This is absolutely outrageous. So much for "equality"?

Question

What the devil is going on down in the crazy US of A.

Homosexual marriage and equality is one thing.

This is another?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

The terms "mom", "dad", "husaband" and "wife" have officially been banned in Californian schools.

...Why?

I used to wonder what the "gay agenda" that was being "shoved down our throats" was.... And now I know.

But before I make wild accusations (like I did in the previous paragraph), I just want to know; is this part of the gay "agenda"? Do you support this?

How could you?

All of this time striving for "equality", and now they turn around and start with the "politically correct" stuff. So, the rights of the majority citizen can be trampled on to promote some hidden agenda?

I think, in addition to banning mom and dad, we need to ban:

Partner
Gay
Lesbian
Bi-sexual
Life Partner
"My boy"
"Girlfriend!"

That should even it out a bit.

Oh, yes that just occured to me...

Do you think the government is trying to breed hatred AGAINST homosexuals by this act?

This is NOT satire.

http://brennan-tuxedoxpress.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/13/1022407-mom-and-dad-banned-from-california-schools


http://www.zimbio.com/straighten-out_public_education_now/articles/106/Mom+Dad+Banned+California+Schools

http://tailrank.com/3259223/-Mom-and-Dad-banished-by-California


etc. etc. etc.

YouTube is always fun as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqyilGupb9A

Slipperyninny:

In Good 'Ole Canada, we don't prohibit gay marriage.

Oh wait, you do.

In good 'Ole Canada, we don't have the firing squad.

Oh wait... You do.

Nor do we have death by hanging...

Oh wait... You do.


In Good 'Ole Canada, we don't marry our cousins.

You don't either. Whats your point...? Bringing up something totally unrelated just makes you look like an idiot...

See how bringing up the executions made me look like a moron? EXACTLY the same thing.

Answer 1

It WOULD be outrageous; if it were true.

Have you actually read SB 777? I have (and I'm not even a US citizen). It doesn't do any of the things that "WorldNet Daily" claims; it just revises the existing definitions of unacceptable discriminatory behaviour. There's a link to the actual text below; it;s quite boring, actually.

WND are rabble-rousing; which is hardly surprising, it's run by right-wing Evangelical christians who see everything that isn't old-testament-fire-and-brimstone as part of the mythical "Gay Agenda"

Answer 2

Wow! What an article. While I don't claim to know what is going on in Arnie's head as he is the Dad of four (at least count) children with his wife, Maria Shriver. Umm, I always thought that California was a little bit "different" or was more
liberal from the majority of the other States, but one definitely has me stumped. I think that Arnie and his wife are both Catholic, but apparently this Gov. is quite liberal in his thinking, if he signed a bill to that effect. Personally, I could care less about being "politically correct." I try to use my common sense and call people of different races something that will hopefully not be offensive to them. But as for unisex bathrooms, HELL NO! I have always been against merging the two sexes together in bathrooms, locker rooms, etc., but I'm not really sure if the Gay or Lesbian community honestly would have any reason for wanting this to be passed as a law. I simply thought that the Gay and Lesbian Community wanted equal rights as partners, the same way married men and women do. I cannot say that I support this law, especially when I have no idea what all is comprised in that law. I am not homophobic at all, but this simply doesn't make good sense to me and I'm not by any means a religious fanatic. It doesn't sound like a good idea at all to me, but I would like to learn a little more about this bill. I mean I understand that mom and dad applies to heterosexual marriages, as well as those that are in a same sex marriage, so why would the terminology defining "mom" and "dad" be banned from schools? This is one of the strangest articles I've come across and while I don't completely understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like the general idea at all. I think it would have been much less controversial if this so-called "bill" that affects so many CA citizens would have been explained in detail instead of skimming over this the way the article did.

Answer 3

You obviously haven't been following this in the news, nor have you read the bill. The terms Mom and Dad have not been banned and will not be banned when the governor signs the bill. The article you cite is simply a scare tactic by the far right to frighten people into opposing the bill. the bill only bans words which are construed as promoting discrimination. When you react the way you have you are falling prey to dishonest reporting, just as these people want you to. Please, think for yourself and avoid the "news" sources that have an agenda.

