Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?
Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.
I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.
I think you need to get out more. A certain percentage of the human population is gay and always has been and always will be. Not abnormal at all.
Depends what you mean by "normal." If you mean good, non-scary people that we should treat with dignity, love, and respect, then I totally agree. But if we're talking more in the sense of "statistically mainstream," then no.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?
Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.
I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.
I think you need to get out more. A certain percentage of the human population is gay and always has been and always will be. Not abnormal at all.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?
Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.
I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?
Because the former is normal and the latter is not. And, look, I support gay marriage, detest the hateful discrimination to which gay people are subjected, and think we have a lot of work to do overcoming our historical prejudices. But that's the reason. And I think you know that.
I think your real question is why should we give heterosexual relationships preferential treatment. I think people advocating for that kind of preferential treatment would be able to advance some non-crazy arguments having to do with the value of heterosexual relationships in both producing children and giving them a stable environment to grow up. Maybe couple that with the idea that you teach the kids about the rules before you teach them about the exception to the rules. E.g. you give them a grasp of Newtonian physics before bending their minds with Einstein's stuff. But, of course, the non-crazy arguments are hopelessly tied up with a bunch of homophobic cultural baggage. So, the argument would probably devolve into name calling and finger pointing pretty quickly.
Anonymous wrote:Why do kids from heterosexual families get to see their situation reflected in books in school and read about families like their own in books in school but kids with same sex parents are not allowed to do this?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So many Florida tax experts on this board. Who knew?
It’s not hard to read commentary from actual tax experts and local government officials.
Apparently it was for the guys who wrote this bill.
Please help me understand why our governor and Republican state legislators cannot find the time to address the needs of everyday taxpayers in this state. Instead of seeking ways to increase health care for the uninsured, reduce skyrocketing rents for soon-to-be homeless Floridians and address property insurance costs, they are busy attacking Disney and creating voting districts that favor their base. Yes, they are holding yet another special session in May (at taxpayers’ expense) to talk about property insurance, but where were these concerns in the regular legislative session. I suspect they were buried under the scripts of political theater designed to feature the governor. I guess I should be thankful that when I am homeless and uninsured at least I do not have to worry about textbooks in schools that might talk about the economic and racial divide in Florida or that teachers might accidentally launch into a sex education class in kindergarten. That is a solution looking for a problem.
Robin Frank, Tampa
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So many Florida tax experts on this board. Who knew?
It’s not hard to read commentary from actual tax experts and local government officials.
Anonymous wrote:Stock down 30%. Corporations that rely on broad consumer appeal shouldn’t pander to some ridiculous vocal minority. Their fiduciary duty is to shareholders and Disney has betrayed that fundamental mission. The CEO should be fired immediately.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I put my money on Disney.
Wanna bet??
Stock down 30%. Corporations that rely on broad consumer appeal shouldn’t pander to some ridiculous vocal minority. Their fiduciary duty is to shareholders and Disney has betrayed that fundamental mission. The CEO should be fired immediately.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I put my money on Disney.
Wanna bet??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who here thinks the odds are greater that it gets reinstated quietly after the election, or if there will be a 1A infringement case needed to sort it out?
Unless the polling strongly favors the Democratic nominee, I think Disney will file suit before the election.
Disney will be filing a lawsuit against this whatever the polling says.
There is no need for a lawsuit. This is a nothing burger for Disney. There will be a new district and all will be fine. Because of the debt it can't be anything else.
Actually Disney would have to agree to it. Who says they will?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who here thinks the odds are greater that it gets reinstated quietly after the election, or if there will be a 1A infringement case needed to sort it out?
Unless the polling strongly favors the Democratic nominee, I think Disney will file suit before the election.
Disney will be filing a lawsuit against this whatever the polling says.
There is no need for a lawsuit. This is a nothing burger for Disney. There will be a new district and all will be fine. Because of the debt it can't be anything else.