Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

is gay marriage affecting you? GTFO.

Well, when I buy coffee, there is now a flag that informs me of my beverage's view on human sexuality, so I'd say the slope has kept slipping.

Who cares? Literally nobody cares about coffee cups.

Somebody cares enough to put the flag there in the first place…

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

lol that is actually true.

That said I fear the collateral damage. My kid is LGBT and is one of those kids quietly supported by an awesome librarian.

Yes, it is a shift. The younger half of Gen Z is much more conservative, including on social issues. The causes are complex but I think one of the issues is actually how social justice education in elementary and high school has been handled. It has become dogmatic and practically religious, and if there is one thing that kids are born to do, it’s fight the establishment. By turning LGBTQ+ education (and other social justice education) into a very heavy-handed, excruciating establishment curriculum that brooked no dissent, educators all but guaranteed rebellion. The plaintiffs don’t seem to understand that in many respects their lawsuit hurts their side, and doesn’t help it.

https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-pollster-shocked-gen-z-conservative-shift-2049107

I’m hoping that what comes out of this is a mellowing of the messaging and a reduction in religious dogma, but still support for LGBTQ+ kids.

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

lol that is actually true.

That said I fear the collateral damage. My kid is LGBT and is one of those kids quietly supported by an awesome librarian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

is gay marriage affecting you? GTFO.

Well, when I buy coffee, there is now a flag that informs me of my beverage's view on human sexuality, so I'd say the slope has kept slipping.

Did the Supreme Court mandate that your coffee app include a drop-down menu for gender?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

is gay marriage affecting you? GTFO.

Well, when I buy coffee, there is now a flag that informs me of my beverage's view on human sexuality, so I'd say the slope has kept slipping.

Who cares? Literally nobody cares about coffee cups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

is gay marriage affecting you? GTFO.

Well, when I buy coffee, there is now a flag that informs me of my beverage's view on human sexuality, so I'd say the slope has kept slipping.

You are upset about a private business using free speech? The supreme court ruled in favor of the business who denied the gay couple a cake, so it seems you want them to reverse that decision.

NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

is gay marriage affecting you? GTFO.

Well, when I buy coffee, there is now a flag that informs me of my beverage's view on human sexuality, so I'd say the slope has kept slipping.

How does that affect you?
Is your coffee more bitter when you remember that killing gay people is illegal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

is gay marriage affecting you? GTFO.

Well, when I buy coffee, there is now a flag that informs me of my beverage's view on human sexuality, so I'd say the slope has kept slipping.

Anonymous wrote:This op-ed was terrific: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/opinion/lgbtq-books-supreme-court.html

+1. A good article that lays out the reasoning from both sides.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

How does it affect you/them?

Isn't this about people having to read a book now?

This op-ed was terrific: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/opinion/lgbtq-books-supreme-court.html

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

is gay marriage affecting you? GTFO.

Anonymous wrote:As the mother of 20 something kids, I can tell you that it seems to me the constant beating of the LBGTQ gender fluidity drum has been very confusing…so confusing that kids don’t know who they are, experimentation leads to false labeling, anxiety, depression and questioning. It’s not as liberating as we are lead to think…and social media makes it worse.

Just love your kids, even if they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans. It’s not hard. Their “confusion” would not be a problem if you were not anxiously demanding answers.