nothing but platonic relationships should be allowed.

This will be the result:

@JacksonNought
You mean no religious teaching at school?
I am all for it!
I don’t think even parents should be allowed to teach religion to kids under 12 or even 16.

I did not care for girls until I was 11…. And did not care about what a family is supposed to be.

What matters is that under 12s know what a happy family is and if they are not in one they can speak to someone about it.

The problem with teaching young kids to accept alternative families structures is that it necessarily forces the discussion of sexual orientation and sex itself.
That in my view is not good.

Leave that until they have the hormones that justify such discussions.

@Header [advocate.com]

House Bill 233 and the companion Senate Bill 562 would set up a way to register common-law marriages that are in keeping with the definition of marriage approved by Tennessee voters. In 2006, voters amended the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment was struck down, along with other state bans, in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.

Sponsors of the bills are painting them as harmless. “All this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,” the House version’s lead sponsor, Republican Rep. Tom Leatherwood, said at a recent subcommittee hearing, according to TV station WKRN.

But limiting the option to opposite-sex couples court result in court challenges, notes the Tennessee Equality Project, which is campaigning against the legislation. It would also create more paperwork for the local government officials who register marriages. But what is really raising red flags is the fact that neither bill originally listed a minimum age for marriage.

“There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood acknowledged in the subcommittee hearing. For couples who marry under the existing process, the minimum age is 17.

As admitted by the bill's sponsor, Tom Leatherwood, they would be allowing for a path to marriage that has no age limit.

Also where are you getting your claim that kids can be pumped full of hormones without parental consent? Please provide even one example.

@JacksonNought our food is full of hormones. beef, bacon, pork, etc.

@maryrose and who wants to gut the EPA and FDA that regulates and tries to limit that?

Also you know that is not what Header was talking about.

@Header hmm, reading is your friend:

The girl’s mother, it should be noted, supports the transition.

Here is another article:

[thestar.com]

...the family dispute started when the father made a bid in court to block a decision by his teenage child — who was assigned female at birth but identifies as male and has the support of his mother — to pursue gender-affirming testosterone hormone therapy in 2018.

So the child socially transitioned at their own request, and then began hormone treatments with the support of their mother. So the "bumping your kids full of hormones without parental consent" doesn't fit here.

But parental consent seems to be the ultimate authority to you, you are fine with parents marrying off a prepubescent child to an old man.

@JacksonNought @Header

“his teenage child — who was ASSIGNED female at birth but identifies as male“

By “assigned” I presume you mean born that way?

Jack, you just get more and more hilarious by the day! Thank you for all of the laughs! God loves you, my troll friend!

@WorldSigh you are repeating an article quote. I didn't say anything, so you presume wrong.

@JacksonNought
Indeed, I was repeating an article that you quoted.

Oh it is real.