DescentBB

Well it looks like the terms Mom and Dad are being set up to be banned in Kornflake California. Perhaps the knowledge controlling wags are trying to lead parents down to the state creche beach where little boys and girls are divorced from the distasteful ideology of parenthood.

\"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.\"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55413

I just have to wonder why aberrations in human behavior have to be \"taught\" in a favorable light?

woodchip wrote:I just have to wonder why aberrations in human behavior have to be "taught" in a favorable light?

To not insult someone who is of that type????

No way...

Yeah Roid.. Culture is \"evolving\" really well here.

It's nonsense like this that truly frightens me. Nothing good will come of it.

did you want to ask me a question or something?

Awful. This shouldn't be forced on kids. They'll find out by themselves, just like guns and drugs.

That's weird, I've been teaching my kids to be tolerant of all sorts of behavior and customs that are different from our own. Yet I haven't once needed the State to tell me to do it and I'd put dealing with the failure of other parents to teach those lessons much lower on the list of priorities than dealing with the failure of parents to teach children the respect of the family unit, personal responsibility, respect for authority, self reliance etc. etc.

Looks like the schools out there need to be taught a few lessons themselves on how to prioritize the communities needs without using political correctness to guide them.

Yet another reason to disband government education.

There are soooooooooo many things wrong with this! So I'll just make sarcastic comments at the points listed.
Oh, and I'd be fully willing to bet that these points were pretty much a straw man argument... But then again, aren't all articles that way?

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

\"Lord yes! Reproducing isn't gay-friendly! We must prevent it from being spoken about as much as we can!\"

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.

\"Genders? They're not gay-friendly either! BANNED!\"

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

You either have (or had) a penis or a vagina! It's that simple!

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.

I have a better rule:
'A male who believes he really is female and a woman believing herself a male would both be allowed into a mental institute.'

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

...
Even most extremist Christians don't ask to ban science!

Will Robinson wrote:That's weird, I've been teaching my kids to be tolerant of all sorts of behavior and customs that are different from our own.

Me too. And they still think i'm a pr1ck.

I'm not necessarily \"playing Devil's Advocate\" here, but among all the reactionary rhetoric, I'm not even sure what the bill says...

On one side:
\"They're forcing our children to learn how to be homosexual/bisexual/transsexual! We can't say 'Mom' or 'Dad' anymore! We will be forced to convert all bathrooms to 'unisex'!\"

On the other side:
\"This bill will keep hatred and discrimination out of our schools! It will make all our children love everyone unconditionally!\"



So can anyone tell me what this bill actually does, without the opinion and rhetoric?

Gives the Governator an excuse to fire his vetogun, again?

here's the textof the bill; from what I've read of it(just the preamble) its seeks to revise certian definitions of whats considered discriminatory in califonia.

It's a large bill. One section covers discriminatory speech, another covers \"persons with disabilities\", another libraries, another bus and related transportation, another teaching certifications, charter schools, grants, and so on. One section explicitly exempts religious schools from the nondiscrimination stuff if it would make them act against their own religion.

It seems the main question for this thread is what is meant by \"No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.\"

That could be taken to mean that mom, dad, husband, wife, prom king, and prom queen could be forbidden. Or it could just mean that you can't be like \"OMG sucks to be you, faggort!\" I think the second is more likely.

I didn't see anything anywhere in the text that said schools would be required to teach positively about homosexuality etc., only that they couldn't teach discriminatorily against them.

It looks like an entirely sensible bill. The only question is how far people will be able to stretch certain clauses. If it comes down to the California courts deciding, I'm not certain they'll make good choices...

woodchip threads are just ThunderBunny threads with more fancy words and careful analysis that still leads to backwards conclusions, or hilariously apt skewering of conservative logic (or lack thereof).

lol internet.

I can sum up that article in one word.

Bulls[size=0].[/size]hit.

This is embaressing.

TIGERassault wrote:

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.

I have a better rule:
'A male who believes he really is female and a woman believing herself a male would both be allowed into a mental institute.'

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Rita+Hester

just... read, and try to dismiss this like that again.

URGH... it still surprises me the NIEVITY of some of you ppl. Transgenderism is a very recognised condition, it has a lot of science dedicated to understanding it. It's more important than "ur crzy here's a straighjacket lol".

why can't you hicks be bothered better informing yourselves so that you don't just come off as hateful ignorant imbred clansmen.

gender issues are serious ★■◆●ing business. Yeah wow seeing as you're so very male it doesn't effect you, just like blacks being allowed to vote didn't effect you. Lol black ppl, who cares?

TIGERassault wrote:I have a better rule:
'A male who believes he really is female and a woman believing herself a male would both be allowed into a mental institute.

Although I'm not surprised that you made this statement, would you commit yourself to a mental institution if you were them?

They didn't ask to be born this but they have a right to happiness like you and everyone else. You can be born a male but if the feeling inside you coupled with the way you talk, walk, desire, love and dream is female... then you are a female not a freak.

Bettina

But you still don't belong in the wimmin's bafroom.

/me is still wondering how this bill is getting tied to \"bathroom rights\".

Okay, suppose you have a penis AND a vagina, then what bathroom do you use? Or two penises? Gender issues are not always a mental problem, there are many times you may have a real genetic abnormality.

Foil wrote:/me is still wondering how this bill is getting tied to "bathroom rights".

Me too.

