Opponents of Calif gay history law seek referendum Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/26/1986454/opponents-of-calif-gay-history.html#ixzz1THWjiMn4

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Kids...it's the kids who are having to have this ####### forced on them, whether it be in some California public school history class, or being adopted into it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

My personal assistant is gay. I pay him a lot of money and he is also clean and well dressed He wants to be a normal person and doesn't agree with the liberal agenda that singles gays out for special treatment.

Not even all gays agree.

I live in an area that is rather unique in the high population of LGBT's that both live and tourist the place. Gays are okay. They have lots of money, and are generally clean and well dressed. Lesbians are okay as well, except they are mostly broke, and constantly want to borrow your tools. Transgenders are the ones that take a bit getting used too, especially when they are first transitioning.

It is also a safe Democratic district. They don't like Republicans. Period. Everybody got to hate somebody it seems.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Zero Sum 305]

You try many things, but mostly fail at making a factual reference to truthfulness. When you substantiate your untruthful remarks, we can have honesty in the debate.

The only thing visible here is at best that you have a conspiracy theory that does not match with the law as written. That is all. If you have a problem with that, go into the law itself and explain how your conspiracy takes off on that slippery slope you are arguing. That is the fact you need to reconcile with your opinion.

I'm trying very hard to reject the idea that you are as stupid as this post makes you sound. The others are not distinguished by their sexual preference. Sexual preference is THE notion you have been advocating on this thread for two days. You have not been advocating for racial, ethnic or national origin acceptance. You have been advocating for homosexuality acceptance. That is the advocacy that this law adds to the mix.

You are miffed that I see through you. Sorry, I can't help it, you're sooo transparent. So, if all you're going to do is deny that you have spent considerable time on this thread defending gays and spouting off at those who oppose the gay agenda in the name of tolerance, then you are pretty dayum useless on this thread.

You should consider being a politician.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are I disagree. Part of the problem is that you continue to deny what others, not just me, are telling you about what they read in your posts. However, trying to frame our disagreement as one of us is a habitual liar is taking you deeper into a dark hole of your own making.

Despite having read the law, having analyzed your posts one by one and having pointed out your inconsistencies, I can see that you're not ready to deal with substance and continue to want to talk about style, as is your way. It's not working for anyone but you, but it does serve as a sufficient stalling tactic when your back is up against the wall.

Have fun with it. It's all you've got.

You try many things, but mostly fail at making a factual reference to truthfulness. When you substantiate your untruthful remarks, we can have honesty in the debate.

The only thing visible here is at best that you have a conspiracy theory that does not match with the law as written. That is all. If you have a problem with that, go into the law itself and explain how your conspiracy takes off on that slippery slope you are arguing. That is the fact you need to reconcile with your opinion.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Ban Hammer 13,493]

I live in an area that is rather unique in the high population of LGBT's that both live and tourist the place. Gays are okay. They have lots of money, and are generally clean and well dressed. Lesbians are okay as well, except they are mostly broke, and constantly want to borrow your tools. Transgenders are the ones that take a bit getting used too, especially when they are first transitioning.

It is also a safe Democratic district. They don't like Republicans. Period. Everybody got to hate somebody it seems.

Edited July 28, 2011 by charles!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You try many things, but mostly fail at making a factual reference to truthfulness. When you substantiate your untruthful remarks, we can have honesty in the debate.

What are my "untruthful remarks", as you see them?

[Zero Sum 305]

What are my "untruthful remarks", as you see them?

Try thinking about that before having another circular argument over things that have already been mentioned here. But I'll summarize:

I do not say I promote a homosexual agenda. I initially gave room to Kip to share with us the law he was protesting as something pro-homosexual, and I even gave room for my not supporting it if those were the grounds for such a law. He did not provide the law. I did. And the law was clearly anti-discriminatory in that exclusion of homosexual contributions to historical achievements could not be left out of the curriculum in much the same way as other 'groups' contributions to history.

You state that makes me a promoter of the homosexual agenda, whatever undefined agenda this is. Nothing could be further from the truth, and words- as mentioned previously, are what they are. The only one here making factually incorrect, or untruthful remarks... was you with an unprovable claim.

A paranoid mind would think a conspiracy was hiding behind such legislation, yet a refusal to analyze that legislation shows the paranoia for what it is (paranoia)- not for what it seems to a paranoid to be.

Same for the bigotry. A request is made for someone hysterically opposed to homosexual anything to identify themselves as completely bigoted against them. A refusal is returned. Such act of cowardice is merely observed and noted. When further identified in the context of the bigotry- as being what it is, then the bigotry is diverted so as to attack (for style) the process of identification of said bigotry. Which elicits an interesting counter-observation.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

My personal assistant is gay. I pay him a lot of money and he is also clean and well dressed He wants to be a normal person and doesn't agree with the liberal agenda that singles gays out for special treatment.

Not even all gays agree.

