California homosexual agenda legislation

Capital Resource Institute ^ | 16 Mar 2006 | Edcoil

[edcoil]

SACRAMENTO – SB 1437 (Kuehl, D-Los Angeles) is one of the most outrageous bills that has been introduced this year in the California legislature.

If passed, it could potentially require gender-neutral bathrooms in our schools and all references to “husband” and “wife” or “mom and dad” removed from school textbooks as the norm.

[edcoil]

Bill Will Use Textbooks and School- Sponsored Activities to Promote Homosexuality to California’s Children - got this in Capital resources press release today.

[2banana]

From tolerance to forced indoctrination...

[Gay State Conservative]

Heather Has Two Mommies....well,only one actually.

[gondramB]

"all references to “husband” and “wife” or “mom and dad” removed from school textbooks as the norm."

That's the bad part... gender neutral bathrooms? - I could deal with that.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Anyone still believe it's a privacy issue?

[edcoil]

From: "The love that has no name"

To: "The love that won't shut-up"

[EagleUSA]

Anyone still believe it's a privacy issue?
----
Never has been -- the radical left fringe has been pushing the queer agenda in our government schools for a long time. That is why I am glad my kids are beyond the system now, thank God. The government education system has turned into a liberal indoctrination cess pool.

[lilylangtree]

CA stinks as bad as WA state.

[hophead]

I'm no attorney but I did read the bill. Has anyoune else? The key word in the bill is "adversely".
Here is a link.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1437_bill_20060222_introduced.pdf

Granted, any of these lefty wackos can say that the word "dad" does reflect "adversely". So where does that lead us? I think this much ado about nothing.

[gondramB]

"Anyone still believe it's a privacy issue?"

Abuses like this don't change the privacy issues any more than abuses like racial quotas and affirmative action invalidated equal rights regardless of color issue.

Abuses like those from today and yesterday show that greed and hubris exist in all men and that having been oppressed in the past does not make you immune to committing similar crimes.

Sexual conduct between consenting, sane adults should be protected by privacy as long as they do in private.

[muleskinner]

Existing law prohibits a governing board from adopting instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in this provision to include race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, and occupation. This bill also would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions of existing law..

Much ado about nothing

[siunevada]

(Kuehl, D-Los Angeles)

If only Dobie had known....

[MineralMan]

So, did you read the bill? It says nothing about the words "mother" or "father." There's a link in the thread to the bill itself, which slightly modifies an existing law.

It's really good to go and look stuff up when you find these stories on advocacy websites. Often, you'll find that they're talking about an "interpretation" of something, rather than the actual thing. They know you won't go look, so they can do this without objection.

There is nothing in the bill that advocates promoting homosexuality. There is nothing in the bill that prevents the use of the words "mother" or "father."

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What about prostitution? What about age of consent? If adults get a free ride why don't children? At what age does the constitution kick in for this perversion protection?

To a certain extent I agree with the privacy point when applied to normal human sex, but don't ignore the fact that relationships really are not that private. If you can have sex together what about marriage? The line in this case is hard to draw between private and public. And it is already difficult to draw the line at adult versus child. As soon as the Supreme Court handed down the Lawrence decision they immediately applied it to a minor child case in Kansas. Consenting adults ended up nothing more than a marketing term. In practice it is applying to children too. When the schools promote the issue it is done mostly to minor children, all in the name of protecting the so-called privacy rights of so-called homosexual parents (it is a biological impossibilty) and/or the privacy rights of so-called homosexual minors (physcially they are all heterosexual).

What if a man has sexual relations in private with his own labrador? Is that the government's business and why or why not?

Society needs order of some sort. It is reasonable to structure that order based on the obvious natural design of human beings.

[gondramB]

"What about prostitution? What about age of consent? If adults get a free ride why don't children? At what age does the constitution kick in for this perversion protection?

To a certain extent I agree with the privacy point when applied to normal human sex, but don't ignore the fact that relationships really are not that private. If you can have sex together what about marriage?"

1. i think prostitution among among fully consenting adults should be legal.
2. I don't consider the right to privacy to be a "free ride" - it can be given up by individuals. What a married couple does is be is their own business but if they do it at the mall they give up the right to privacy.
3."At what age does the constitution kick in" That's left to states since it's not covered by the constitution. Some states stick with 18 while others go lower.

"but don't ignore the fact that relationships really are not that private."

Boy, you just said a mouth full... this is complicated.

"If you can have sex together what about marriage?"

Anybody can have a ceremony they call "marriage." As for official marriage - that is a government function. We incent marriage because a male female permanent couple is what we believe is the best way to raise children. why would incent anything else? So no, the government has no justification for recognizing gay marriage.

As for sex with animals? Besides being gross, animals can't give adult consent so that one can safely stay illegal.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

As for sex with animals? Besides being gross, animals can't give adult consent so that one can safely stay illegal.

Just because they can't talk doesn't me they can't consent. What about when a dog humps your leg? Is that not consent?

[gondramB]

"Just because they can't talk doesn't me they can't consent. What about when a dog humps your leg? Is that not consent?"

Let's not go too far down this discussion road - I'm in my first year here and don't want to get banned.

But no, a dog humping your leg does not constitute sane, adult consent. For that matter, a 17 year old girl doing the same thing also does not count as consent, when you are my age.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

In your opinion perhaps. But the Supreme Court immediately applied Lawrence to a case involving a 14 year old boy. When you start down the road of anything goes as long as people want to do it then it is really difficult to stop.

And the dog is clearly consenting.