Bee

woodchip wrote:Well it looks like the terms Mom and Dad are being set up to be banned in Kornflake California. Perhaps the knowledge controlling wags are trying to lead parents down to the state creche beach where little boys and girls are divorced from the distasteful ideology of parenthood.

Woodchip, you would be a far better communicator if you didn't run your words through the GOP filter in Babel Fish.

Kyouryuu wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well it looks like the terms Mom and Dad are being set up to be banned in Kornflake California. Perhaps the knowledge controlling wags are trying to lead parents down to the state creche beach where little boys and girls are divorced from the distasteful ideology of parenthood.

Woodchip, you would be a far better communicator if you didn't run your words through the GOP filter in Babel Fish.

Ummm...what GOP filter? I listen to NPR radio. Perhaps you would be better not to presume too much.

Oh woody, you are teh funny.

My point is the rather amusing way you have to give everything a convenient pseudonym. It just comes off as tacky and unintelligible to me. Let the truth speak for itself. Name calling undermines any serious case.

TIGERassault wrote:Oh, and I'd be fully willing to bet that these points were pretty much a straw man argument...

AW SNAP!!

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:I have a better rule:
'A male who believes he really is female and a woman believing herself a male would both be allowed into a mental institute.

Although I'm not surprised that you made this statement, would you commit yourself to a mental institution if you were them?

They didn't ask to be born this but they have a right to happiness like you and everyone else. You can be born a male but if the feeling inside you coupled with the way you talk, walk, desire, love and dream is female... then you are a female not a freak.

Bettina

No I would not. I would live my life nearly the same as women would, I have no objection to tanssexual actions; but I wouldn't show a blind eye to the fact that I am biologically male! I might think liek a woman, dress like a woman, mabye even date men; but I'll know well that I'll always have a penis, and an adams apple, and smaller hips, and no amount of "girly stuff" is going to change that!

And please don't misinterpret that...

Capm wrote:Okay, suppose you have a penis AND a vagina, then what bathroom do you use? Or two penises? Gender issues are not always a mental problem, there are many times you may have a real genetic abnormality.

Well, of course. But that's much too rare, and should be dealt with separately to this bill.

TIGERassault wrote:I have a better rule:
'A male who believes he really is female and a woman believing herself a male would both be allowed into a mental institute.

Then I must have misinterpreted the meaning of your rule in this quote.

Bettina

oooh, TIGERassault you gotta be careful with your gender lingo.

\"male\" can mean male in body or male in mind.
It came across as you were saying: it was impossible for you to be female in body and male in mind, and anyone who believes themselves to be so should be in a mental institution.

But i think i get ya now

I believe that there should be no \"Boy's Bathroom\" or \"Girl's Bathroom\". I believe that is the most sexist thing ever. I believe that there should be one bathroom, where male and female both urinate in. End of descrimination.

What is wierd is no-one agrees with me! Not even my girlfriend, and she is more liberal than me! I think she hates black people! Does everyone like to descriminate?!?!?!?!

Dakatsu wrote:I believe that there should be no "Boy's Bathroom" or "Girl's Bathroom". I believe that is the most sexist thing ever. I believe that there should be one bathroom, where male and female both urinate in. End of descrimination.

What is wierd is no-one agrees with me! Not even my girlfriend, and she is more liberal than me! I think she hates black people! Does everyone like to descriminate?!?!?!?!

Too late Dak. We already found out the article's accusations was false.

Dakatsu wrote:I believe that there should be no "Boy's Bathroom" or "Girl's Bathroom". I believe that is the most sexist thing ever. I believe that there should be one bathroom, where male and female both urinate in. End of descrimination.

What is wierd is no-one agrees with me! Not even my girlfriend, and she is more liberal than me! I think she hates black people! Does everyone like to descriminate?!?!?!?!

Maybe it has to do with the fact that you're a gas bag after you eat anything.

Because we dont live in africa dak.

Flabby Chick wrote:Me too. And they still think i'm a pr1ck.

Good judge of character?

LOL.....you read this thread again Ded? You must be bored!!!

I'll admit it, I was bored too.

The problem with this kind of legislation (whether it's real or not, it's been tried before) is that by \"helping\" a certain small percentage of people, they're creating frustration and more work for the 99.99% of the population that didn't have this problem to start with.

It's basically creating a bigger problem to make much smaller problem go away... or is it? Won't those people who have gender issues still have issues? How is inconveniencing everybody else going to fix that?

If I want to feel better about myself, I'll see a shrink/doctor/clergy/movie. If I want laws that protect my rights without trampling on somebody else's, that's the government's job. They need to remember what the heck they're there for.

Flabby Chick wrote:LOL.....you read this thread again Ded? You must be bored!!!

LOL maybe so

What I find most amusing about this is that those who are trying to change the curriculum are basically doing the same thing they complain that others do. They are trying to legislate (not really but you know what I mean) their moral code. A lot of those same people get all bent out of shape when the religious right tries to do the same thing.

Way too funay!

I for one am tired of small groups of people determining what our morality should be:

Snip
In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.
End snip

So instead of duly elected lawmakers writing the law, answerable to the people, judges are saying, \"Do it\".

woodchip wrote:I for one am tired of small groups of people determining what our morality should be:

Snip
In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.
End snip

So instead of duly elected lawmakers writing the law, answerable to the people, judges are saying, "Do it".

Chip unless I am completely misremembering what happened I don’t think it was the court just saying “do it”. There was a challenge bought against the current law and the court found for the plaintiffs.

In other words, the “duly elected lawmakers” did write the law. It just that someone called B.S. and the Court agreed.