Then he should have sex with women, there are a lot of gals out there who look rather masculine.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Try thinking about that before having another circular argument over things that have already been mentioned here. But I'll summarize:

I do not say I promote a homosexual agenda. I initially gave room to Kip to share with us the law he was protesting as something pro-homosexual, and I even gave room for my not supporting it if those were the grounds for such a law. He did not provide the law. I did. And the law was clearly anti-discriminatory in that exclusion of homosexual contributions to historical achievements could not be left out of the curriculum in much the same way as other 'groups' contributions to history.

You state that makes me a promoter of the homosexual agenda, whatever undefined agenda this is. Nothing could be further from the truth, and words- as mentioned previously, are what they are. The only one here making factually incorrect, or untruthful remarks... was you with an unprovable claim.

A paranoid mind would think a conspiracy was hiding behind such legislation, yet a refusal to analyze that legislation shows the paranoia for what it is (paranoia)- not for what it seems to a paranoid to be.

Same for the bigotry. A request is made for someone hysterically opposed to homosexual anything to identify themselves as completely bigoted against them. A refusal is returned. Such act of cowardice is merely observed and noted. When further identified in the context of the bigotry- as being what it is, then the bigotry is diverted so as to attack (for style) the process of identification of said bigotry. Which elicits an interesting counter-observation.

I don't have to say I'm wearing a dress to be observed wearing one. Your posts are as clearly pro-gay agenda as Kip's are clearly anti-gay agenda. Your use of derogatory terms like "homophobe" and "bigot" to describe people who disagree with you place you stridently on one side of the divide. I mean, unless you consider yourself to be a "homophobe", you are not neutral on the issue by any means.

One doesn't need to be paranoid to know that the law is part of a slippery slope. One needs only to be paying attention to how any liberal movement is NEVER satisfied with the tip of the iceberg of an issue. They are ALWAYS intent on taking the entire iceberg.

Could you reasonably be described as anti-gay? No.

Could you be reasonably described as neutral re homosexuality? No.

I'm not "hysterically" opposed to homosexual anything, yet, you find it hard to rationally communicate with or be tolerant of me either, so, I called you an intolerant bigot. It's a valid observation that I may not have made if you hadn't been striking blows at the same time you were crowning yourself the tolerance-meister.

No lies there. Just demonstrable truth.

[Amby 490]

Who is "foisting" the gay lifestyle on you? Is someone trying to convert you?

What about butt-fvcking between a man and a woman? Is that an "honorable pursuit"?

Hey I asked that yesterday and nobody answered!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Hey I asked that yesterday and nobody answered!

It's been answered on here by a few people including me.

Let me post this again though seeing how some people missed the previous post.

Children whether in California public school history classes, and/or adopted children into gay partners households have no choice. Gay proponents could give two sh*ts less what affect it has on kids...as long as they get to shove their bs in every ones face whether they like it or not.

Anyone that thinks two men or two women playing opposite sex role models for a child is normal and has no affects on said child should get off this board ASAP and search for a clue seeing how they have none. It's not rocket science to see this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's been answered on here by a few people including me.

Let me post this again though seeing how some people missed the previous post.

Children whether in California public school history classes, and/or adopted children into gay partners households have no choice. Gay proponents could give two sh*ts less what affect it has on kids...as long as they get to shove their bs in every ones face whether they like it or not.

Anyone that thinks two men or two women playing opposite sex role models for a child is normal and has no affects on said child should get off this board ASAP and search for a clue seeing how they have none. It's not rocket science to see this.

How can you tell? Most kids raised by hippies are screwed up to begin with. Blame the schools, not the gays.

[Zero Sum 305]

I don't have to say I'm wearing a dress to be observed wearing one. Your posts are as clearly pro-gay agenda as Kip's are clearly anti-gay agenda. Your use of derogatory terms like "homophobe" and "bigot" to describe people who disagree with you place you stridently on one side of the divide. I mean, unless you consider yourself to be a "homophobe", you are not neutral on the issue by any means.

One doesn't need to be paranoid to know that the law is part of a slippery slope. One needs only to be paying attention to how any liberal movement is NEVER satisfied with the tip of the iceberg of an issue. They are ALWAYS intent on taking the entire iceberg.

Could you reasonably be described as anti-gay? No.

Could you be reasonably described as neutral re homosexuality? No.

I'm not "hysterically" opposed to homosexual anything, yet, you find it hard to rationally communicate with or be tolerant of me either, so, I called you an intolerant bigot. It's a valid observation that I may not have made if you hadn't been striking blows at the same time you were crowning yourself the tolerance-meister.

No lies there. Just demonstrable truth.

Homophobia has a clear definition, which Kip exemplifies quite clearly, without the need to delve into semantics. You state, in your opinion, that is- what my agenda is- while I have clearly stated that my agenda is defensive of the legislation based on its language; not on the conspiracy fallacies you collude yourself with. They are homophobes because they say homophobic things. The valuation of derogatory context is well, not only appropriate, but significant in the very much negative context in which their homophobia flourishes without your noticing it. Amazing you fail to see these things in favor of merely attempting to unnerve me for the sake of doing so with as yet again, unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations.

