'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California

[gocolts 300]

link

 

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

 

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

 

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

 

It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.

 

Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.

 

It just goes on and on. Check the link.

[Saint Elistan 106]

So it begins...

 

I honestly don't know what to say other than "WOW".

 

EDIT: Wait...so what if two dudes happen to win Homecoming King and Queen?? Talk about an awkward moment for the straight guy...

[Strike 5,941]

The part about being able to use the chick restroom is cool

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 42]

The part about being able to use the chick restroom is cool

 

You have obviously never been in a chick restroom. My Ex asked me to wait right by the door for her a couple years back. Every time a woman went in or out of there, the stench was enough to make a carp barf.

[BLS 314]

Welcome to Moscow 2.0

 

For all of you who want Hillary Clinton in office, get used to this sort of thing.

[Me_2006 14]

Ah-Nuld FTW!!

 

PE-2 will be awesome next semester. I'll take these fockers to court.

[wiffleball 4,796]

You gotta be focking kidding me. Welcome to the unisex generation.

 

This is just focking ridiculous - even by Cali standards.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

How do clothes, sexual preference, or change of genitalia have anything to do with what sex you are at birth?

[wiffleball 4,796]

How do clothes, sexual preference, or change of genitalia have anything to do with what sex you are at birth?

 

For people like Toro, their genitalia is so indistiguishable that really only clothes can help in determining his gender.

[Snoopy1 0]

Guess this will hinder his GOP support to pass an amendment allowing foriegn born US citizens to run for president.

[akaoni 0]

I think it's a good idea to take a look at the source material here. World Net Daily is not the most objective of sources. A quick look at the bill itself: SB 777 basically adds sexual orientation to the list of characteristics that can't be discriminated against. :

 

200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all

persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender,

nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any

other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate

crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights

and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The

purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that

policy and to provide remedies therefor.

 

There is a later definition of gender which attempts to include transgendered individuals, but otherwise none of the claims of the article check out, at least, not after a quick scan on my part. I don't see any explicit mention of restrooms, homecoming, or "banning mom and dad" in the text of the bill. Interestingly, there is a passage which protects religious schools however:

 

221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution

that is controlled by a religious organization if the application

would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that

organization.

 

Regardless, from my perspective this is just religious conservatives' imagination running wild. Basically, the bill says you can't discriminate against gay kids or transgendered kids in the school, that's it.

[wiffleball 4,796]

I think it's a good idea to take a look at the source material here. World Net Daily is not the most objective of sources. A quick look at the bill itself: SB 777 basically adds sexual orientation to the list of characteristics that can't be discriminated against. :

There is a later definition of gender which attempts to include transgendered individuals, but otherwise none of the claims of the article check out, at least, not after a quick scan on my part. I don't see any explicit mention of restrooms, homecoming, or "banning mom and dad" in the text of the bill. Interestingly, there is a passage which protects religious schools however:

Regardless, from my perspective this is just religious conservatives' imagination running wild. Basically, the bill says you can't discriminate against gay kids or transgendered kids in the school, that's it.

 

 

Interesting. Good post. Hope that's the case. We don't find many posters who do are capable of critical reading, doing their own research, and forming their own opinion.

[Snoopy1 0]

We don't find many posters who do are capable of critical reading, doing their own research, and forming their own opinion.

 

 

And we should get rid of those that do!!!! The rules state "Only post opinions that parrot extreme ideologically"

[akaoni 0]

And we should get rid of those that do!!!! The rules state "Only post opinions that parrot extreme ideologically"

 

I apologize, some times I forget where I'm posting. I will endevor to be more unreasonable and opinionated in future posts.

 

Thank you.

 

[gocolts 300]

I think it's a good idea to take a look at the source material here. World Net Daily is not the most objective of sources. A quick look at the bill itself: SB 777 basically adds sexual orientation to the list of characteristics that can't be discriminated against. :

There is a later definition of gender which attempts to include transgendered individuals, but otherwise none of the claims of the article check out, at least, not after a quick scan on my part. I don't see any explicit mention of restrooms, homecoming, or "banning mom and dad" in the text of the bill. Interestingly, there is a passage which protects religious schools however:

Regardless, from my perspective this is just religious conservatives' imagination running wild. Basically, the bill says you can't discriminate against gay kids or transgendered kids in the school, that's it.

here is another source

[akaoni 0]

here is another source

 

You can quote as many sources trotting out the same interpretation of the legislation as you like. My point is that if you look at the legislation itself, it doesn't support those criticisms. Now you may be fully against protecting gay high school kids from discrimination, that's your right; but there's no need to bring up bogus interpretations of the legislation. The legislation is designed to insert sexual orientation and gender identity as two groups protected from discrimination in California schools. If you’re opposed to this, then argue against that position.

