banned: Mom Dad

palmon · Senior Member

banned: Mom Dad

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Gov WHO??? Cali-where??? Palmon... here is your article...

"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.

...whoohoo... I'll bet I can get Coco to click this one

Just for giggles... here is a second witness

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 10:17, 2007-10-13

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

*sigh*

I read the text of the actual bill. It does not do what is being claimed. What it does do is ban discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." There is nothing in the text about "Mom and Dad" or about the use of restrooms.

What these sources are doing here is projecting the worst case scenario of what some liberal judge might do in interpreting this law. That is a legitimate concern. But the way it is being presented here is sensationalist and dishonest.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

That is just plain wrong. I hope the senate doesn't pass it, but it probably will.
The gay community has been so busy claiming discrimination, that now it is a case of reverse discrimination. Now traditional marriage is being discriminated against.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Shiz... in fairness to those on the forum. this topic was not started as "the bill says", but about "what WND said" about the bill... As a moderator, I posted links to what Palmon had heard/read about, in order to keep a handle on the topic...

Should you like to refute the claims, you will need to post a link to the actual bill. Just stating that the info is "wrong" and misleading is also IMO wrong and could be misleading. Right now all you have posted is your opinion of what the bill says, I could not find a source for the bill to link to, or I would have. There are many opinions out there... and you could also link to other news articles that support your opinion... but you need remember that your opinion, unless you back it up is simply your opinion... Though it could also be a publication's opinion... etc.

To the forum in general... as the moderator of politics threads I believe it I would more than a little helpful if we would all back up what we read/claim with some kind of "evidence" of that claim for other members to read... especially when we are siting something as NEWS.

I don't really have time to investigate every political claim...

Thank you...

***FWIW, if anyone disagrees with this moderation comment please start a moderation thread, so as not to completely derail the topic at hand.

I will be "out of town" the rest of the morning and part of the afternoon...

palmon · Senior Member

Thanks for posting the link, Polly. I'm working on a new laptop and haven't quite figured out how to right click or left click, or would have posted the link myself. Just did - the buttons are silver on a black laptop and somehow, I missed them.

Anyway, back to the topic: My question was if the ban was what the bill really said. I know how things - in all news outlets - can be distorted to what the bias is.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Fair enough.

Here is the text of the bill:

Link

I invite anybody to find in the text what is being claimed about it.

palmon · Senior Member

Thanks. I don't see it either.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

As I was reading the bill I remembered "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"... No wonder I have no taste for political speeches... I fell asleep TWICE just trying to get through it...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Granted, some, perhaps many will find this a stretch, but here is a "connect the dots" that was put out by one of the groups that was against this bill.

I read through the text of the bill / law, and first time through, before I had even found this, I noticed those two small, seemingly insignificant points that they make here.

It is indeed a victory for the forces that oppose the family and marriage.

They have legally gotten things to be redefined to be inclusive as a protected group those who chose "alternative lifestyles."

I think they opponents may be crying wolf in some respects, but in pragmatic experience of California's extreme political correctness amidst liberal interpretation and implementation, it may be more a clarion warning than just crying wolf. Of course, more reactionary quasi-online media sources employ their journalistic "integrity" to further sensationalize the cries of wolf...

http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=89

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

...think it's time to WARN Jason to get out'ta Dodge (CA)???? Oh wait, we already did...

ETA: *seemingly insignificant points...* AKA the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" reference...

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 21:32, 2007-10-13

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Another reason for the Family Proclamation

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

banned: Mom Dad

MegaMatt · Veteran Member

ugh, I'm sick after reading that.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

M-M, worry not... IMO only the clueless will be "sucked in"... Course like everything else we will probably be forced to be accepting and supportive of the alternative lifestylers.......

In the long run during discussions like this, I try to remember that The Father IS in charge and I must do what I must and can do... and then leave the rest up to Him.

MegaMatt · Veteran Member

We certainly don't want to show any discrimination! Not even against robots!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Did I really just read an article about sex with robots!?

I feel bad for women in that society, cuz they already have enough issues attempting to be perfect beauties to attract a mate, and now they have to compete with robotic women!?

Who could compete with that!?

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Men sit in front of computer screens and masturbate to porn. Sex with robots seems like a logical next step. Guaranteed there are people out there who are already interfacing sex toys with computers. All the tech is there, it just needs more marketing and social acceptance. I say less than 5 years.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Well, yes, Roper. There is thaaaat. :)

It's already in scifi movies. Even in one of the more recent scifi movies, _Serenity_ and in all sorts of other movies... it starts there.

--Ray

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yeah...what was that one movie with Jude Law...was that AI? *shudder*

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

That must have been the weirdest article I've read in my whole flippin' LIFE! Who in the world can even start to think they can have a "relationship" with a freakin' a ROBOT? How could that guy stand up and defend this thesis with a straight face? Ethical treatment of robots??? HELLO!

