Mom and Dad banned in Ca

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55413

Quote:

A plan that has been launched in the California state Assembly - again - could be used to ban references to "mom" and "dad" in public schools statewide by prohibiting anything that would "reflect adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It's similar to a plan WND reported was approved by lawmakers last year, but fell by the wayside when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

"SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light," according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

"Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from 'reflecting adversely' on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals," the group said.

...snip....

Quote:

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

"Mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.

Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.

Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.

Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.

A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.

Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.

Please tell me that they arent serious!!!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 798 • Replies: 18

No top replies

- Imagine

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
John Lennon

0 Replies

That was a completely irrelevant appeal to emotion, BF.

I'm not surprised that things like this happen. I would be surprised if the legislation passed, and i doubt if the Governator would sign it.

0 Replies

Setanta, what BS. You're consistent I'll give you that. I think to you "That was a completely irrelevant appeal to emotion". Maybe even to others. To me it hit the nail on the head with the subject and had nothing to do with an appeal to emotion. I thought it was pretty funny too.

0 Replies

Alarmist Reactionaries Rear Their Ugly Heads
This appears to be the part causing a tizzy among conservatives:

Quote:

SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

The full text of SB 777 can be found here.
What this section means is that schools won't be able to punish, persecute, or ignore the plight of people whose gender identities differ from their biological sex (sadly, such students are fair game and the abuse, bullying, and harassment they suffer at the hands of classmates are often ignored by school authorities while they themselves are often singled out for special attention with regard to the observance of school rules). Aside from this, the bill merely adds sexual orientation to the list of human attributes protected from discrimination. In short, this bill seeks to end sexual orientation and gender identity's status as sanctioned, institutional prejudices. The notion that this bill might lead to the banning of such words as 'mother' and 'father,' not to mention quashing discussion of AIDS rates among differing subcommunities is garbage. Frankly, the WorldNet article is more of the same reactionary crap I've come to expect.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why WorldNet and other whacky right-wing organizations even care? I mean, don't they have a second-coming to pack their bags for.

0 Replies

Mills, well that sounds reasonable and just.

0 Replies

Re: Alarmist Reactionaries Rear Their Ugly Heads

Mills75 wrote:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why WorldNet and other whacky right-wing organizations even care? I mean, don't they have a second-coming to pack their bags for.

Kudos, Boss . . . that was a classic.

0 Replies

Thanks.

It just sounds suspiciously like the argument that legalizing gay marriage would lead to people marrying wildlife, livestock, and household pets.

0 Replies

Your remark seems to suggest that my marriage to my dog may not be entirely legal . . . hmmmmm . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your remark seems to suggest that my marriage to my dog may not be entirely legal . . . hmmmmm . . .

Don't ask...don't tell.

0 Replies

Is it just people in the US that think this crap up?

0 Replies

Good sense of humor, Boss . . .

I noted that the original article is rife with allegations about what schools would be obliged to teach their students, and noted that no actual language of the measure was quoted in the article. Those are sure first indicators that one is dealing with propaganda rather than fact. That is why my original response is that such a measure would not be likely to pass, and that the Governator would be unlikely to sign such a measure.

The language you have quoted throws things into an entirely different light. However, it would not suprise me if the Governator refused to sign that one, as well. However, it is worth noting that he is far more moderate than your garden variety Republican in the public spotlight these days, and a little horse trading could get the measure signed.

Thank you for showing up to inject some sanity into a discussion wihch was intended at the outset to be a bait thread.

0 Replies

martybarker: Which crap?

Setanta: No problem. Whether Arnold does or doesn't veto this, I think, will depend on just how successful this fear propaganda is. It's too much to expect that most people will actually read the bill (it's the second link on the list if you google "SB 777 California"), and probably too much to expect that people will actually question such ludicrous claims such as the terms 'mom' and 'dad' being banned in schools. Let's face it, it makes for a frightening story of oppression, and people love a good scare.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Thanks.

It just sounds suspiciously like the argument that legalizing gay marriage would lead to people marrying wildlife, livestock, and household pets.

That would be inter-species marriage, but only between different sexes, right?

Otherwise, that's just plain sick.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
Thanks.

It just sounds suspiciously like the argument that legalizing gay marriage would lead to people marrying wildlife, livestock, and household pets.

That would be inter-species marriage, but only between different sexes, right?

Otherwise, that's just plain sick.

But of course. (I sense this thread is on the verge of taking a turn to a dark and sinister place...)

0 Replies

i would support a bill that instructed schools to teach that a lot of heterosexual parents are total crap mothers and fathers.

0 Replies

You godless commie . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You godless commie . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your remark seems to suggest that my marriage to my dog may not be entirely legal . . . hmmmmm . . .

Where's that dog living right now?

I mean, the house is a bit full, but if Cleo doesn't mind someone else in the bed with you ... I say go for it.

0 Replies

Mom and Dad banned in Ca

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know