Wednesday, April 19, 2006

California Bill to Promote Homosexuality in Schools

Senate Bill (SB) 1437, sponsored by Senator Sheila Kuehl, D- Los Angeles, would advance a deliberate biased message about homosexuality in California public schools and cease any open dialogue in the classroom on the issue of homosexuality. It would silence the Judeo-Christian worldview in the public schools. This so-called "tolerance" measure would hide the issue of homosexuality behind sexual identity and gender discrimination.

Specifically, SB 1437 would ban lessons, discussions and activities that reflect adversely upon one's sexual orientation under the guise of tolerance. While curriculum, instructional materials and teaching would be stripped of any negative messages about homosexuality, the teaching of traditional family views would not be tolerated.
Amendments were added last month that would require children to study the contributions of homosexuals to society. Just as they learn about the positive contributions of both men and women, black Americans, Mexicans and other cultural and ethnic groups, under SB 1437 children would learn the positive contributions "people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender" have made to California and the United States. If these historic figures were gay or not means little. Even recently, homosexual activists have claimed both Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ were homosexuals. History would not be reported but rewritten to fit an agenda.
This bill seeks to legitimize the pro-homosexual viewpoint and silences the traditional views of family. Homosexuality would be presented as a positive, accepted norm without any of the moral or health concerns expressed by many people. Stereotypical gender and traditional family roles would no longer be discussed in public schools, and everything - except the Christian viewpoint - would be protected under the guise of tolerance.
SB 1437 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 3-1 on April 4 and can come up for discussion any day beginning next week on the Senate floor.
  • For more information about SB 1437, go here.
  • Go to Family Research Council's website which informed me of this information to view other important topics.

12 Comments:

Blogger Christopher Robert said...

A list of famous homosexuals:
-Francis Bacon (both the philosopher and the artist)
-Newton (prefered men but because of religious views remained celibate)
-Oscar Wilde
-Andy Warhol
-Socrates
-Davinci
-Michaelangelo
-Allen Ginsberg
-J Edgar Hoover
-Tennessee Williams
-Christopher Marlowe
-Karl Ulrichs
-Emily Dickinson
-Thomas Mann
-Virginia Woolf
-Wittgenstein
-Rousseau and Kant were suggest to have been lovers
-Copland
-Margaret Mead
-Leonard Bernstein
-Truman Capote
-HLA Hart
-George Washington Carver
-Langston Hughes

Just to name a few. These are the ones who are confirmed or there is little debate.

2:24 PM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Christopher,
This list is great, but can't we just teach our children what these historical figures did in their lives and leave their sexual orientation out of it?

6:32 PM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Christopher, what's your source? Are you sure that all of these people were/are homosexuals? Maybe they just had some encounters to satisfy their sexual urges?

7:05 PM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger Christopher Robert said...

Very difficult when their lives were partially defined by their sexual orientation or when their works reflect their sexuality. We can teach children the wrong things, or we can teach children what is. We can practice revisionist history, but then are we an better than the Nazis or the Soviet Union?

Most of those are common knowledge and proven through first hand accounts and such things as letters. Most were public about their sexuality. Oscar Wilde was jailed for being a homosexual for example. Hoover lived with a man for most of his life who inherited everything, in addition to other clues on the man's sexuality. The same holds true for davinci. Da Vinci was also charged with sodomy by the vatican. The most questionable on the listed I stated as speculative though their is abounding evidence that it is true.

Some encounters is not spending ones life in the company of men.

11:54 PM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Chris,
Slow down here, your arguments are very irrational.

You said: "We can teach children the wrong things, or we can teach children what is."

The same irrational argument can be used about murder and rape. Do we need to teach children about these wrong things just because they occur and for some are a lifestyle because of a mental illness? What about transgenderism, do we teach 7 year olds about that too just because it is a lifestyle that exists?

Here in Massachusetts the people spoke out against a bill making sex education, along with homosexual curriculum, a mandatory graduation requirement and therefore the bill was trashed. People do not want their children learning these dangerous lifestyles, period.

You said: "We can practice revisionist history, but then are we any better than the Nazis or the Soviet Union?"

I am not sure how the issue of sexuality can be compared with genocidal behavior and communism. Enlighten me with this path you are taking.

Fornication and sodimy are illegal in most states in America because society, and their respective legislative pool, has come to the conclusion that these behaviors are dangerous. This is why Oscar Wilde and Da Vinci were reprimanded for their actions.


So I come to ask again Chris, why can't we just teach our children what these historical figures did in their lives and leave their sexual orientation out of it? Why do we always have to indoctrinate with an agenda?

7:14 AM, April 20, 2006  
Blogger Christopher Robert said...

We cannot because it would be like trying to seperate race from Martin Luther King Jr or if we had had a female president ignoring her gender. It would be like ignoring the religious arguments that Galileo and Copernicus were invovled in. It would be like ignoring Vangoghs mental illness. To ignore the life of the individuals is to lose sight of what the true value of the individual's work and accomplishments are. It is to ignore what they had to deal with to create their works.

The issue as you protray it seems to be not teaching about homosexuality, but ensuring age appropriate curriculum. A 7 year may not understand transexualism as they have yet to grasp the concept of gender fully, but they would understand a family with two mothers or two fathers. This is a seperate issue from teaching of homosexuality in schools. It also would help decrease the levels of depression and such that Tyler always suggests and I always reply that you find similar trends on anyone whose lifestyle is seem as wrong and meet daily stressors because of that which they cannot control. It would decrease discrimination, increase integration, and allow people to talk more freely. Individuals may potentially not have to hide their Self because of fear of ostracization or physical abuse.

As for sodomy laws, they are opportunistic. I have never heard of them being used on heterosexual couples, only homosexual. Even then, they cannot be used on homosexual women. This is a mark of how America was once and still is to a lesser degree a patriarchal country.

And the comparison is proper. To write homosexuality out of the histroy is to say it is perpetually something new and modern. To say it is a recent and deviant occruence, not something that exists in all of God's creatures.

10:15 AM, April 20, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Chris,

You said: "It is to ignore what they had to deal with to create their works."

I am not sure that what these historical figures did in the bedroom has anything to do with their accomplishments. I firmly do not remember learning about Newton's sexual preferences when learning about gravity. I do not remember learning about sexual orientations when reading the literary works of Socrates. Your statements once again do not add up to an argument. It is mere nonsense to suggest that someone's historical works were persuaded by their sexual orientation.

You said:"A 7 year (old) may not understand transexualism as they have yet to grasp the concept of gender fully, but they would understand a family with two mothers or two fathers. This is a separate issue from teaching of homosexuality in schools."

I think you just contradicted yourself. How can a 7 year old understand the concept of a family with two parents of the same sex when they don't even 'understand' gender fully but yet this issue is separate from teaching homosexuality in schools? This is homosexuality being taught at home never mind in school.

The homosexual curriculum in the school house or at home is a social experiment just like no-fault divorce was thirty years ago and look at how that has affected our society.

I agree with age appropriate curriculum as well, but to teach about a sexual orientation to kindergarten-aged children? Why do we need to LEARN about orientations?

Answer me one question Chris, what is gained from teaching children about homosexuality? Do not give me an answer in regards to the teachings of diversity or tolerance because that is taught at home and not by a teacher.

Also, do you feel that if and when a 7 year old grows up to an age that he or she can grasp their gender identity that they should then be taught about transgenderism?

Laws against sodomy have generally been used to persecute homosexual men although there have been rare prosecutions of married couples who engaged in "un-natural" sexual acts by over-zealous bigots and lunatics in positions of authority. So no, laws against sodomistic behaviors have not strictly been applied against homosexuals.

You said: “To write homosexuality out of the history is to say it is perpetually something new and modern."

We are not wanting to 'write homosexuality out ' of history. We just want our children to learn about the great achievements of the historical figures you have listed without a lesson on their sexual desires.

3:20 PM, April 20, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Wasn't Bill Clinton an adulterer? Perhaps we should make that part of the history lesson on this president?

:o

7:45 PM, April 21, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Oh, yes, and also John Kennedy. Yes, we need textbooks on adulterous presidents, because the fact that they committed adultery should be part of the teaching about their life.

All of a sudden, this list (of homosexuals in history) looks really silly...

7:46 PM, April 21, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Tyler,
I am laughing out loud!!! Very good point.

I think if we teach about all the women John Kennedy had then the ACLU will be a little more appreciative of the history lessons we teach our children. LOL!!!

9:13 PM, April 22, 2006  
Blogger jennifer said...

I heard this morning on the radio that the Senator who proposed this bill said that since she could not be re-elected she did not care what her constituents thought about this issue. She was going to push her agenda no matter what. What a sad statement. I hope Governor Schwarzenegger wakes up and does what he can to stifle this bill from becoming law in his state.

11:35 AM, April 27, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Jennifer,

I am not sure where the governor stands on this issue but since he wants to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and also would like to grant all of them amnesty I would think he supports SB 1437.

We will have to see.

6:19 AM, April 28, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com