Replies

So they want to take adverse history and information out of the classroom? Sounds like propoganda to me.

1 posted on 08/22/2006 1:23:36 PM PDT by ChessMan

Separation of school and state BUMP!

2 posted on 08/22/2006 1:24:59 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)

The State Assembly passed Senate Bill 1437 Monday, prohibiting classroom instruction materials that reflect "adversely" on a person's homosexuality.

Give me a break. The problem is that sexuality is so on display. Keep it in the bedroom, sheesh people!

3 posted on 08/22/2006 1:25:32 PM PDT by Froufrou

Oh how I would to have a curriculum called white studies.

4 posted on 08/22/2006 1:25:43 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("If you liked what Liberal Leadership did for Israel, you'll LOVE what it can do for America!")

Oh yes, this is just the liberal re-writing of history while injecting the queer agenda into the lives of our children. So very typical of our government liberal indoctrination camps -- where the kids come out and many cannot read or write well, but they sure know how to treat queers.

If I had to educate my two kids again, they would not set foot in a liberal goverment conditioning camp. No way in hell.

5 posted on 08/22/2006 1:26:07 PM PDT by EagleUSA

so now the homosexuals are claiming George Washington too?!!!

Geeze, they are going to claim all the presidents one by one. (of course if Hitlary gets in then that will be the one they actually deny)

Is "da gov" going to veto this as promissed?

7 posted on 08/22/2006 1:28:56 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)

It also seems like some of the people they want to "out" as being gay are not proven to be gay. Straight Dope has an article about the whole "Lincoln was gay" thing. By the way, Log Cabin Republicans were not name after Abraham Lincoln's supposed homosexuality. The group was founded before that idea came out. Gays are trying to claim people to bolster their cause, which unfortunately might win (i.e. like the notion that "Jesus was black" gaining popular acceptance). Also, as others have said, we do not need to know people's sexual orientation because it is irrelevent.

10 posted on 08/22/2006 1:32:28 PM PDT by psychoknk

i'd agree to more gay tv if they agree to less gay education

see also
Gays not represented well on TV, study finds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688058/posts

13 posted on 08/22/2006 1:36:33 PM PDT by edzo4

To: DBeers; scripter

15 posted on 08/22/2006 1:40:22 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Higher visibility leads to greater zottability.)

Just the ticket for Homofornia.

16 posted on 08/22/2006 1:43:13 PM PDT by boomop1 (there you go again)

"Kuehl originally wanted to require California school textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of gays and lesbians in state history."

Let's try that approach with other descriptors and see how liberals would react....

"...textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of heterosexuals in state history."

That wouldn't pass. It's totally opposite to the message they want to convey. Let's try this one...

"...textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of Jews and Christians in state history."

Those are no-no's. How about these...

"...textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of Bahais, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. in state history."

No point there. It's not controversial enough and homosexuals aren't addressed. How about...

"...textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of Islamics in state history."

I think that's been done or at least, it's in the works. Another try....

"...textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of Caucasians in state history."

Definitely not passable unless all of them were homosexuals and their "life partners" were of a different race or one or both were Islamic, atheist, new age or had political socialist/communist/green/progressive/liberal leanings.

"...textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of Blacks and Latinos in state history."

Oh wait a minute... those were done already. How about...

"...textbooks to reflect the positive contributions of trans-gendered people in state history."

That would work.

It's all fair, right?

How about a "don't ask, don't tell, don't wanna know" policy instead?

19 posted on 08/22/2006 1:53:23 PM PDT by Outland (Socialism IS the enemy.)

There are a couple more provisions wending their way through the California Assembly and Senate, including AB 1056 which sets up a "tolerance" pilot program. The interesting part of the bill is that "tolerance" is redefined to mean much more than the traditional meaning. The bill specifically states that merely ignoring or letting homosexual behavior occur without protests isn't enough. "Tolerance" under the new definition requires advocacy and most definitely prohibits criticism of the lifestyle. Feel-good legislation that would make George Orwell proud.

21 posted on 08/22/2006 2:13:55 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)

This must be what the last days of the Roman Empire were like.

23 posted on 08/22/2006 2:44:43 PM PDT by Uncle Hal

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794