In this context, a "don't say gay" bill sounds like the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
Perhaps sex in its entirety should not be taught before 5th grade. That's when I learned it in school. I always thought it seemed a bit early, but I suspect it was done in order to get ahead of wet kids might be exposed to from 8th graders when they moved up to middle school.
But preventing discussion of sexuality does nothing about the general problem of teaching sex education too early. It's just piling worse on top of bad.
I see no merit in banning discussion of topics like "sometimes men love men instead of women". That's literally a fact about the world, even if you think it's an abomination or whatever.
Moreover, let's extend the parent-choice principle further. Should teaching evolution in schools be exempt because some parents don't believe in it? What about the germ theory of disease? It's simply not a logically-sound or morally-consistent justification for a "don't say gay" law.
Perhaps sex in its entirety should not be taught before 5th grade. That's when I learned it in school. I always thought it seemed a bit early, but I suspect it was done in order to get ahead of wet kids might be exposed to from 8th graders when they moved up to middle school.
But preventing discussion of sexuality does nothing about the general problem of teaching sex education too early. It's just piling worse on top of bad.
I see no merit in banning discussion of topics like "sometimes men love men instead of women". That's literally a fact about the world, even if you think it's an abomination or whatever.
Moreover, let's extend the parent-choice principle further. Should teaching evolution in schools be exempt because some parents don't believe in it? What about the germ theory of disease? It's simply not a logically-sound or morally-consistent justification for a "don't say gay" law.