Jump to content


Photo

Sexual Preferences Sb-777


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 Aratta-Kingdom

Aratta-Kingdom

    www.ArmaniKingdom.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 11:58 PM

NCTimes.com

Just the facts on SB 777

By: ROBERT TYLER - Commentary

Forget everything you learned in kindergarten about the difference between boys and girls. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, schoolchildren can now choose their own sex. I'm not talking about choosing "sexual behavior or sexual preferences." Kids are going to be taught that they have the right to completely ignore their physical anatomy and choose the status of being "male" or "female."

Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California's kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven't they? In October, California Senate Bill 777 was signed into law. Senate Bill 777 eliminates Education Code 212, which currently defines "sex" as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being." And worse yet, SB 777 redefines the term "gender" for all schoolchildren by adding Education Code 210.7, which will read: "'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." In short, this redefinition of gender states that you are what you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up.

SB 777 also uses this redefinition of gender to forbid educators from discriminating against any individual employee, student or other person based upon that individual's unspoken claim of being male or female, regardless of his or her actual sex.</SPAN>

Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to pro-family issues, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court, San Diego, on behalf of the California Education Committee LLC, a project of California Family Council. Members of the California Education Committee include school board trustees, educators, parents and students.

The lawsuit argues that the redefinition of gender should be declared unconstitutionally vague as no school administrator or teacher would ever know whether they are unlawfully discriminating against a person based on their chosen sex. For example, how is it possible for an educator to segregate the boys from the girls if each individual has the ability to randomly self-define their sex regardless of their anatomy? Should educators really have to face the possibility of being sued for discrimination every time they segregate boys and girls or should they just be responsible for asking every child what sex they choose to be that day?

The lawsuit also argues that SB 777 is vague because Education Code section 51500 prohibits any teacher or school district from giving instruction or sponsoring any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias against persons based upon their gender or sexual orientation. Is a "discriminatory bias" being promoted when a high school chooses a homecoming king and queen or when a teacher discusses the role of a mother and father after reading a classic English novel?

Education Code section 220 prohibits discrimination based upon a person's self-defined gender in "any program or activity conducted by an educational institution." And Education Code section 200 requires "equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state."

If the school must treat a biological male as a self-defined "female" in "any program or activity" and in the "educational institutions of the state," does this require schools to allow the self-defined "female" to access female facilities? If persons can legally self-define their sex, shouldn't they be entitled to be treated that way regarding access to all public facilities? Sound outlandish? Not really.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms ---- and vice versa! You can read LAUSD's Reference Guide 1557 on the district's Web site.

It even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student's preferred pronoun. And of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student's chosen gender to the student's parents. Since LAUSD has such a strong academic record, don't you think all school districts should duplicate this program?

Our schools should not be used as incubators for social experiments and our kids should not have to be subjected to the radical agenda of Sacramento politicians. It's time for our schools to get back to the basics and fend off these ridiculous efforts to brainwash our kids.




#2 Aratta-Kingdom

Aratta-Kingdom

    www.ArmaniKingdom.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 12:03 AM

WorldNetDaily


Revealed: 'Gay' plans to target 2-year-olds
5th-grade students could be handed 'Coping With Sexual Orientation

Posted: December 17, 2007
11:49 p.m. Eastern





By Bob Unruh
2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Children as young as two years of age are in the bull's-eye of coming changes in California's school curriculum, which "gay rights" advocates now admit will alter the very foundation of information presented to public school classrooms.



A list of school resources, sponsored by a homosexual-advocacy group called Safe Schools Coalition, suggests that for those who are only two years old, there's "Felicia's Favorite Story," which tells how she was "adopted by her two mothers."



The list also promotes a book called "Are You a Girl or a Boy?" by Karleen Jiminez, a resource for children ages 4-8 when advocating homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.

It's described as "A sweet book about a gender-different kid."

Other resources being promoted in light of California's adoption of SB 777 as state law include books authored by officials for Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

One book, called "Tackling Gay Issues in School," is for kindergarten through grade 12, and offers a "rationale (for the inclusion of les/bi/gay/trans issues in school)." It features recommended "extracurricular" activities for classes.

