Wildfires sweep Southern California

News and commentary originating in and affecting the USA

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Ben Kenobi » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:43 pm

No, Ben, California did not. California just passed a law saying that discrimination based on a number of items, including sexcual orientation is not allowed. Therefore, you cannot say that Billy's straight parents are mom and dad while Sally's gay parents are parent 1 and parent 2.


So there you go. Thank you.

Why should I call Sally's gay parent's mom and dad, when that is not the truth?

Why should I call them mom1 or mom2 when one of them is not her mother, and one of them is not her father, in every single case. She has a mother and a father, no matter what the gay people would have us to believe.

A kid gets to kindergarten, 5 years old, and has never heard "I'm Daddy" or "I'm Mommy"? Unlikely.


I can believe it. It is happening, and that is the trend.

He's going to run home and say "Dad! Look at my gold star!"


He doesn't have a daddy, GG. Why would he say that when he has mom1 and mom2?

Or maybe his mommy is a daddy, I don't know.

That's just silly. What do you do if the child comes from a divorced family? Parent 3 and Parent 4? Suppose the child is adopted... is that Replacement Parent 1 and Replacement Parent 2? Your example appears to be grasping at the most extreme straws.


I wish I were. What do we call mom1 and mom2? Does the child have a dad if he is adopted by two lesbians?

I believe you. I don't believe that the people of Spain introduce their prospective mates to their new inlaws as "Parent Number 1" and "Parent Number 2".


No, they call them my significant other. Some people wait to have kids after they've told their parents you know.
You got a dream, you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it. You want something? Go get it. Period.
User avatar
Ben Kenobi
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: Ho Ho Ho

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Princess_Jules » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:58 pm

Ben:
Why should I call Sally's gay parent's mom and dad, when that is not the truth?

Why should I call them mom1 or mom2 when one of them is not her mother, and one of them is not her father, in every single case. She has a mother and a father, no matter what the gay people would have us to believe.


By that logic Ben, an adopted child could not call her adoptive parents Mom or Dad because that is a lie. What about step children? Are you saying someone like Suzanne should not be called Mom by the many children she has taken in? Do you think she is not deserving of that title? I sure do.
A Day Without Wine, Is Like a Day Without Sunshine..
User avatar
Princess_Jules
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Calgary, AB

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Banned_from_FD » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:54 pm

Why should I call Sally's gay parent's mom and dad, when that is not the truth?


call them whatever the heck you want Ben, there is free speech here

actually, looking out the hotel window i see a family, what do you want me to yell?
User avatar
Banned_from_FD
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:13 pm

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Banned_from_FD » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:56 pm

A Day Without Wine, Is Like a Day Without Sunshine..


hey Jules, spent yesterday afternoon and this morn wine tasting in Sonoma

fantastic!!!

i live in a wine region and i have never seen as many vineyards and wineries as i saw in the last 24 hours

best wines on the planet!
User avatar
Banned_from_FD
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:13 pm

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Ben Kenobi » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:58 pm

By that logic Ben, an adopted child could not call her adoptive parents Mom or Dad because that is a lie.


The child has a mother and father in this situation. The mother is the adoptive mother and the father is the adoptive father, at least in the legal sense. She also has her biological father and mother.

What about step children? Are you saying someone like Suzanne should not be called Mom by the many children she has taken in?


Again, the child has a mother and a father. Suzanne would be the legal mother, the legal father would be Suzanne's husband in an adoption. Same with the biological mom and dad.

Do you think she is not deserving of that title? I sure do.


I asked what do we call the child's parents when she is adopted by two lesbians? Mom1 and Mom2? Does that child have a father?

I'm open to suggestions here.
You got a dream, you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it. You want something? Go get it. Period.
User avatar
Ben Kenobi
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: Ho Ho Ho

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Princess_Jules » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:37 am

\"Banned_from_FD\" wrote:
A Day Without Wine, Is Like a Day Without Sunshine..


hey Jules, spent yesterday afternoon and this morn wine tasting in Sonoma

fantastic!!!

i live in a wine region and i have never seen as many vineyards and wineries as i saw in the last 24 hours

best wines on the planet!


