Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(freerepublic)   Politcal Correctness runs for it's life as bill to ban words like 'Mom' and 'Dad' from textbooks passes another hurdle in California   (freerepublic.com) divider line 787
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

10383 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2006 at 1:20 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



787 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-05-06 10:46:26 AM  
SB 1437, which would mandate grades 1-12 buy books "accurately" portraying "the sexual diversity of our society,"

"Mom" and "Dad" already reflect the sexual diversity of our society: male and female.
 
2006-05-06 10:46:36 AM  
www.wnd.com

Frankly I can't tell whether that is mom or dad either!
 
2006-05-06 10:55:02 AM  
Lookie, we don't link to Democratic Underground. We'd appreciate it if you didn't link to Free Republic. Those sites just make humans look bad.
 
2006-05-06 10:57:09 AM  

fortunately, the freepers have an alternative:






Moses wrote Genesis. This is why such people will jump up and down screaming when the Ten Commandments are displayed or the Creationist idea of monogamy from the book of Genesis is introduced.

The latter (Genesis) also ruins the illogical and non-biological arguments of homosexual monogamy. In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.

This is the whole crux of their attack on creationism - - they are really frustrated by Genesis, but cannot destroy the axiomatic state of procreant human biology, it does not fit their religious agenda.

Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.

Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.

Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18).

This is exactly what the National Socialists were at war with... so, when someone uses the term "Gaystapo," they might not realize how close to the truth they really are.

Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.

Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...
 
2006-05-06 10:57:50 AM  
...and liberals wonder why they are hated so much
 
2006-05-06 10:59:43 AM  
DonnyBaker: ...and liberals wonder why they are hated so much

No, we know it's because neocons are overgeneralizing, ignorant cretins.

The idea in the headline is pretty damn whacked though.
 
2006-05-06 11:01:45 AM  
DonnyBaker: ...and liberals wonder why they are hated so much


I used to hate Liberals a lot, and then a certain type of "conservatives" came along.

On an unrelated topic, thanks for contributing new perspectives to my world view.
 
2006-05-06 11:02:54 AM  
DonnyBaker: ...and liberals wonder why they are hated so much

Because the public is a bunch of f*cking idiots easily deceived by a massive industry that has been erected solely to blame "libruls" for all the woes of society?
 
2006-05-06 11:05:20 AM  
It's a bad idea, but no worse than bringing back school prayer or outlawing children plaing soccer on Sunday.
 
2006-05-06 11:07:27 AM  
Is this the bill in question?

I'm not sure what that has to do with "mom" and "dad", but IANAL
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-05-06 11:12:53 AM  
Last One Left

Presumably the part about "sexual orientation diversity" is the provision the link is concerned with.
 
2006-05-06 11:14:37 AM  
ZAZ
Presumably the part about "sexual orientation diversity" is the provision the link is concerned with.

Wouldn't sexual orientation diversity include heterosexuality too (and by association the words, "mom" and "dad")?

Again, I'm not trolling. I'm just confused.
 
2006-05-06 11:14:54 AM  
submitter: Politcal Correctness runs for it's life as bill to ban words like 'Mom' and 'Dad' from textbooks passes another hurdle in California


Are the textbooks still allowed to explain the difference between "its" and "it's"?
 
2006-05-06 11:15:04 AM  
Last One Left: Is this the bill in question?

It looks like. There's no mention of mom or dad. It's just expanding the definition of groups illegal to discriminate against from [race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry] to also include [race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, and religion].

I fail to see how this is bad. Unless you really, really want to discriminate against teh gheys.
 
2006-05-06 11:18:23 AM  
bboy: Lookie, we don't link to Democratic Underground. We'd appreciate it if you didn't link to Free Republic. Those sites just make humans look bad.


Well, perhaps if this had been reported elsewhere...And if it has, please let us know. I'd like to read an unbiased report of this bill.
 
2006-05-06 11:20:56 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson
I'd like to read an unbiased report of this bill.

You and me both. I found links to FreeRepublic, WorldNetDaily and some Christian and family-related groups. That's why I linked the bill here, hoping that someone could explain it.
 
2006-05-06 11:21:41 AM  
Ohhhhhh if you want it to be possessive, it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S. Scalawag.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-05-06 11:23:09 AM  
Wouldn't sexual orientation diversity include heterosexuality too (and by association the words, "mom" and "dad")?

We live in a legal environment where laws mandating equal protection have an implicit exception for white men.

If the committee didn't think there was too much of this man and woman stuff in the school literature it wouldn't be promoting this bill.
 
2006-05-06 11:23:33 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Well, perhaps if this had been reported elsewhere...And if it has, please let us know. I'd like to read an unbiased report of this bill.

A link to the bill itself is in the thread. It's just another manufactured controversy.
 
2006-05-06 11:24:21 AM  
Mordant You are welcome. Glad to help.
 
2006-05-06 11:34:10 AM  
kronicfeld: A link to the bill itself is in the thread. It's just another manufactured controversy.