 

From my perspective this is an excellent attempt to frame proponents of protecting gay teens from discrimination at school as having a much more radical position than they do. It looks like this is most likely being driven by some conservative Christian interest groups who feel threatened by the validation of homosexuality within the public sphere. They realize that they’re losing traction as gay and lesbian sexual orientation is becoming more and more accepted by the country at large (in spite of the more coarse views expressed on this bored). Thus they need to create a more radical framework and agenda than that which really exists to try to make their opponents seem crazy and unreasonable. The fact that both examples you present use very similar language without referring to any exact passages in the bill is telling. It’s pretty clear that the language likely originated from one group who moved quickly to try to discredit the bill and its proponents.

 

I will end one caveat. While I didn't read the entire bill I did "control-f" the entire document for the words: "mother, father, mom, dad, parents, husband, and wife." I didn't find a single reference to this claim. If I missed it, I'll take full responsibility for my mistake, but I honestly don’t think the bill says what you’re implying it does say. If you can find language in SB 777 which directly supports the position that the bill forbids the use of the terms “mom”, “dad”, “husband” or “wife” I will withdraw my contention and apologize.

[DAVID RUFFIN 2]

Gocolts...Your credibility lessens post by post.

[gocolts 300]

Gocolts...Your credibility lessens post by post.

What the fock ever. Just because you don't THINK this is happening, doesn't mean it's not. It is right there in my first post. You can google it and get many other sources if you want. We all know that the bill WILL be interpreted just as WND and many other sources say. This is California after all.

[akaoni 0]

What the fock ever. Just because you don't THINK this is happening, doesn't mean it's not. It is right there in my first post. You can google it and get many other sources if you want. We all know that the bill WILL be interpreted just as WND and many other sources say. This is California after all.

 

Your response proves exactly the point I made above. Conservative Christian groups have done an excellent job of exaggerating the positions of advocates for positions they don't agree with. This is just one of them. Obviously, you buy their exaggerations; but, I say again, there's nothing in the legislation that will lead to banning terms like: mom, dad, husband, wife, etc. It's so absurd that it shouldn't be worth mentioning, but clearly these conservative Christians' attempts to marginalize their opponents' position has been successful.

[gocolts 300]

Gocolts...Your credibility lessens post by post.

You must have missed many of my posts. Check out the Suzanna Hoffs thread. Then try and tell me that again. Just because you don't agree with me on political issues doesn't mean I have no credibility. To the contrary. I am probably one of the most honest posters on this greta bored. Sh1t, where I live, it is hard to come by anything other than a Democrat. We just last month had primary elections for out town council and and a few other things. No Republicans ran. The Dems went unchallenged, so we have 3 seats on the town council, all filled with Dems. And have been for more than 20 years. The point is most all my friends are die hard Dems, and we talk about politics all the time and nobody says sh1t like that, to either side.

[gocolts 300]

Obviously, you buy their exaggerations;

I simply am reading all this just as you. I don't know what the fock to believe yet. Only time will tell. But the radical gay community has been trying to get POS legislation like this for a long time. I am going by what is reported. If this is proved otherwise, then I will have to question the credibility of WND. I know a lot of the liberals complain about that source, but I haven't seen anything to lead me to the conclusion that WND make sh1t up out of thin air. I have seen many stories like this in the past. Certain schools banning mother's day and father's day because some students have two mommies. So it won't surprise me a bit if this is true. But if this story is way wrong, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I have done so before. I am not a coward. It is not that big of a deal to admit you were wrong about something. Now, if it happened all the time, I can see a problem. But it doesn't, and the fact that I will admit that should mean something.

[akaoni 0]

I simply am reading all this just as you. I don't know what the fock to believe yet. Only time will tell. But the radical gay community has been trying to get POS legislation like this for a long time. I am going by what is reported. If this is proved otherwise, then I will have to question the credibility of WND. I know a lot of the liberals complain about that source, but I haven't seen anything to lead me to the conclusion that WND make sh1t up out of thin air. I have seen many stories like this in the past. Certain schools banning mother's day and father's day because some students have two mommies. So it won't surprise me a bit if this is true. But if this story is way wrong, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I have done so before. I am not a coward. It is not that big of a deal to admit you were wrong about something. Now, if it happened all the time, I can see a problem. But it doesn't, and the fact that I will admit that should mean something.

 

I'm just saying read the legislation...it's that simple.