3 ms·

> I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussi

> I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussion of one's spouse, or same-sex parents, etc. The unfortunate reality that I wish people understood is that LGBTQ identities - including the existence of their spousal relationships - is often seen as inherently sexual by their very nature. Or put differently saying "my husband" is seen as sexual, but "my wife" is not. This is because straight relationships are socially normalized - leading to double standards being applied. > If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting. Unfortunately "classroom discussion" is often where these questions come up: kids ask questions and talk before, during and after classes. There's no clean way to draw that boundary. > Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents. Remember: "marriage" is absolutely something that straight parents would not forbid discussion of (in any capacity) when it's about straight couples. It's a double standard.

zozbot234 5y ago
Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? This would nicely include both traditional marriage across sexes and, e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  > e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies. I'm fascinated by what you mean here. > Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? There's nothing wrong, per se, with the phrasing you outlined. The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law, because heterosexual relationships are normalized and not seen as inherently sexual. However, same-sex relationships are sexualized by default in the minds of many people, and mentioning their existence (regardless of the lingo!) is tantamount to "talking about sex" in the minds of the conservative, religious right. There aren't any specific words that are being banned in this law, despite the "don't say gay" nomenclature the media and some others use. But it is a de-facto ban on acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people and/or relationships exist; the terminology used isn't actually the issue at hand.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law Well, straight couples were the first to get their affectionate relationships recognized and regulated under the law. They've been "normalized", as you say, for millennia. Same-sex marriage is still a very novel concept, only a few years old in the U.S. and most of the Western world. It's not surprising that people are confused by it. So, it's not surprising that same-sex people might have to clarify that they're talking about something (legal marriage) that is, functionally, entirely akin to sworn brotherhood.

zozbot234 5y ago

Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? This would nicely include both traditional marriage across sexes and, e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.

drewbug01 5y ago
> e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies. I'm fascinated by what you mean here. > Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? There's nothing wrong, per se, with the phrasing you outlined. The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law, because heterosexual relationships are normalized and not seen as inherently sexual. However, same-sex relationships are sexualized by default in the minds of many people, and mentioning their existence (regardless of the lingo!) is tantamount to "talking about sex" in the minds of the conservative, religious right. There aren't any specific words that are being banned in this law, despite the "don't say gay" nomenclature the media and some others use. But it is a de-facto ban on acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people and/or relationships exist; the terminology used isn't actually the issue at hand.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law Well, straight couples were the first to get their affectionate relationships recognized and regulated under the law. They've been "normalized", as you say, for millennia. Same-sex marriage is still a very novel concept, only a few years old in the U.S. and most of the Western world. It's not surprising that people are confused by it. So, it's not surprising that same-sex people might have to clarify that they're talking about something (legal marriage) that is, functionally, entirely akin to sworn brotherhood.