The promotion of such materials has coincided with the recent admission by Equality California, a homosexual advocacy group that worked to have SB 777 passed by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that the bill really does edit all school curricula in California. For months while California lawmakers discussed Senate Bill 777, opponents worried about its usefulness in censoring public school curricula to include a pro-homosexual bias. Supporters, however, steadfastly maintained that it only clarified anti-discrimination laws already on the books. They still hold that stance, with statements this week from both Schwarzenegger's office and Equality California.


Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the governor, insisted it is a "technical bill" intended to clarify anti-discriminations laws.



"It simply takes anti-discrimination language used in other areas of [state law] such as employment and puts that in the education code," she said.

And Ali Bay of Equality California told WND the new law "doesn't require that any specific curriculum be included in California's classrooms."

Technically it is correct that the law doesn't "require inclusion." But opponents say it does now ban anything that can be "perceived" as being discriminatory, up to and including references to "mom" and "dad" or "husband" and "wife."

"The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

The new law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"

And Karen England, a spokeswoman for Capital Resource who is a primary organizer behind the Save Our Kids plan to put the issue before voters and ask them to reject it, noted that even Equality California's own materials are assuring constituents the law will ban curriculum that fails to meet the pro-homosexual standard cited.

"All along, Capitol Resource Family Impact has maintained that the true agenda behind SB 777 is to infuse school curriculum with pro-homosexual, and other controversial lifestyles, propaganda. The proponents of the bill countered that this was not true and the law would merely 'streamline' anti-discrimination laws for schools. Based on our 20-year experience with the homosexual lobby, we know that a common tactic is to maintain innocence and then utilize vague language to push a radical agenda. We expected the same of SB 777 and we are already witnessing the same pattern," England said.

"Last week the sponsor of SB 777, homosexual rights group Equality California, released their 2007 legislative scorecard. The scorecard featured a description of the each of the bills the group sponsored or considered homosexual-friendly," she said.

"For the first time, the group admitted that SB 777 'prohibits curriculum that is discriminatorily biased against LGBT people.' Understand that the entire time the group was pushing this bill through the legislature, they vehemently denied that it would affect curriculum. After the bill had passed, they now reveal their true agenda," England said.

The report card specifically said SB 777 "prohibits curriculum that is discriminatorily biased against LGBT people and other protected groups."

"In fact, SB 777 will affect curriculum and public education programs. The proponents lied to lawmakers and to the public," England said.

"One website features curriculum programs for teachers to use in introducing 'homosexual history' to their students as young as 5," she said.

Among titles now being recommended for use in public schools is "A Family Counting Book," intended specifically for those students in pre-kindergarten who are yet learning to count, she noted.

The recommended resources address "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues that schools are encouraged to have in their collection. All of these are suitable for classroom and library use to address the prescribed learning outcomes or any effort to make your school a (sic) affirming space for all students, staff, and families," according to the website.

Another "resource" is about "A 10-year-old [who] asks her lesbian grandmother a heartwarming question," "What's a lesbian?"

Others feature stories about a boy who makes a card for his mother "and her partner" for Mother's Day, and another for "pre-kindergarten" is a coloring book called "Beach Party with Alexis" which is described as "a super story with people of color and gay/lesbian parents."

For older children, such as those in fifth grade, there's a book called "Coping With Your Sexual Orientation" and it is "especially designed for the public school system."

For those as young as age 3, there's "The Different Dragon," which "shows how the wonderful curiosity and care of a little boy, along with some help from one of his moms, leads to magical and unexpected places "

There also are offered several elementary school "lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender" lesson plans, produced by the Buena Vista Lesbian and Gay Parents Group, among others.

Rounding out the multimedia offerings are videos such as "Different and the Same," a series of nine videos which is described as good, but not great because none of the videos specifically condemns "homophobia."

GLSEN also has produced another resource, "Tackling Gay Issues in Schools," substantiating the "rationale" for including such teachings in California classrooms.

WND already has reported how the Gay Straight Alliance has forwarded instructions to its California chapters with information on how to make sure homosexuality is taught in public schools, and its warning having students and parents simply "tolerate" homosexuality is not enough.