Answer 4

Let me start by saying I am neither for nor against on this issue.

This bill does NOT ban the words Mom or Dad. The point is to bring more diversity and less harassment into the schools. To introduce terminology, examples, and situations that more accurately symbolize today's children's living arrangements.

With the divorce rate in America now at 51%, more and more children live in homes that DO NOT have a mom and a dad.

If your child lives only with Grandma, or with Mom1 and Mom2, or with Daddy and Girlfriend, how are you going to refer to their guardians in ways they understand at school?

Why not have publishers introduce literary examples that show these types of arrangements?

Why not have "Restrooms" instead of "Boys" and "Girls" rooms? I can see that this would be a bit more difficult to monitor for sexual activity, but is anyone monitoring the bathrooms now? Not that I'm aware of.

I remember way back when all text books referred to individuals as "he" or "him". There was little or no reference to females when talking about a general situation.
For example, "Each child should bring a sack lunch labeled with HIS name."
I also remember when our school books mentioned "policeman" and "mailman". Now, they are "police officer" and "mail carrier".

There is no way on this earth that you are going to eliminate Mom and Dad from the lifestyles and terminology of American families. It's just a way of letting children see that THEIR PERSONAL LIFE is also mentioned in their school environment, and that will of course trickle into the text books.

Answer 5

The link the poster sites is to Worldnet Daily, which is basically the on line equivalent of Fox News. They publish Ann Coulter and David Limbaugh (Rush's younger brother), so you can imagine how objective they aren't. Aside from the poster's obvious agenda, I can't help but think maybe we should wait for a more mainstream report that will assuredly be more accurate, and less alarmist, before reacting. The poster has assuredly already made up his mind, attempts to change it are wasted effort.

Answer 6

thank you!!!! ultimately a question in females's study approximately an surely undertaking. i presumed it had became right into a talk board for adult adult males who hate females to air their vile evaluations. So, in different words with regard to the object. She became into asked to leave for being alluring or somewhat eye-catching. What if it have been a fat guy donning a pair of shorts and a sort of super tank tops together with his nipples showing? Why is seeing a cleavage or legs on an eye-catching lady seen obscene to infants? To all people who wrote that that's yet another occasion of the sexualisation of the female physique, you're authentic. This is going alongside with the breast feeding in public "debate" (as though there's a debate). If that have been me, i might have quietly defined to him that i may well be taking the airlines to courtroom if "Keith" did no longer apologise for his offensive comments. He relatively advised her to disguise herself while the extraordinary section is, i'm able to wager that there may well be a minimum of 40 - 50 human beings on the airplane analyzing vogue magazines or those gross "adult adult males's weeklies" (possibly, in common terms interior the united kingdom) or FHM or a sort of perpetuating the females as intercourse gadgets baloney and there may well be a large number of 0.5-bare females in those. She could convey expenditures against the airline. they could desire to compensate her and that i think of if obtainable greater females could boycott the airline until eventually they undertaking an apology to her.

Answer 7

I'll wait until a legit news org offers something. California seems like ripe turf for fake news about the "gay agenda." Every so often we get posts like this that don't quite mesh with a little thing callled... fact.

Answer 8

Personally, I do not believe that this is fact. This definitely has to be some sort of joke or satire that is clogging the internet. I would suggest verifying your sources before making such statements. Peace!!!

Answer 9

Nothing like that was actually in the bill that was signed -- the article a huge distortion of a relatively simple law.

The law actually only says that children in schools cannot be harassed or discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender, and that such things should be protected in the same way that the school protects against racial or religious harassment or discrimination.

That's all the law actually says -- you can read the actual text of the law linked below.

How WND came up with its ranting is beyond logic.

Answer 10

That's just stupid. I can't believe that such a thing would happen, but...it is California. Everyone I have ever known that was from California, was a few pickles short of a Happy Meal, if you catch my drift. I agree that this is outrageous.

EDIT: To those in this forum from California....my bad. That was rude and wrong. We all know it's just the heterosexuals that are a little nutty. LOL
All in good fun.