Furthermore, when you allow your paranoia to rule your conspiratorial analysis of the law, without indicating a single part of it- you definitely demonstrate your intolerance to truthfulness by repetitively refusing to engage in an honest debate. Just saying. If you don't like it, don't shovel the smelly stuff beyond the confines of your imagination.

I am indifferent to your opinion of me and my tolerance level of bigots that deserve their label rightfully so- but feel free to harp on as you have been if it alleviates you in all possible ways.

Hey I asked that yesterday and nobody answered!

Welcome to the club.

It's been answered on here by a few people including me.

Let me post this again though seeing how some people missed the previous post.

Children whether in California public school history classes, and/or adopted children into gay partners households have no choice. Gay proponents could give two sh*ts less what affect it has on kids...as long as they get to shove their bs in every ones face whether they like it or not.

Anyone that thinks two men or two women playing opposite sex role models for a child is normal and has no affects on said child should get off this board ASAP and search for a clue seeing how they have none. It's not rocket science to see this.

Which warrants a new thread, don't you think? After all, you began this thread indicating it was a bout a law you clearly did not even read and much less analyze.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

How can you tell? Most kids raised by hippies are screwed up to begin with. Blame the schools, not the gays.

Blame the schools? Was it the schools who pushed for this bill? I don't know myself.

What I do know is that anyone who thinks a child being raised by two men or two women playing man and wife (switching role models) doesn't have ad adverse affect on said child should really get a clue.

None of us here fell off the last box car.

As far as the hippy thing goes I agree with you.

[Amby 490]

I was curious what would be included in gay history so I did a google search. I haven't got to what it will actually include yet but I found this and thought it was interesting. It's from a few months ago.

California conservatives were outraged in 1966 when the state Board of Education adopted a new junior high school history textbook. The book's inclusive treatment of the civil rights movement and influential black Americans would indoctrinate students, undermine religious values and politicize the curriculum, they said.

Forty-five years later, gay rights advocates say similar arguments are being advanced to defeat a bill that would make the state the first to require the teaching of gay history in public schools. The California Senate approved the landmark measure last week, but it needs to clear the Democrat-controlled Assembly and Gov. Jerry Brown's desk.

Yet the debate about what children should learn about sexual orientation mirrors earlier disputes over whether groups such as 20th century German immigrants, women, Muslims and Jews would have a place for their heroes and heartbreaks in the history books.

"It's fine to imagine we would have these expert educators deciding what history education should look like, but that's counter-historical in and of itself," said New York University history and education professor Jonathan Zimmerman, who teaches a course in how culture wars play out in schools. "It's citizens groups who want to see themselves in the curriculum and see the curriculum as a rich, symbolic battlefield, which it is."

The legislation now under consideration in California would add lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to the lengthy list of social and ethnic groups that schools must include in social studies lessons.

It also would require as soon as the 2013-2014 school year the California Board of Education and local school districts to adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities.

The measure further would prohibit the adoption of any materials that "reflect adversely" on gays or particular religions. School districts would have flexibility in deciding what to include in the lessons and at what grades students would receive them.

Supporters contend that requiring instruction about gays in history would correct an obvious gap in the state's existing social studies framework and curb anti-gay stereotypes that make gay youth vulnerable to bullying and suicide.

California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

"We are conspicuous in our absence. This corrects that," said the bill's openly gay author, Democratic Sen. Mark Leno, of San Francisco. "Should we delete the inclusion of all the groups that are currently in the statute? Why is that OK, not LGBT? That is discriminatory."

Opponents counter that such instruction would further burden an already crowded curriculum and expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

Some churches and conservative family groups have encouraged their members to lobby against Leno's bill by saying that it would indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality.

During a hearing before the Senate Education Committee, Robert Evans, pastor of Christ Church in Pleasanton questioned how schools would reconcile a twin mandate to use textbooks free of bias toward gay people while fairly representing religions that do not embrace homosexuality.

"How would one responsibly teach concerning a religion that holds a less than favorable view of homosexuality without such instruction, per se, reflecting adversely on that religion?" Evans asked.

Republican Sen. Doug La Malfa, whose district inludes Yuba-Sutter, appealed to colleagues to defeat the measure, saying it promotes a selective approach to reduce school bullying, although it affects more than gay children.

"This, to me, is the final frontier of advancing this (gay rights) agenda into schools," La Malfa said. "What are we going to take out of the curriculum to get this type of curriculum in? Are we going to take Winston Churchill out?"

Public schools never are far away from gay rights debates.

"And Tango Makes Three," a children's picture book about two male penguins raising an orphan penguin, last week again topped the American Library Association's annual list of most-challenged books.

During the successful campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California, gay marriage opponents' most successful message was warning that schoolchildren would be taught about same-sex couples if they could marry.

The groups fighting Leno's bill also lobbied hard five years ago against a similar measure that was amended to simply disallow textbooks portraying gay people in a negative light. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it as unnecessary.

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/san-105779-schools-california.html