Bill mandating pro-homosexual content in school curricula passes California committee

[pornstarwannabe]

This story is the opposite of the "Tennessee Senate bans teachers from mentioning the fact that gay people exist" story.

So TN wants has a law, and CA has an opposite law.



"Bill mandating pro-homosexual content in school curricula passes California committee
by Christine Dhanagom
Tue Mar 29, 2011 17:22 EST

SACRAMENTO, California, March 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill that would require California public schools to revise their social science curricula to incorporate study of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans was passed by the California Senate Education Committee last Wednesday.

The bill, SB 48, was introduced by openly homosexual state Senator Mark Leno. It passed the ten member Education Committee by a vote of 6 to 3 with one abstaining, and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be considered in early April.

If passed, the law would affect the curriculum for students as early as kindergarten. It contains no provision allowing parents to exclude their children or for teachers to opt out of teaching the new material."


Link

 

[semen4her]

U

R

A

FAG​

 

[pornstarwannabe]

U

R

A

FAG​

I shall await the Liberals to shoot down the CA law like they did the TN law.

I have a rash on my dick. You'd better have that rash on your mouth and ass checked.

 

[coastal-boy]

both are unnecessary imo

 

[renard_ruse]

Wow, we'll have to bring lawsuits against this garbage since there's not even an opt out.

What's particularly shocking is the inclusion of "bisexual" in the proposal. "Bisexual" is by definition sexually promiscious and a choice (one could choose monogamy with one or the other gender). They might as well have added polyamourous as well. I can see one challenge in that if they are going to have this in the curicumlum they will also have to have adult virgins and celebates studied in the ciriculum as well, as these are "sexual minorities" who are often treated with contempt and distain by mainstream society today.

At any rate, I will happily send money to whatever groups challenge this garbage, if its the ACLJ or whoever. Also, this should be a last wake up to any parents who still put their kids in the state's schools. Get them out of those evil hell holes, parents. Awake!

 

[badbabysitter]

What's particularly shocking is the inclusion of "bisexual" in the proposal. "Bisexual" is by definition sexually promiscious and a choice (one could choose monogamy with one or the other gender). They might as well have added polyamourous as well.

Since when does "bisexual" mean "promiscous"?

Just because you have a perception doesn't make it remotely a fact. This is just another broad sweeping generalization of something you just don't understand. I know several bisexual monogamous folks who don't fuck aroud, and are pretty far from polyamorous.

I also know plenty of straight people that fuck everything that moves and cheat on their partners.. does this mean heterosexual should be defined as " promiscous" ?

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Wow, we'll have to bring lawsuits against this garbage since there's not even an opt out.

What's particularly shocking is the inclusion of "bisexual" in the proposal. "Bisexual" is by definition sexually promiscious and a choice (one could choose monogamy with one or the other gender). They might as well have added polyamourous as well. I can see one challenge in that if they are going to have this in the curicumlum they will also have to have adult virgins and celebates studied in the ciriculum as well, as these are "sexual minorities" who are often treated with contempt and distain by mainstream society today.

At any rate, I will happily send money to whatever groups challenge this garbage, if its the ACLJ or whoever. Also, this should be a last wake up to any parents who still put their kids in the state's schools. Get them out of those evil hell holes, parents. Awake!

I like this line: "A bill that would require California public schools to revise their social science curricula to incorporate study of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans."

Their contributions were not noteworthy, otherwise their contributions would have been mentioned in the current curriculum. So with this law, un-noteworthy contributions will be made noteworthy because a GLBT contributed it. Sounds biased to me.

Or maybe their contributions are already in the current curriculum, but now educators will label such contributions as being from a GLBT.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Fags are desperate for respect and approval, and if they cant get it theyre okay with the state forcing folks to kiss the fag's ring.

 

[renard_ruse]

I like this line: "A bill that would require California public schools to revise their social science curricula to incorporate study of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans."

Their contributions were not noteworthy, otherwise their contributions would have been mentioned in the current curriculum. So with this law, un-noteworthy contributions will be made noteworthy because a GLBT contributed it. Sounds biased to me.

Or maybe their contributions are already in the current curriculum, but now educators will label such contributions as being from a GLBT.

Excellent points. However, again, my biggest concern is the B and the T part of it. They loose all [pseudo] moral highground when they throw on the B and the T, but these advocacy groups feel so powerful they don't even try to be moderate. We don't need kindergarteners to know about people who are so promiscious they can't even limit themselves to one sex or the other. That is an adult theme they don't need to know about at all like any other fetish.

 

[mercury14]

Wow, we'll have to bring lawsuits against this garbage since there's not even an opt out.

What's particularly shocking is the inclusion of "bisexual" in the proposal. "Bisexual" is by definition sexually promiscious and a choice (one could choose monogamy with one or the other gender). They might as well have added polyamourous as well. I can see one challenge in that if they are going to have this in the curicumlum they will also have to have adult virgins and celebates studied in the ciriculum as well, as these are "sexual minorities" who are often treated with contempt and distain by mainstream society today.

At any rate, I will happily send money to whatever groups challenge this garbage, if its the ACLJ or whoever. Also, this should be a last wake up to any parents who still put their kids in the state's schools. Get them out of those evil hell holes, parents. Awake!

Nope, you're lying. Bisexual has nothing to do with being promiscuous.

At all.

My wife is bisexual. Is she promiscuous? I screwed about 20-30 women in college and zero men. Was I bisexual?

 

[mercury14]

This story is the opposite of the "Tennessee Senate bans teachers from mentioning the fact that gay people exist" story.

So TN wants has a law, and CA has an opposite law.



"Bill mandating pro-homosexual content in school curricula passes California committee
by Christine Dhanagom
Tue Mar 29, 2011 17:22 EST

SACRAMENTO, California, March 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill that would require California public schools to revise their social science curricula to incorporate study of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans was passed by the California Senate Education Committee last Wednesday.

The bill, SB 48, was introduced by openly homosexual state Senator Mark Leno. It passed the ten member Education Committee by a vote of 6 to 3 with one abstaining, and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be considered in early April.

If passed, the law would affect the curriculum for students as early as kindergarten. It contains no provision allowing parents to exclude their children or for teachers to opt out of teaching the new material."


Link

No, it's not the same thing. Not even close. The Tennessee law denies reality for fear that kids will acknowledge a range of sexual orientations as part of life. It consciously denies observation of both individuals and society so that some conservative belief system may be preserved. Because the fact is, once conservatives learn that their kids can't "catch the gay" and that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, they often change their views and stop being bigots.

Observing (officially or otherwise) that homosexuals exist in our society means acknowledging reality. It's a HUGE issue in America and one that needs to be talked about in a rational way - not in a way where right wingers either deny the existence of homosexuals or call them fags.

I have no clue at all why you would say these two laws are identical.

 

[badbabysitter]

Excellent points. However, again, my biggest concern is the B and the T part of it. They loose all [pseudo] moral highground when they throw on the B and the T, but these advocacy groups feel so powerful they don't even try to be moderate. We don't need kindergarteners to know about people who are so promiscious they can't even limit themselves to one sex or the other. That is an adult theme they don't need to know about at all like any other fetish.

and what exact proof do you have that bisexual people are promiscous?


Gene Simmons claims to have slept with over 4600 women, yet says he's straight


does that mean he's lying because only bisexual people fuck around?

 

[pornstarwannabe]

I have no clue at all why you would say these two laws are identical.

Me neither because I did not say that. I did say the CA law was opposite to TN in that while TN wanted to omit mentioning gays, CA wanted to force it on the curriculum.

They are similar in that In each case, a State attempts to force its will on the people (or people try to express their will).

But look at it this way: your kid is in Kindergarten for instance. Does your child really need to know a contribution was from a GLBT or straight? Does it matter to kids up thru the 2nd grade? Thru the 6th grade? When does a child need to know that a GLBT made a contribution?

 

[fgarvb1]

This story is the opposite of the "Tennessee Senate bans teachers from mentioning the fact that gay people exist" story.

So TN wants has a law, and CA has an opposite law.



"Bill mandating pro-homosexual content in school curricula passes California committee
by Christine Dhanagom
Tue Mar 29, 2011 17:22 EST

SACRAMENTO, California, March 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill that would require California public schools to revise their social science curricula to incorporate study of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans was passed by the California Senate Education Committee last Wednesday.

The bill, SB 48, was introduced by openly homosexual state Senator Mark Leno. It passed the ten member Education Committee by a vote of 6 to 3 with one abstaining, and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be considered in early April.

If passed, the law would affect the curriculum for students as early as kindergarten. It contains no provision allowing parents to exclude their children or for teachers to opt out of teaching the new material."


Link

OK then.

I'm a little confused here.

Why should people be pointed as any more intelligent than they already are because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans ?

Are we going to mandate that they get preference in collages and employment too?

Because that has worked out SO well in educating the black people and other minotities.

In case you are stupid I hold that hard work and studying has prepared more people of any color or persuasion than any thing else and always will.

More left coast insanity.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

OK then.

I'm a little confused here.

Why should people be pointed as any more intelligent than they already are because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans ?

Are we going to mandate that they get preference in collages and employment too?

Because that has worked out SO well in educating the black people and other minotities.

In case you are stupid I hold that hard work and studying has prepared more people of any color or persuasion than any thing else and always will.

More left coast insanity.

As insane as using pornstarwannabe as a credible news source?

Or his source as a credible news source?

Here's the bill. Not exactly teaching that people are "more intelleigent than they already are because they are" LBGT.

Although if it really worked that way, there are a few of you in this thread who should consider sucking a cock.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_48_bill_20110329_amended_sen_v98.html

 

[eyer]

Although if it really worked that way, there are a few of you in this thread who should consider sucking a cock.

It's always a treat to read your superior wisdom in such matters.

BTW:

What's it like?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

It's always a treat to read your superior wisdom in such matters.

BTW:

What's it like?

Getting something shoved into that you don't want and wish would go away? I don't know. Why don't you ask the women you've fucked?

 

[eyer]

Getting something shoved into that you don't want and wish would go away? I don't know. Why don't you ask the women you've fucked?

Why would I do that?

None of them were homosexual.

You were addressing guys who "should consider sucking a cock" to make them "more intelligent"...

...since you hold yourself at that "more" level, I simply assumed you know about "sucking a cock" and was requesting your review of the matter that you brought up.

Geez.

You don't have to get so touchy...

...bruce.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Why would I do that?

None of them were homosexual.

You were addressing guys who "should consider sucking a cock" to make them "more intelligent"...

...since you hold yourself at that "more" level, I simply assumed you know about "sucking a cock" and was requesting your review of the matter that you brought up.

Geez.

You don't have to get so touchy...

...bruce.

I understand. You're not gay. You just wanted to hear a man talk about what it's like to suck a cock.

 

[eyer]

I understand. You're not gay. You just wanted to hear a man talk about what it's like to suck a cock.

No, silly...

...I just wanted to hear you talk about what it's like.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

No, silly...

...I just wanted to hear you talk about what it's like.

If putting it that way makes you feel less conflicted about being gay, more power to you.

Larry Craig still thinks he's straight, too.

 

[eyer]

Larry Craig still thinks he's straight, too.

For once...

...I take it you know what you're talking about.

 

[Lord Emu]

Its always one extreme or the other. I fail to see sweeping the fact gays exist under the carpet but rubbing our noses in its just as bad.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

For once...

...I take it you know what you're talking about.

You keep trying in the face of futility, I'll give you that.

Anyhoo, as much as I'd like to keep playing "you're gay no, YOU'RE gay" with you, it's time for me to sign off. I'm going to walk up a flight of stairs and crawl into bed with a beautiful, warm-bodied wife. I've got to get some sleep, because tomorrow is my morning to get up with the kids.

Ah, who am I telling. I'm sure you can relate.

 

[eyer]

You keep trying in the face of futility, I'll give you that.

Anyhoo, as much as I'd like to keep playing "you're gay no, YOU'RE gay" with you, it's time for me to sign off. I'm going to walk up a flight of stairs and crawl into bed with a beautiful, warm-bodied wife. I've got to get some sleep, because tomorrow is my morning to get up with the kids.

Ah, who am I telling. I'm sure you can relate.

Nah...

...I'm just a single guy on a porn site at 0100 in the morning.

Did the Mrs. say, "Sonny: once you get done telling other guys on the net to suck dick, come on up to bed, hon, the kids need you first thing in the morning"?

So no, you're right there...

...I can't relate.