Gosh, the poor men that have to be breadwinners and work all day and then try to compete with RoboStud? I feel so sorry for them...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

It's more or less a physical fulfillment of Satan's plan, if you think about it. Imagine owning physical bodies that do everything you want! Why would you even CARE about your fellow man at that point?

--Ray

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

Maybe that's the whole point Ray. You wouldn't. Why should you care about your fellow man?
Unbelievable.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I'm sure the creative lawyers in our state are readying their lawsuits. I will be keeping a very close eye on my children's school and preparing for homeschool shortly. The courts in this state are not at all friendly to a traditional point of view.

Pt314 · Senior Member

I guess we will just have to wait and see how these things turn out.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Have to do more than "wait and see" -- we need to put on the armor of God! Hoo-ahh!

Pt314 · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:

Have to do more than "wait and see" -- we need to put on the armor of God! Hoo-ahh!

I love your attitude. biggrin

You're right.

Janey · Senior Member

If the people of California don't like this, can they recall it in a referendum? I'm wondering if some of the more liberal cities got this passed, but there isn't much public support for it in other areas. Has anyone seen an article about a poll of Californians on whether or not they support the new law?

I mean, if they all hated it, their representatives wouldn't have passed it, but I'm wondering if the public is starting a grassroots effort to overturn it.

Maybe?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Only about half the population is registered to vote and less than half the registered folks actually show up on election day. It's hard to blame them when the state is so gerrymandered that every district is pretty much safe so a vote for change is tough. I think a lot of the population is just fatigued with the whole process. The governor's base abandoned him during the last election and every ballot initiative he supported got shot down so now he pretty much does whatever he feels like. He's not running again anyway.

Pt314 · Senior Member

After more research, I still haven't been convinced that it outright bans terms like 'Mom' and 'Dad' (School districts may do that however) however it is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation.

For sure it legislates that

a boy who 'perceives' himself as a girl has a right to use girl locker rooms, restrooms, ...
Textbooks must offer a view of history that endorces homosexuality, bisexuality, and transexuality.

Many of the opponents are worried that it would also

Mandate that information on sex-change operations be distributed in public schools.
Children even as young as those in kindergarden would be exposed to the anti-family agenda.

It looks like this is galvinizing a movement to pull kids out of public schools in California. link

I think I am going to be sick.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I sent Arb a PM on this but maybe some of you homeschoolers can some web resources for more information on homeschool. Thanks.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Here are some links I have used:

http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp good site for info about the laws in your state

http://lds-nha.org/ LDS homeschooling association site

http://ldshomeschoolinginca.org/ a site I've used to get book references and resources, it happens to be out of CA

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Pt- That is unbelievable. It's like we wake up and we're in a swamp. How could this all have happened?

Good for you, sales, for looking into the homeschooling option!

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I've started a homeschool thread in the Super Secret Vault to further explore the homeschool option and share info, opinions, feedback, concerns, ideas, etc.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Somebody needs to email dweltinatent and invite him to come over here. He would love to discuss this.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

I thought of that, but he didn't have email option open.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

You mean isaiah28?

Janey · Senior Member

Hey, I finally got around to looking through this law and found this exception for religious schools:
SEC. 12. Section 220.5 of the Education Code is amended and
renumbered to read:
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.

Now, it's problematic that they say "the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization," because no civil court or school board should be trying to judge what the religious tenets of an organization are. That ought to be an internal matter. If the religious organization says its tenets restrict this stuff, then that should be the final say on the matter.

But I am glad they put in a paragraph so the parochial schools can still teach religious values.

Janey · Senior Member

So then I had another thought completely unconnected to any religious or moral objection to teaching that sexual orientation is just fine.

Say we take religion and morals out of it entirely and just go with science. It seems to me that it would be interesting to see what happened if you wrote a letter to the school expressing outrage that the school is still teaching something so anti-homosexual as evolution. Darwin's theory is that only the best and brightest manage to pass on their genes. Homosexuality is obviously not a trait that encourages lots of reproduction. If the schools did stop teaching that moms and dads are the ordinary family structure, then parents ought to insist that evolution be thrown out too.

Also, any biology that refers to the fact that it takes a male and female to reproduce is anti-homosexual. This would include plants that have male and female versions and rely on insects or wind for pollination, just about every multi-cellular animal, and even some bacteria. The only kind of reproduction that should be taught in science class is asexual fission of amoebas.

I wonder whose attention that World Net Daily article would have grabbed if it's first line hadn't been that "mom and dad" have been outlawed, but that evolution and biology had been outlawed. Those aren't homosexual-friendly concepts either.

I doubt this would get accepted anywhere. But it would be kind of interesting to throw science into the discussion, instead of just traditional values and religious ideas. I have a theory that the homosexual agenda attacks religion and traditional families so much because religion actually has more room for homosexuality than science does. After all, we are all children of God, regardless of our sins or sexual orientation, and God loves us all.