"Tolerance education is an important first step, but we need to push further," the instructions said. "Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes," is the organization's plan.

WND also has reported how thousands of requests for information about homeschooling and Christian school are bombarding organizations that support those efforts.

A spokeswoman for a ministry called Considering Homeschooling said she already has seen an overwhelming increase in requests for information about homeschooling.

As a result, spokeswoman Denise Kanter told WND that her group is sending out 5,000 DVD packages to churches around the state that include basic "how-to" information to provide parents a direction to turn when they choose to protect their children from the new school agenda.

Another group's website, Discover Christian Schools, has been getting almost 4,000 visits per day as parents seek alternatives, co-founder Harold Naylor Jr. said. Besides the referendum being pursued by England's organization, WND also has reported on work by the non-profit Advocates for Faith and Freedom to file a lawsuit challenging a SB 777.



#3 StverDJ

StverDJ

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:29 PM

WTF????

sorry, that's all i could say

#4 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:36 PM

You said it Stver jan!!!

#5 Em

Em

    Em

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:40 PM

PRIVATE SCHOOLS! wink.gif smile.gif

#6 StverDJ

StverDJ

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:46 PM

QUOTE (Em @ Apr 29 2008, 01:40 PM)
PRIVATE SCHOOLS! wink.gif smile.gif


When I have kids and I still live in the US or California, definitely private schools. Or I might teach them myself wink.gif

#7 Em

Em

    Em

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:51 PM

We had a very heated discussion regarding this matter over dinner the other night. The only valid option other than moving back home ASAP is private schools.



#8 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 29 April 2008 - 03:05 PM

What makes you think those "BASTARDS" won't target private schools later on?

#9 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 05:14 PM

What I wonder about is why a growing number of young American teenagers is undergoing sex-change.

A person born a girl says: "I never liked wearing dresses and I always liked playing football, therefore I must be a boy."

A person born a boy says: "I like wearing dresses and plucking my eyebrows, therefore I must be a girl."

Who said that boys can't wear dresses and that girls don't like playing football? Who indoctrinated these kids into believing that their behavior is either "feminine" or "masculine"?

Is it not time we accepted that there are all kinds of men and women? That there are men who like shopping and women who don't? That there are women who like cars and men who don't? That there are men who like gossiping and women who don't? That there are women who like to educate themselves and men who don't? And that these men and women have been around since the dawn of mankind, or else we would not have had such inane labels like "tomboy" and "sissy."

Edit, PS: And that not all "sissies" and "tomboys" are gay or lesbian!

Edited by nairi, 29 April 2008 - 05:18 PM.


#10 Ani

Ani

    Veteran

  • Nobility
  • 1,656 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Yerevan, Armenia

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:16 PM

QUOTE (nairi @ Apr 29 2008, 04:14 PM)
What I wonder about is why a growing number of young American teenagers is undergoing sex-change.

A person born a girl says: "I never liked wearing dresses and I always liked playing football, therefore I must be a boy."

A person born a boy says: "I like wearing dresses and plucking my eyebrows, therefore I must be a girl."

Who said that boys can't wear dresses and that girls don't like playing football? Who indoctrinated these kids into believing that their behavior is either "feminine" or "masculine"?

Is it not time we accepted that there are all kinds of men and women? That there are men who like shopping and women who don't? That there are women who like cars and men who don't? That there are men who like gossiping and women who don't? That there are women who like to educate themselves and men who don't? And that these men and women have been around since the dawn of mankind, or else we would not have had such inane labels like "tomboy" and "sissy."

Edit, PS: And that not all "sissies" and "tomboys" are gay or lesbian!


An interesting video...My instructor says this is better than all the lectures on this subject...






#11 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 07:47 PM

QUOTE (MyExiledSoul @ Apr 30 2008, 02:16 AM)
An interesting video...My instructor says this is better than all the lectures on this subject...



