CaptainCourtesy

In bold. As I said, hysterics that were never stated in the bill. People claiming to be 'family values' groups whose agenda is really more about discrimination, presenting the 'mom and dad' argument in order to, completely inaccurately, create fear. Misinformation and misdirection, nothing more.

SB777 is anti-discrimination legislation. It is irrelevant whether there has been discrimination. This bill addresses it...that's all.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

The silenced majority

If "family values" groups are pro-discrimination and seeking to mis-inform for not wanting this type of Stalinist bill to go through, perhaps those who are in favor of this bill could point out some specific incidents where gay or transgendered students have been discriminated by some portion of the current California public (or private) school system's curriculum thereby needing it to be addressed by law.

__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”. ~ Samuel Adams

CaptainCourtesy

I have already challenged those against the bill to show evidence that it purports the disinformation that the original article presents. Your own post shows that it is nothing but hysterical disinformation with underpinnings of discrimination.

Please show how the bill eliminates 'mom and dad'.

The silenced majority

That's funny, I've already showed where the bill will most certainly allow boys to go into girls' bathrooms and vice/versa. Did you miss that?

The bill doesn't itself remove any mentioning of "mom and dad" in the classroom or school books. It simply lays the groundwork for a time when the the California school system will have no choice but to remove it or face endless litigation.

The supporters of this type of legislation don't need to ban any mention of "mom and dad" in the bill, when the bill itself will provide legal avenues for parents (or students) to sue their school if "mom and dad" are mentioned in what could be viewed by the student in a "superior" way; condescending to gays and the transgendered.

Are you denying that may be a distinct outcome given this new legislation?

CaptainCourtesy

I saw where you 'claimed' it inferred that. I disagree with the interpretation and didn't see where it identified that, specifically. I reject that this is what the part you bolded in the bill meant.

Slippery slope fallacy.

More slippery slope. The bill levels the playing field. Identifying 'mom and dad' is just as acceptable as identifying 'mom and mom'.

Absolutely.

jallman

Well that's a bit hysterical now, isn't it? Who is teaching anyone that having a mother and a father isn't a good thing? It would behoove you, if you want to make an intelligent argument to dispense with the hyperbole and approach the subject with a little clarity and ummmm...honesty.

__________________
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...amaSigcopy.jpg

CaptainCourtesy

Nice cherry picking of my quotes. If you're not going to be honest with what you respond to, why respond?

CaptainCourtesy

Hysterics. Where are schools teaching that heterosexuality is abnormal or are banning it's teaching? Please provide evidence.

Furthermore, societal norms are irrelevant when it comes to the prevention of discrimination.

Sure, That's not what's happening here.

The silenced majority

It says that if a boy thinks he's a girl, he can go in to the girl's restroom; otherwise, it's discrimination .

How can you not see that?




Nice.

I'd call it a clearly laid groundwork, but if you want to play that game so be it.

Why did they need to extend the classification of groups protected by hate-crimes legislation to students in high school where no current demonstrable patterns of discrimination exist?

Usually there are reasons/causes for establishing law. If the reason for the bill was to prevent discrimination on specific basis's, why does there seem to be no specific cases to point to in order to justify going ahead with such legislation?



So you're in agreement that the real reason for this bill was to inject lifestyle advocacy in to the California school system all the while eliminating the ability of opponents to question or object to it?



When you've elevated the status of one or more particular groups by telling them to report anything taught in school that may offend them due to their sexual orientation or gender identity so that the matter can be handled by law; what do you expect is going to happen?

1069

I don't really care if there are separate bathrooms for girls and boys.
I've always used mens bathrooms whenever I feel like it.
If the ladies room is occupied, or is dirty, or whatever... I just go in the mens.
Nobody's ever bothered me, or complained.

There are plenty of public places that only have one bathroom, or that have two bathrooms, neither of which is designated "male" or "female".
Most of us don't have a problem using these.
I don't see what the big freakin' issue is.

Students that act up in the restroom will be subject to disciplinary action, regardless of their sex, and regardless of which bathroom they're in.
There are already gay students in school, using the same bathroom as the straight kids.
If parents haven't already "pulled their children out of school" because of this, I don't see why they would because of SB777.
Hell, thirty years ago these same folks would've been kicking up a fuss about racially integrated schools, racially integrated bathrooms.
Guess what? Your kids now use the same bathrooms as children of other races, and there's no problem.
The sky didn't fall, the world didn't end, after all.
And that was an issue that people felt so strongly about that they were willing to resort to physical violence over it.
I'm sure this little tempest in a teapot will blow over, too; the fund-bots will get used to it or leave; if they choose to leave, they'll become even more isolated and alienated from- and irrelevant to- mainstream society than they already are. Which is fine with me.
And everyone else will enjoy more tolerant school experiences, which is definitely a positive thing.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."