So who gets to decide what is an "adverse" portrayal?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-05-06 11:37:12 AM  
Most of the changes are minor, technical corrections. The one significant addition is to require instructional materials to "accurately portray the sexual orientation diversity of our society".
 
2006-05-06 11:37:38 AM  
ZAZ: "accurately portray the sexual orientation diversity of our society".

In an "age appropriate" way.
 
2006-05-06 11:41:55 AM  
This is retarded.

Why would they even bother? If a child is *in* school, then they were born, in which case they have parents. Chances are, they already know what moms and dads are. I fail to see that this bill would actually accomplish anything.


Talk about another pointless waste of the gub'ments time.
 
2006-05-06 11:43:30 AM  
ZAZ
The one significant addition is to require instructional materials to "accurately portray the sexual orientation diversity of our society".

Hmmmm, want to be the way it works is they'll only point out sexual orientation when it's something other than heterosexual?

Otherwise it would loose its impact when it notes 20 people in a row as heterosexual, then finally one as homosexual.

I'd like to believe this was about fairly and accurately protraying history, but I lived too long in la la land to do so. Some is pushing an agenda, pure and simple.
 
2006-05-06 11:43:48 AM  
Im sorry but the natural family is a mom and dad. Its biologically determined. Im not saying that gay families are wrong but they are not the normal way. Perhaps the stereotype of a mom and dad being the normal family comes from the fact that almost all families have a mom and dad, though sometimes one of the parents is gone. I really hate PC.

/By reading this previous post, the reader agrees to forfeit any and all claims of grievance against the poster. The reader forfeits all claims of damages or mental anguish due to:
+Gross negligence of poster
+Improper use of English by poster
+Opinions stated as facts by poster
+General stupidity of poster
 
2006-05-06 11:53:09 AM  
Woah, so after reading the bill, it appears to have nothing to do with the use of the words mom or dad. How odd.

This article is bullshiat, I think. What exactly is wrong with 'accurately portraying' sexual diversity? I think if people learned about homosexuality earlier in life it would dispel a lot of the misconceptions and the bigotry that exists.

And do you really have to teach kids about what the family unit is? Do schools actually go through the process of explaining to kids how they have a mom and a dad and perhaps siblings?

This is just a whole whack of stupid.
 
2006-05-06 11:56:35 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: So who gets to decide what is an "adverse" portrayal?

It'd have to be a judge to make that call after a lawsuit was filed.

But I can't imagine that portraying heterosexual couples in and of itself (like saying the words mom or dad) would be considered "adverse" by anyone, ever.

This is not pushing an agenda, or PC gone wild. This is Freepers and the religious feeling persecuted by an imagined librul agenda.
 
2006-05-06 11:56:53 AM  
 
2006-05-06 12:10:55 PM  
hillbillypharmacist: It'd have to be a judge to make that call after a lawsuit was filed.


*sigh*

No wonder only a third of kids in US schools can find Louisiana on a map.
 
2006-05-06 12:16:17 PM  
"Mom" and "Dad" already reflect the sexual diversity of our society: male and female.

It reflects the gender roles of our society, yes; it may reflect the sexes in our society, to a degree; but it does not reflect the sexual diversity of our society.

1. Gender != Sex.
2. Male and Female != The only sexes. They represent a vast majority and are typical of the animal kingdom. There are, however, those who don't fit the cookie cutter mold.

/Are we now protecting the sanctity of the words "Mom" and "Dad" as we so valiantly did "Marriage?"

Karen England, executive director of the Capital Resource Institute, said discussion about sexual orientation belongs "in the bedroom, not in the classroom" and that sexual orientation is not germane to a person's historical significance.

Because we all see just how wonderful self-education is with topics like STDs, or Safe Practices, or even the ability to cope with psychological/emotion turmoil involved regardless of your orientation. Yes! If we don't hear about sex, it doesn't happen!

/Why do people think acceptance = indoctrinating children? You teach the kids they're are people who might not be heterosexual, and that's okay. There's nothing mentally, physically, or spiritually wrong with them. Some people like tomatoes, some don't. Where's the civil war over that?
 
2006-05-06 12:18:54 PM  
 
2006-05-06 12:20:33 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: No wonder only a third of kids in US schools can find Louisiana on a map.

What's wrong?

It's the judicial branch that interprets the laws. In order for a judge to make that call, there'd have to be a lawsuit.

If the legislature uses such vague language, it's their own damn fault.
 
2006-05-06 12:24:26 PM  
Last One Left: I'm not sure what that has to do with "mom" and "dad", but IANAL


Oh fark, that's a good reason why I read the text in the voter guide, and not the summary. Almost everything that isn't the actual bill/measure/proposition is twisted.


As somebody who basically writes textbooks, I can tell you taht textbook adoption has always been very political. I'm not even talking about big issues like intelligent design. I'm talking about how districts/states are grouped into buying/adoption markets that textbook publishers pander to. (yes I know that was gramatically bad- I just woke up.)
 
2006-05-06 12:31:49 PM  
hillbillypharmacist: What's wrong?


What's wrong? Are you shiatting me? We have an increasingly stupid population coming up throught the ranks of government schools which are more obsessed with coming up with ambiguously worded legislation over shiat like teh ghey that has no definition until someone gets pissed enough to take it to court.

Meanwhile, Johnny can't read.

But Jugdish can.
 
2006-05-06 12:36:37 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: We have an increasingly stupid population coming up throught the ranks of government schools which are more obsessed with coming up with ambiguously worded legislation over shiat like teh ghey that has no definition until someone gets pissed enough to take it to court.

It's up to us to elect public officials that went to private schools, then.
 
2006-05-06 12:42:19 PM  
munchkinette
Oh fark, that's a good reason why I read the text in the voter guide, and not the summary. Almost everything that isn't the actual bill/measure/proposition is twisted.

I figured as much. Do you have a link to the voter's guide on this issue? I'm genuinely interested, because it seems to have inflamed both sides.

Grammatically bad? Nope. You were just accurately portraying the grammatical diversity of our society. Or something.
 
2006-05-06 12:58:51 PM  
A-Glass-Darkly
2. Male and Female != The only sexes.

With the exception of very rare "intergender", yes, they are the only two sexes.

Your orientation is not your sex, regardless of you choice in a partner, a male is a male, and a female is a female.
 
2006-05-06 01:06:06 PM  
A-Glass-Darkly: /Why do people think acceptance = indoctrinating children? You teach the kids they're are people who might not be heterosexual, and that's okay. There's nothing mentally, physically, or spiritually wrong with them. Some people like tomatoes, some don't. Where's the civil war over that?

School isn't meant to teach acceptance. You can do that at home. It's a parent's job to teach their children if they want to accept gays or not. Not everyone does.

Male and Female != The only sexes.

And this discussion just took a turn for the strange.
 
2006-05-06 01:07:56 PM  
Last One Left: figured as much. Do you have a link to the voter's guide on this issue? I'm genuinely interested, because it seems to have inflamed both sides.


No, but last time I founded on www.sfgov.org. You can also check out the California state website. I usually don't bother reading this stuff until the day before an election.
 
2006-05-06 01:19:09 PM  
The bill also requires students hear history lessons on "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."

Thanks for the AIDS epidemic guys! We really appreciated it! Oh, and we really really all thought it was wonderful how you've attempted to get rid of the Boy Scouts of America. I mean, wow - a youth organization that instills self confidence and a love of the outdoors OBVIOUSLY must be destroyed 'cause they won't let oversexed homosexual men hang out in the woods with a bunch of nubile young boys.

Yep, you folks on the Left just keep on truckin'!
 
2006-05-06 01:25:47 PM  
Weaver95
Thanks for the AIDS epidemic guys!

Yeah, I think I'm going to stay out of this thread now.

Thanks for the help though, munchkinette. I did find some useful comments in the Bill Analysis.
 
2006-05-06 01:25:53 PM  
This bill is the most extreme effort thus far to transform our public schools into institutions of indoctrination...

Hahahahahhaha.

I've got news for you. They already are. Have been for a long time.

Grades 1-12 are a waste. It's basically baby sitting. I don't think I learned much of anything from school up until university.
 
2006-05-06 01:26:23 PM  
Weaver95: a youth organization that instills self confidence and a love of the outdoors OBVIOUSLY must be destroyed 'cause they won't let oversexed homosexual men hang out in the woods with a bunch of nubile young boys.

Nevermind the scoutmaster- they also won't let in boys who are homosexual.

Or boys who are atheists.
 
2006-05-06 01:26:32 PM  
well, Banning the words "MOM" and "DAD" still ain't as bad as kill all the brown people

so.........
 
2006-05-06 01:27:18 PM  
tarrant84

School isn't meant to teach acceptance. You can do that at home. It's a parent's job to teach their children if they want to accept gays or not. Not everyone does.

I totally agree with you. But you have to understand that some people (usually termed "liberal", but more through sloppy association than reason) think the state should teach children instead of parents, as long as the state is teaching what they agree with. It is, of course, fascism when the state teaches something else.
 
2006-05-06 01:28:53 PM  
Sometimes I am ashamed to be an American.
 
2006-05-06 01:28:57 PM  
As an addendum to my last post, I would like to add the following:

You also have to understand that some people (usually termed "conservatives", but more through sloppy association than reason) think the state should teach children instead of parents, as long as the state is teaching what they agree with. It is, of course, socialism when the state teaches something else.
 
2006-05-06 01:31:09 PM  
Weaver95: Thanks for the AIDS epidemic guys! We really appreciated it! Oh, and we really really all thought it was wonderful how you've attempted to get rid of the Boy Scouts of America. I mean, wow - a youth organization that instills self confidence and a love of the outdoors OBVIOUSLY must be destroyed 'cause they won't let oversexed homosexual men hang out in the woods with a bunch of nubile young boys.

Yep, you folks on the Left just keep on truckin'!


Hurray for trolls!
 
2006-05-06 01:31:27 PM  
Ah, California... a land overflowing with fruits and nuts.
 
Displayed 50 of 787 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report