Do you want your young children learning about trans-sexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality in textbooks?

Question

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200605\CUL20060505b.html
* Bill SB 1437, was passed and sent to the governor. It requires all textbooks to be rewritten at a cost that our school system, not to mention taxpayers, can little afford. They will indoctrinate schoolchildren with a homosexual agenda. The bill requires that all new textbooks (K-12) highlight homosexuals and eliminate all references to "mom and dad" Instead, they could be referred to as "sperm donors" and "sperm receivers." This bill is ridiculous, it is expensive and it singles out a small, special interest group. The governor is doing a phone poll. Urge him to veto this bill. It's very easy, you don't even have to talk to anyone. Just follow the instructions below:
Please call governor's office at 1-916-445-2841. The phone recording will ask:
Want this message in English? Yes-1
Is this in regards to a legislation bill Yes-2
Is the bill SB1437 Yes-1
Are you in favor of this? NO-2

Please call -- protect our children

What differance does it make what their sexual preferance is?? Why should that be a part of Social Studies?? Health fine and dandy -- they should learn it there. My kids don't need to know if President Lincoln was gay or not -- he was good...same goes for a gay person doing something for America -- why should it be labeled as a homosexual?? Just leave it be. Tell who did what without sexual preferences entering into it.

Answer 1

I have three children all in each range of school, elementary, junior high, and high school. Our history books don't currently mention whether the people of history are heterosexual, it has absolutely no bearing on who they where or what they did. So why do we need to know whether someone was gay or not. I am of lover of books, but have found myself in the position that if I find one of my kids books displaying this crap, I WILL BURN IT. And I would love the school to try and charge me for it.

Answer 2

I agree that "sperm donors" and "sperm receivers" is a bit much. But I did a little research and even clicked on the link you provided and found no such words in relation to this bill. Where are you getting that from?
You're entitled to your opinion, as am I entitled to mine, but where do you get the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality comprises only "a small, special interest group". That's just b.s. I looked this up: "It quotes the 2000 Census, that found there are more than 92,000 same-sex couples living together in California.." That is from the actual text of the bill analysis.
So, my advice to you is learn some tolerance and calm down about the "indoctrination of schoolchildren with a homosexual agenda." These issues, when you die, will not be as big of deal as you think. Get over it, because life's too short. And the fact of the matter is, no matter how much you may not want to believe it, all types of people matter. Even homosexuals. I think the idea of this bill, to introduce different ideas and words in textbooks, is a wonderfully progressive idea. But don't worry. I don't think this will happen for grade school students for awhile. It's just now happening in college sociology textbooks.
Hope you have a nice day!

Answer 3

I definitly agree. Homosexuals and Bisexuals are getting more attension these days with the media, as both groups are becoming more vocal. We hear about them on tv and the radio and read about them in the newspaper. Often times trans-sexuals get the brunt of many jokes. Perhaps because the group is less vocal, or perhaps because there are actually fewer trans-sexuals, there doesn't seem to be much coverage. Understanding leads to tolerance, and many people simply don't understand trans-sexuals. I think it is slowly becoming more common and more accepted, but definitly not as much as the other two groups.

Answer 4

Um, kids should learn about sex. Studies show the more they know at a younger age, the less likely they are to get into trouble with sex, including losing virginity at an early age and getting STD's, getting pregnant, etc. So I think the first answer is quite wrong.

However, if the bill really states that references to "mom" and "dad" should be done away with, that's just nuts. I find it hard to believe. Can that be true? If so, how screwed are some people with regards to political correctness? Absolutely crazy if that's true.

Answer 5

This isn't true, it mischaracterizes the bill and would not result in the outcomes described.

All the bill says is that no textbook should treat any group adversely on the basis of sexuality, etc. Like in the 50s when people said that homosexuality was a mental disorder.

Answer 6

Wow. It's amazing how many ways people can find to misquote a law.

Try reading the actual proposed bill, rather than just the media spin that you've obviously based your opinion on. The bill only requires that the textbooks eliminate any bias against homosexuality, and treat it neutrally. Not highlight it. Not promote it. Not eliminate references to "mom and dad". Only that they eliminate discrimination.

It's tragic that so many people are so hate-filled and prejudiced that they try to deny the existence of something just because they don't like it. And the fact that so many others blindly follow their rhetoric without ever bothering to check the facts is even sadder.

Answer 7

I think that the bill is bullsh*t but I don't care if my son learns about trans-sexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality in textbooks. He probably knows more about homosexuals than me. I just think that forcing textbooks to take out "mom and dad" ic complete crap.

Answer 8

sperm donors?

whatever happened to mother and father? I don't know if I actually believe it

either way, once children are ready for sexual education, at whatever age it may be, of course they should be taught about homosexuals as well, and that it's something they are not supposed to discriminate against. "indoctrinating a homosexual agenda"? the fact that they exist is not a part of any indoctrination or agenda. they exist, get over it. your kids will find out about it soon enough... I hope the school gets to tell them before you start filling their heads with nonsense about how evil they are.

Answer 9

This is PC gone mad. NO absolutely NO.. As someone said today, You are a fool if you accept that legislators have anything more than agendas to push. The draftors of this Bill should be banned from participating in Public Life. I bet they have paedophilic tendencies too.

Peoples way of life doesn't excercise me in any way. Indoctrination of any kind does. If this is true then it should crtainly not be passed into law.

Answer 10

I read this bill and it does not say that all references to mom and dad be changed to sperm donors and receivers. It does not teach children about sexuality at all. They simply want to include homosexual history in the text books, much like they do with the civil rights movements of the 60's.

DESCRIPTION

This bill would revise the statutes prohibiting textbooks
and other instructional material from containing material
adverse to persons based on race, color, creed, national
origin, ancestry, sex, or handicap, and add sexual
orientation to this list of characteristics. These changes
would make the statutes consistent with other statutes
prohibiting discrimination based on specified personal
characteristics, such as the Fair Employment and Housing
Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The bill also would direct the school governing boards to
include only instructional material that accurately portray
the cultural, racial, gender and sexual diversity of our
society, and, in instructional material for the social
sciences, include the contributions of people who are
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic,
political, and social development of California and the
United States of America.


CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides that no person shall be subjected to
discrimination on the basis of sex, ethnic group
identification, race, national origin, religion, color,
mental or physical disability, or any actual or perceived
characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate
crimes described in Penal Code 422.56 in any program or
activity conducted by an educational institution that
receives or benefits from state financial assistance or
student financial aid. [Ed. Code 220.]

Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction or
a school district from sponsoring any activity that
reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex,
color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry. [Ed.
Code 51500.]

Existing law prohibits the state board or any public school
governing board from adopting any textbook or instructional
materials that contains any matter reflecting adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed,
handicap, national origin, or ancestry. [Ed. Code 51501,
60044.]

This bill would change the references to a person's
characteristics to make them consistent with similar
statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of a
person's characteristics.

This bill would also require school governing boards, when
adopting instructional materials for use in the schools, to





SB 1437 (Kuehl)
Page 3



include only materials which accurately portray the gender
and sexual diversity, as well as the currently required
cultural and racial diversity of our society, and materials
that portray the contributions of people who are lesbian,
gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political,
and social development of the state and the country.