Are you saying that the desire to have a sex-change is not a choice? I think that in 99.9% of the cases, people would not feel the need to have a sex-change if our society would start recognizing that the labels "feminine" and "masculine" are empty as they stand now. A person born with female sex organs is feminine by definition, whether she likes shopping, interior design, and the latest glossy magazines, or whether she prefers to fly a plane, study physics, and drink beer. Similarly a person born with male sex organs is masculine by definition, whether he likes to get into fights with other people, be addicted to porn, and play with his train collection, or whether he likes to get a manicure, cry when he watches a sad movie, and knows how to do laundry without mixing colors.

And once again, none of these preferences determine one's sexual orientation! Just because you're a guy and you like shopping, does not make you gay! And just because you're a girl and you don't like wearing high heels, does not make you lesbian!

Edited by nairi, 29 April 2008 - 07:49 PM.


#12 Zara

Zara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Zara [ that's me ] _ To: You
  • Interests:Emilio Pucci, Guy Laroche, Judo, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Israeli Krav Maga, Nature, Sports, Coins, Franz Marc

Posted 29 April 2008 - 08:25 PM

I like the teletubby.

I think sexual preference is a choice. I'm not buying everything that video is saying. No one is born a certain way. To have a certain life. Fate. Whatever you want to call it. To live in a certain place. Have a certain partner. Whatever.

Life is what you make out of it and the only way you can do that is by making choices. Not having those choices already chosen for you. It's just that each choice has a consequence that you have to be willing to accept and deal with no matter how big or small they may be.

Also the psychological triggers in humans and the unforgettable innate human nature to want to do things that are considered 'forbidden.'

Something I don't understand is why homosexual people have been trying to "stand out" so much lately. And also why they are so heavily advertised by the film industry as "funny" and "laughable" in comedy films. Almost every comedy film I see has some sort of "gay joke" at least hidden in it. That is, if it's not shoved in your face by people who are trying to force you to think it's funny.

Edited by Zara, 29 April 2008 - 08:26 PM.


#13 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Moderator
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 29 April 2008 - 08:47 PM

This is ENTIRELY a non issue and I think it's a good thing for the schools not not have to worry about whether they should label a kid boy or girl. This is something that should come from the PARENTS. If a parent says their kid is a girl, then god damnit that kid is a girl smile.gif

But I do think you should be forced to go to the bathroom that anatomically matches your body. I don't think the girls would enjoy having to use the seats that the boys have "baptised" in their own special way.

Edited by Sip, 29 April 2008 - 08:49 PM.


#14 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Moderator
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 29 April 2008 - 08:55 PM

By the way, one thing I REALLY hate about any such discussion is the wording in how a lot of people describe things as "advocating homosexuality". I have NEVER met a Gay that has advocated homosexuality. Pretty much all of them advocate "acceptance" of homosexuality. Once it is ACCEPTED, then it really becomes a choice.



#15 StverDJ

StverDJ

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 10:31 PM

i just dont understand where this world is headed

what happened to normal life (old fashion life, now) where something dangling meant boy and the other a girl??

so a woman gets pregnant, the doctor is showing the embryo through ultrasound and he puts a microphone to the belly and asks the embryo what sex it wants to be???


this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard...most ridiculous after our schools gay and lesbian club going on yacht trips for no reason all expenses paid

#16 StverDJ

StverDJ

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 10:34 PM

oh, another thing came to mind just now...

they advocate homosexuality but if i step outside and tell people to be straight ill be a bad guy, right?

#17 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Moderator
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 29 April 2008 - 10:41 PM

"Normal" has had a VERY wildly varying meaning throughout history. There have been periods and cultures where homosexuality has been "normal" and acceptable. Just because the current status quo is to label homosexuality as "wrong", it doesn't mean that it will always be this way.


#18 StverDJ

StverDJ

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:02 PM

well i am quite conservative so it is easy to figure out what i mean by normal...and i say normal because it is common sense.

you don't put two plugs together, you put plugs into outlets wink.gif

#19 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Moderator
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:50 PM

That is definitley one, albeit boring, way of looking at it. My philosophy is, the overall boobs to testicles ratio should be at least 1.

#20 Em

Em

    Em

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 30 April 2008 - 12:12 AM

Food for thought...


All zygotes are intially female, if mutation occurs, then it turns male, otherwise it proceeds in it's natural course into a female baby!

And the reproductive organs grow outward as opposed to remaining inward.










0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users