But science looks homosexuality right in the face and says, "you're worthless because you have nothing to do with survival of the species." Pretty harsh stuff, from a scientific viewpoint.

There may be a evolutionarily good reason for homosexuality. It may be the earth's attempt at population control. Perhaps we're nearing the end of the earth's bearing capacity, and if the human population doesn't decrease, we'll be completely wiped out. The gradual population decrease that would result from widespread homosexuality might mean the human race would survive because it wouldn't exceed what the earth would handle.

Of course, from my point of view, all of this is theoretical because I believe in God. But one day I thought, "what would my opinion of homosexuality be if I was an atheist?" And I had these thoughts.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Well put, Janey. I've had the same thoughts only in my mind it was Mother Nature instead of science.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Hey Janey, if you start a petition... I'll sign!

Janey · Senior Member

We'd have to get Jason to do it. Oh Jason! . . .

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Meridian Magazine has an article on this: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/familyleadernetwork/071024law.html

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I had this little discussion come up right in the middle of RS on Sunday. Lesson 21 - Families. When the teacher asked the question: "Why should we be careful about turning the guiding of our children over to others?" A woman raised her hand and proceeded to inform the room that the words "mom" and "dad" are now illegal in California schools, and that boys can now go in girls restrooms and vice versa. She finished her little bombshell by stating, "And this is what's coming to our schools here, because it's already happened in CA"

Amid the building uproar, I raised my hand and called for the teacher's attention, and stated that the recently signed bill in CA did not make "mom" and "dad" illegal; that there was nothing in the bill specifically referring to those terms, nor unisex bathrooms. I stated that there were concerns that these sorts of things could happen in the future because of this bill and others like it, but that the bill itself did not ban the words mom and dad.

I was glad that I had read this thread and had read the text of the bill, so that we could move on with the lesson instead of getting bogged down in alarmist outrage over public schools in the middle of a lesson about families.

arbilad · Head Chef

The only reason why I'd have to agree with not talking about SB 777 at church is that I think you should keep politics out of the church building. But otherwise, it would have been a very valuable discussion you stifled. At the bare minimum, by even the loosest interpretation of the bill, California schools now have to promote homosexuality, and they can't say anything negative about it. Homosexuality is a lifestyle that is destructive to families and civilization. It's a catastrophe of major proportions that it now has to be promoted in California schools.
But I think that it's not a reach at all to say that, because of that law, kids will be allowed to use whatever bathroom they want, and you won't be able to reference the terms "mom" and "dad" as a pair. Homosexuals are, as a group, very politically active and eager to push their agenda.
All it would take is the threat of one homosexual student who says that he felt that his lifestyle was disparaged by a reference to "mom and dad" in a schoolbook and that book would be banned so fast it would make your head spin. The school doesn't want a lawsuit that it knows it will lose. The publisher of the textbook doesn't want a lawsuit that it knows that it will lose.
Don't you think that the schools and textbook publishers can tell which way the wind is blowing? Do you really think that a textbook publisher is going to be willing to take a stand and fight this issue past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is almost certain to vote in favor of a challenge to the words "mom" and "dad". This is the same court that voted the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional)? How would they justify to their stockholders spending all that money on a legal challenge when they could simply spend it on taking out anything that could conceivably violate the new law?
The exact text of the law doesn't matter as far as this goes. People will shy away from even the possibility of violating the law. Government workers in Colorado can't get scholarships for their kids. Why? Because of an amendment that the people of Colorado passed last election that banned gifts to government workers. Did it specifically ban scholarships to kids? No. But since it could be interpreted that way, there's been a major uproar about how we need to repeal the law because those kids need scholarships.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

There was not time to delve into the detailed nuances of the bill during the 20 minutes of time remaining in the lesson. The woman's statement was inaccurate, and she made that statement to promote her idea that the public schools are not safe for kids. Hogwash.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Bok!

palmon · Senior Member

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489285&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

Foster parents resign rather than comply with mandate to teach homosexuality.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

What is wrong with people these days? They are more concerned about backing up gay rights than keeping a good, loving foster family when there aren't enough foster homes to go around. That's a clear case where they don't have the children's best interests at heart.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Maybe someone can explain something to me. Why is there a whole group of people out there who seem to want to be defined by sex. Most of us seem happy to say that I'm a lawyer, doctor, mother, father, Elder, etc. No one I know that is hetero defines themselves as a hetero. Yet even in college I met people who seemed to define their whole life as being gay. I had one guy in an art history class and he actually told the class that he was a "gay man of color". Here I was just defining myself as a college student. I guess I would be better off defining myself as a heterosexual white man when people ask about me. Is this really progress when we start defining ourselves based on our sexual proclivity? It now seems to be an overriding factor in defining oneself and focus in society.