Beautiful, I am terribly jealous. :cry:
A Day Without Wine, Is Like a Day Without Sunshine..
User avatar
Princess_Jules
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Calgary, AB

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby GG » Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:15 am

FYI the Bill In Question (I thought that deserved capitals)

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/s ... duced.html
User avatar
GG
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 am

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Ben Kenobi » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:01 am

No complaints from me.

Thank you.

This bill is very troubling for many reasons, this being one of them:

SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:

210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.


SEC. 5. Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed.
212. "Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being a
male or female human being.



This would confirm two things.

1. You cannot have girl and boy washrooms. You cannot refer to them as girl and boy, unless you mean their 'gendered' terms.

2. One consequence of this terrible definition is that 'whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex'. So essentially, the term 'girl' and 'boy' in California mean whatever people want to call them. If boy insisted on being called a girl, he could dress up as a boy, etc, and still the teacher would have to refer to him by his chosen 'gender identity'.

"Educational
institution" means a public or private preschool, elementary, or
secondary school or institution;
the governing board of a school
district; or any combination of school districts or counties
recognized as the administrative agency for public elementary or
secondary schools.


Notice that says 'Public and private'. Private schools are not exempt from this bill, this bill applies to every school in California, not just the public ones.

SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.6. "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality,
or bisexuality


There you go.

or any other characteristic contained
in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the
Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those
characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who
has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.



So, essentially to say that you are a husband presumes that you are heterosexual, and that you are perceived to have these characteristics, because as we see, heterosexuality is a 'sexual orientation'. This is why you can't say 'mother or father' because that presumes heterosexuality, and association with heterosexuality.

Here is the religion section, which does not provide any protection at all:

"Religion" includes all aspects of religious belief,
observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.


Suppose someone wanted to have a "Christmas festival" and the atheist said that was offensive to his or her beliefs? Conflict, cannot favour one over the other. As the Athiest has no religious festivals, the result is that there will be no religious celebrations or references at all in California.

characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set
forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity
conducted by [b]an educational institution
that receives, or benefits
from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state
student financial aid.



Again, private and Christian schools are not exempt. This applies to everyone.

in any aspect of the operation of alternative
schools , charter schools, or the Demonstration Scholarship
Program


Again, this applies to all schools, not just the public ones.

The governing board of a school district shall have the
primary responsibility for ensuring that school district programs and
activities are free from discrimination


So the school board will have the powers to clamp down on any school that does not comply.

No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school
district sponsor any activity


No instruction. That means that a teacher cannot teach about families in such a way as to 'presume heterosexuality'. They cannot teach that there are biological differences between men and women, etc.

No textbook, or other instructional materials shall be
adopted by the school


Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of
section 220,
(b) Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda
contrary to law.


So no bibles at all. In any of the schools of California.

Every single book that violates these norms must be purged. That includes the bible. You cannot have a bible in a school library
You got a dream, you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it. You want something? Go get it. Period.
User avatar
Ben Kenobi
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: Ho Ho Ho

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby GG » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:16 am

\"The Bill\" wrote:"Educational
institution" means a public or private preschool, elementary, or
secondary school or institution;
the governing board of a school
district; or any combination of school districts or counties
recognized as the administrative agency for public elementary or
secondary schools.


\"Ben Kenobi\" wrote:Notice that says 'Public and private'. Private schools are not exempt from this bill, this bill applies to every school in California, not just the public ones.


Excellent post, Ben, I'm so glad you took the time to read the actual bill itself. Your post brought up quite a few topics, I hope you will indulge me if I split them up a little for easier following. My head is made of cement, afterall.

I would agree with your assement of "applies to every school in California" if not for the cavet found farther on in the bill:

\"The Bill\" wrote:221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.


Not all private schools are religious schools, and this bill clearly recognizes that. A religious organization's school (for example, a Catholic school) is allowed to opt out of this.

Sorry, Mr. Kenobi, you are incorrect when you state "this bill applies to every school in California, not just the public ones".
User avatar
GG
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 am

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Ben Kenobi » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:21 am

Not all private schools are religious schools, and this bill clearly recognizes that. A religious organization's school (for example, a Catholic school) is allowed to opt out of this.


is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.


Who decides whether something is or is not consistant with the religious tenets of that organisation? Why doesn't it just say, this bill does not apply to any school that is controlled by religious organisations?

I've seen these kind of provisions everywhere. Remember, this bill says that any public funding counts as a 'public' school for the purposes of this bill. My question to you, is which would supercede?

The other question I have is what constitutes 'control' of a school?
You got a dream, you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it. You want something? Go get it. Period.
User avatar
Ben Kenobi
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: Ho Ho Ho

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby GG » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:22 am

\"The Bill\" wrote:SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:

210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.


SEC. 5. Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed.
212. "Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being a
male or female human being.



\"Ben Kenobi\" wrote:This would confirm two things.

1. You cannot have girl and boy washrooms. You cannot refer to them as girl and boy, unless you mean their 'gendered' terms.

2. One consequence of this terrible definition is that 'whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex'. So essentially, the term 'girl' and 'boy' in California mean whatever people want to call them. If boy insisted on being called a girl, he could dress up as a boy, etc, and still the teacher would have to refer to him by his chosen 'gender identity'.


Sorry, Mr. Kenobi, I missed the first one. I apologize for that!

Re: Your point number 1. Yes, you can have girl and boy washrooms. You can refer to them as girl and boy. No where in the bill does it say "you must call them all children and have one generic washroom." What it says is, refer to people as they refer to themselves. If you identify yourself as a boy, you shall be called boy. Not girlie-boy, not giraffe, not bible-boy, not girl.

As for point number 2. That's a good point. I've not worked my head around that one yet, I can see that causing issues. Perhaps you can expand on that one for me? I'm open to opinon here.
User avatar
GG
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 am

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby GG » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:26 am

\"Ben Kenobi\" wrote:Who decides whether something is or is not consistant with the religious tenets of that organisation? Why doesn't it just say, this bill does not apply to any school that is controlled by religious organisations?

I've seen these kind of provisions everywhere. Remember, this bill says that any public funding counts as a 'public' school for the purposes of this bill. My question to you, is which would supercede?

The other question I have is what constitutes 'control' of a school?


Ok, fair question. Let's take the Catholic school for example. Very clearly the Catholic faith denouces homosexuality. It would be against the tenets of that organization to preach acceptance of such, don't you agree? As to who decides, well frankly, the Pope I would imagine. It differs for other organizations, but my interpretation of this would be that "Joe Religious Organization if running a school, decides whether or not this follows their teachings."

And "control" would be the governing body. One of my daughters attends a private school controlled by the Lutheran church. The other attends a public school controlled by a board of trustees.
User avatar
GG
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 am

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby Ben Kenobi » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:28 am

GG:

If there are no biological distinctions between boys and girls, what is the purpose of having separate washrooms or changerooms?
You got a dream, you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it. You want something? Go get it. Period.
User avatar
Ben Kenobi
FNA Teacher
FNA Teacher
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: Ho Ho Ho

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby GG » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:28 am

SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.6. "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality,
or bisexuality


\"Ben Kenobi\" wrote:There you go.


Absolutely. Level playing ground for everyone. Glad we agree on that one.
User avatar
GG
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 am

Wildfires sweep Southern California

Postby GG » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:30 am

\"Ben Kenobi\" wrote:GG:

If there are no biological distinctions between boys and girls, what is the purpose of having separate washrooms or changerooms?


Are you serious???

Girls washrooms have way superior toilet paper. Ask any guy who's had to duck into a female washroom.

Girl washrooms smell better too.

That's why there is a longer wait.
User avatar
GG
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to American News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron