1 posted on
08/23/2006 6:57:42 AM PDT by
presidio9
To: presidio9
Time to pull the plug on the life support up in Sacramento. The rats are running the assylum.
2 posted on
08/23/2006 7:01:20 AM PDT by
bboop
(Stealth Tutor)
To: presidio9
"to positively reference transsexuality, transvestitism, bisexuality, and homosexuality, including homosexual 'marriage.'" What about necrophilia, bigamy, polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality?
3 posted on
08/23/2006 7:01:21 AM PDT by
NeoCaveman
(The biggest blog of the Ohio governor race http://blackwellvstrickland.blogspot.com)
To: presidio9
What happened to people like Nuñez and the rest of the Assembly Democrats? Seriously...were they all dropped on their heads as children? What makes people so strange?
4 posted on
08/23/2006 7:05:46 AM PDT by
B Knotts
(Newt '08!)
To: presidio9
But it does say that if somebody wants to say that if Jill and Jill ran up the hill and somehow that's wrong -- then this bill says that that is not acceptable.
So this means that my rights as a parent to protest such material has been gutted by the idiots in Sacramento.
6 posted on
08/23/2006 7:08:17 AM PDT by
bordergal
(John)
To: presidio9
Everyone in the country should be aware of this... So goes California, so goes the rest of the country.
7 posted on
08/23/2006 7:17:31 AM PDT by
rivercat
(Welcome to California. Now go home.)
To: scripter; DBeers
To: presidio9
If you add "homosexual agenda" to the keyword list, makes it easier for the pinglist guys to find it!
Thanks for posting the articles you do.
To: presidio9
"If somebody wants to teach kids in kindergarten that Jack and Jill ran up a hill, this bill doesn't prohibit that," It could be worse, they could teach the Andrew Dice Clay version.
10 posted on
08/23/2006 7:21:09 AM PDT by
dfwgator
To: presidio9; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; ...
12 posted on
08/23/2006 7:23:24 AM PDT by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: presidio9
California public schools may neither teach nor sponsor any activity that "reflects adversely" on anyone because of their sexual orientation.So you don't say anything at all in schools about any type of sexual preference.
"No comment"
14 posted on
08/23/2006 7:26:28 AM PDT by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: presidio9
...California public schools may neither teach nor sponsor any activity that "reflects adversely" on anyone because of their sexual orientation.
I guess then that the schools can't teach the history of AIDS in America, since AIDS was brought to our shores by a gay male flight attendant who spread it to over 40 other gay men.
15 posted on
08/23/2006 7:28:18 AM PDT by
rottndog
(WOOF!!!)
To: presidio9
Separation of school and state BUMP!
22 posted on
08/23/2006 10:19:19 AM PDT by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
To: presidio9
Arnold said months ago that he would veto this bill.
But that was the original version, not the current watered-down one.
So, I'm not sure what he'll do now.
To: presidio9
"The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing," Nunez said. "'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view," Nunez was quoted as saying.That doesn't apply to illegal aliens, sodomites or other perverts in California. Their wrongs are protected by perverted leftists that infest the legislature.
There is some room for interpretation when you say you can't teach anything that reflects unfavorably on the protected list of perverts. If in your opinion exposing children to any of that rot is unfavorable, it should be omitted entirely from text books and any in class discussion. Omission is perfectly legal as it doesn't reflect anything about the perverts.
29 posted on
08/23/2006 5:40:50 PM PDT by
Myrddin
To: presidio9
He said the bill would make schools "safer." ( from the article)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Safer for the perverts to teach perversion.
32 posted on
08/23/2006 6:11:33 PM PDT by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
To: presidio9
"But it does say that if somebody wants to say that if Jill and Jill ran up the hill and somehow that's wrong -- then this bill says that that is not acceptable."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I will post AGAIN:
1) Government schools never were, are not now, and never will be religiously neutral. "Jill and Jill" is a perfect example. The school can not promote and ignore the homosexual issue simultaneously. No matter what course it chooses, the government will be establishing the religious worldview of some while undermining that of others.
2) Government schools always have violated, are now violating, and alway will violate the free speech, free press, free assembly, and free expression First Amendment Rights. The "Jill and Jill" issue is merely one of hundreds of ways that government schools tell parents to shut up and do what the government says.
Government schools are an abomination! The are utterly unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels. The following explains why:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter9.htm
There is only ONE solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals decide these matters privately. If they did we would see very little of "Jill and Jill". That is why the liberals defend government schooling. They need government schools to push forward their homosexual, atheistic, culture of death agenda. Sensible parents would never allow it otherwise.
34 posted on
08/23/2006 6:26:14 PM PDT by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson