It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee

And why would I have a problem with "Separate but Equal"

We're not talking "separate but equal" here... we are talking equal. No one receives any benefit from a marriage - no one! - under this proposal. How is that separate?

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

And why would I have a problem with "Separate but Equal"

We're not talking "separate but equal" here... we are talking equal. No one receives any benefit from a marriage - no one! - under this proposal. How is that separate?

TheRedneck


Having two separate words for the same thing is Separate

Marriage is marriage - period! - - a legal government license for protection of person and property when two join together as one.

The license already has an established name: marriage license.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee

The proposal under discussion does not allow two words for one thing. It removes the word marriage from secular arenas. There would be no more marriage license under this proposal, only a domestic partnership license.

One more time...

California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.
(emphasis mine)
Source: www.examiner.com...

I have to ask this: which group are you in? The one that just wants something to fight about and therefore will oppose anything that has a possibility of working, or the one that wants to rub the churches nose in something?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I totally missed this! I must spend more time on ATS and ignore my real life more!


It's a great idea! One I have also supported for years. Let the law refer to any domestic partnership on equal terms. And then if people want to use the word "marriage", they can. The state would issue a "Domestic Partnership License" to qualifying adults and then people could get "married" in their church or on the beach or in the woods by their chosen facilitator.

A brilliant move by these students! Let's hope it goes through and is adopted by all the states!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Let the law refer to any domestic partnership on equal terms. And then if people want to use the word "marriage", they can. The state would issue a "Domestic Partnership License" to qualifying adults and then people could get "married" in their church or on the beach or in the woods by their chosen facilitator.


You can't go backwards. If the government had used "domestic partnership" from the beginning - then there would not be a problem. But they didn't.

All that does is validate prejudice. "We can be married - but you can't"

Marriage is the legal established word - - and needs to remain the legal established word.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I have to ask this: which group are you in? The one that just wants something to fight about and therefore will oppose anything that has a possibility of working, or the one that wants to rub the churches nose in something?



I am for full Equal Rights - - I already have said that several times.

I already stated I would hold out for full Equal Wording - - not separation by "corrective measures" of coming up with a replacement word of an already established legal term word - marriage.

I know - - I use a very direct posting style - there is no way you could have missed my point in previous posts.

I have also made it perfectly clear I FULLY support separation of church and state. Therefore using church in anyway as leverage for argument is moot.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Good for California! I think that it is time for marriages to be taken out of the legal system. If I want to be married, I want to be married not contracted to the other person with a legally binding document.

I mean I believe it's everyone's god given right no matter what sexual preference to be with someone that completely makes them miserable. If that is your choice then so be it and good for you. I don't want the state to regulate it.

I think that ending the binding legal contract of marriage would cut down on the time courts have to take with separations and divorces by half. Many couples who divorce, do so easily. It's the court that screws up the separation.

Take Marriage away from the state and create a happier marriage.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Good for California! I think that it is time for marriages to be taken out of the legal system. If I want to be married, I want to be married not contracted to the other person with a legally binding document.


I flat out don't understand this thought.

There are plenty of people who live together in union without involving a legal license.

The license - like any other license - is for protection of rights.

I really don't understand why people can't separate the two.

It is individual choice whether to be licensed or not. Has nothing to do with the term word used.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee

I am for full Equal Rights - - I already have said that several times.

Yes, I know. This is not the first time we have discussed this general issue.


I already stated I would hold out for full Equal Wording - - not separation by "corrective measures" of coming up with a replacement word of an already established legal term word - marriage.

So... am I to understand that your definition of 'equal wording' is for your situation to be called a 'marriage', regardless of what anyone else's union is called?

THIS MEASURE OUTLAWS ALL LEGAL MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA. How much clearer can I be? No, you won't get a marriage license, because THERE WILL BE NO MORE LEGAL MARRIAGE. Now please tell me how that is somehow unfair to anyone?

Your argument is as ludicrous as complaining that you didn't get to have a Bar Mitzvah on your 13th birthday... well, of course not! You're not a male, and I am assuming you're not Jewish. You don't fit the requirements to have that religious ceremony performed. You do not have the right to demand that religions conform to your beliefs, Annee. Sorry, but you simply don't.


I have also made it perfectly clear I FULLY support separation of church and state. Therefore using church in anyway as leverage for argument is moot.

You support it as long as it fits your agenda apparently. You say you support separation of church and state (yes, for those of you in the know, I realize it's actually church from state, but let's not get into that right now), but when that separation doesn't suit you, you demand to continue an integration between the two?

Not a moot point at all. Your hypocrisy is beginning to show. You either believe that a religious marriage should be separate from a state-sanctioned legal marriage (which can be called 'alphabet soup' for all it matters), or you don't. Or, you simply make calls based on nothing more than what suits you better at the time. That's called 'hypocrisy'.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Marriage is the legal established word - - and needs to remain the legal established word.


Hi Annee.
I think you might be missing the point. I could be wrong, but let me explain and see if you're still against it.

This IS fully equal wording.


If this were to be adapted, from now on, anyone who wanted to enter into a domestic partnership, straight or gay, would get a "Domestic Partnership" License. Then they can go to wherever they like (church, courthouse or nature setting) and have the ceremony. ANY of them could say they were "married" or they got "married", it's just that the license and the law would call ALL of them domestic partnerships. The gay people's LEGAL union would be exactly the same as the straight people's. And anyone could use the word "married". It's just removed from the law altogether.

It's not like "You can get married and we can't." It's like "any of us can get a state-issued "domestic partnership license" and call it whatever we like.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
As a Californian, I fully support the idea of removing the term"Marriage" from the State's laws regarding the consenual union of two people.

If "Marriage" is a term which, if applied to unions various religious entities find objectionable when applied to unions counter to their beliefs and practices, the Law is flexible to accomodate.

However, religious considerations should never be considered as the basis For a law, or for the application of a law; at least not in an avowed pluralistic, secular society.



My only concern with "removing the term 'Marriage' from the law", and replacing it with some other "secular" term is how such a legal fiat will affect the implicit reciprocity the term "Marriage" currently enjoys in other jurisdictions.

How , for example, will a California-based "Civil/Domestic Partnership" be treated under the laws related to "Marriage" in say, Nebraska? Will a "Married" couple from Ohio have the same rights and priviledges they have come to expect in their home state as a domestically partnered couple enjoy in California?

Perhaps it is concerns such as these that drive those seeking the unbiased application of the term "Marriage" to All consenting couples, regardless of gender. Currently a lagal marriage in one state is recognized as a marriage in all states, generally speaking. If California substitutes another term for the legal union of two people, it de facto coerces all other jurisdictions to do likewise.

Or face the constitutional challenge of inequal treatment under the law, which was the California State Supreme Court's reason for allowing "Gay Marriage" in the first place.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Annee
Marriage is the legal established word - - and needs to remain the legal established word.


Hi Annee.
I think you might be missing the point. I could be wrong, but let me explain and see if you're still against it.

This IS fully equal wording.


If this were to be adapted, from now on, anyone who wanted to enter into a domestic partnership, straight or gay, would get a "Domestic Partnership" License.


I am not missing the point. The Curse of Ham was once used to justify blacks being cursed by god - and therefore not equal.

Not using an already established term "marriage" - - makes anything else not equal.

Religious people will continue to gloat that marriage is better and more worthy then any replacement term.

It would never be Equal in minds. If the term "marriage" is continued to be used for ALL - - - society will eventually adjust.

If the term marriage is given special status - - there will never be equality. It continues to create division.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Hi Annee.
I think you might be missing the point. I could be wrong, but let me explain and see if you're still against it.



No, you are the one missing the point, Annee understands all this minutia, she understands that removing the word marriage isn't what most gays want done, they WANT the word marriage. What you don't seem to understand is what why.

I have said it before but this isn't about that, it is about the unsaid part of this Gays simply don't mention and that is the "Legitimacy" they think the word marriage will give to same sex cohabitation.

The part Neither Redneck gets OR you is from a religious standpoint Redneck should know better than to suggest anyone endorse this kind of union including the Government. Having said that, the Government has its own reasons for being reticent in allowing marriage the same way it is for same sex couples. When you begin to understand why, then perhaps you would know changing the word and taking away a legal term in favor of another will not make them happy and will be unfair to those who have it now as they deserve and rightfully so all the rights and benefits the word marriage stands for.

There is absolutely NO reason for government to encourage ANY other type of union. Same-sex unions by NATURE will not produce biological offspring. At best any children will be related only to ONE of the parents, leaving the other with no bond who could easily leave. More often neither parent has a biological attachment and the arguments for a fringe few that may adopt are so insignificant shown by the numbers themselves where the only thing that went up was divorce rates.


There are no precedents in recorded history where advanced civilisations have endured based on temporary relationships. Neither are there any advanced civilisations which have endured where marriage has been equated with temporary relationships.

If that sounds like I am saying Gays represent transient relationships as 90% will be unencumbered to "split" when the going gets rough.

It is agued that "Civil partnership is not a threat to marriage" merely an alternative for those who want it.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

A bill like this would radically undermine the position of marriage in our legal system in a way that no other single measure has ever done and it would be a disaster. Same sex marriages have ALWAYS been a disaster when recognised and supported by Governments throughout history and calif would be no exception.

If the Gay community had the sense to understand this they would not be arguing for this kind of thing in the first place as it undermines our future and has created a breakdown of familes and the entire society.

Government's interest in marriage benevolent, is based on marriage being the foundation of a prosperous society. For societies to prosper, or even continue, reproduction is necessary, and it is best if this reproduction occurs in stable, committed homes. Putting a stamp of approval on same sex marriage discredits the whole reason the government should be involved in marriage at all and annee, this is why the Government is involved in marriage between one woman and one man. It has NO interest in Gay relationships as they are inherently destructive to society and contribute nothing to the future of our society in the for of taxpaying working and contributing offspring. Invent mutual Love contracts if you want but leave marriage ALONE!

This afterall is what the people said in the last vote.

Marriage is a public commitment, not a private liaison. The married family is profoundly important for a stable society. Why the REST of you should understand that the Government's interest in marriage is based on marriage being the foundation of a prosperous society. And "marriage" in that regard is the biological conjoining of opposite-sex partners, who will then procreate and raise offspring under their care and nurture.

Children are conceived through heterosexual intercourse. The most basic unit of society. Marriage is not an arbitrary construct annee, it is an honorable "estate"' based on the different, complementary nature of one man and one women.

Annee's argument this is about taking rights away from people is true but it isn't gays that would have their rights eroded. It is heterosexual married people and she should be ashamed of herself her motives are purely selfish and her logic to advocate such measures is fallacious. The Church understands this about marriage and so does the Government and is why they don't extend these privileges to every one with a lover or companion.

I'd like to have my dog hang out with me in a restaurant but the law says I cannot yet a blind person can and that's not fair. Disabled parking spaces are a necessary privilege for disabled people who have a disabled parking permit. If you extend the privilege of free parking in disabled parking spaces to able-bodied people, then you have taken away the privilege from those it belongs to. There is no longer any special recognition for disabled people. Allowing anyone to park in disabled parking spaces does not extend a benefit, it erodes a right.

Religion recognizes this patent truth about marriage and has revered it and Governments have also learned you don't mess with marriage, you leave it alone, both with how the Government treats it AND Church. It is this way for a reason and the reasons are sound and they have absolutley NOTHING to do with Hatred or gays not being accepted.



Other forms of cohabitation including same sex were given the same status as marriage, and provided for easy divorce, but either these moves had to be reversed within a few years, as in Revolutionary Russia and France, had to do or the civilisation itself collapsed as we saw lenin wrestle with as he tried desperately to re-instate hereosexual marriages rightful place and exalted status. This is why is doing the right thing is better than doing the progressive thing and also why doing the right thing is often hardest thing to do. It means being the target for being called names like bigot and hater, or religious whacko even when you may not be a member of any.

It means being seen as intolerant and when it comes to this we really have seen who the intolerant really are, it is the same community of self indulgence and selfish self serving agenda using venom and vitriolic laced signs and vendetta assaulting church's using violence and intimidation to advance their political ideology and to increase their numbers they need more of them so in the State of Mass. not long after marriage became the same for gays having the same status as a legitimate term for family and society, they were given all the rights thereof and when they say it had nothing to do with others and no harm would come of this. How naive the Bostonians were in allowing THIS to occur and it will be much worse in Calif.

Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.

They will deny this and perhaps even see this post as hate speech but the statistics and the math doesn't lie. The reasons they will call a post like mine hate speech is for the very information in it they would rather you not see, while they continue to organize under the radar as one of Bostons leading Gay Rights activists has instructed them.

I suggest any straight men and woman try visiting the castro and check out a bath house or a gay night club and see for yourself the kind of behavior you see there. Then ask yourself, do YOU want your children in schools learning about this kind of lifestyle all behind the guise of teaching them this stuff so they won't hate gays later on.

Do you really think gays care if straights accept them? What about straight's who want to cohabitate in this way? Again their are sound reasons Marriage is an institution that not only needs to be protected, it needs more of us to stop siding with couples gay and straights who think this idea is such a great one and start waking up to the reality of how silly this idea is and how potentially disastrous this attitude of free love with benefits has been.

Only 17 per cent of cohabitations survive 5 years or more and only 7 per cent last 10 years or more. Gay relationships are far worse than that but 60 per cent of marriages last for life.

what is true for the majority has been called a 'myth' by a minority like annee.

Do you think she cares about what we think?

NOPE. what gays like this care about is getting youth introduced to it and to try it that they may even like it! Thus sparring them from all that closeted self hate and low self esteem. The fact is, guy's will do it if social constructs without peer pressure to discourage it, have proven bi-sexual numbers increase and along with it as in Mass especially among minorities, AIDS rates have sharply risen among hispanics and blacks who just happen to be Bisexual.

Gay bashing increased exponentially and invariably, the basher doing the bashing was the love interest in a gay marriage. It seems for a people that demands we all be tolerant, Gays are obviously the most intolerant people of the opposite sex from each other you would have never known about save for a half hour of surfing gay and lesbian websites where you would be shocked the time and energy they put into hating the opposite sex. I saw this myself watching the man hater in this thread on another thread about abortion and that person knows who they are.


The gays in boston used their new marriage and family status to effect public policy in all the school districts and now we see literature promoting sexual education having nothing to do with reproduction but how to have safe sex and the pamphlets are quite alarming.

These were printed at taxpayers expense and if you think this wasn't a direct result of gay marriage in the state of Mass, all you need to is ask any straight person how much things have changed there and most will tell you,, it is a mess.






the family is our future and all of us depend on it and to mess with it, is to care more for the lesser few contributing nothing but parades with men dressed as woman and picket signs saying Kill Jesus, rather than the greater good and future of our nation.

It is for THIS reason, Marriage is a construct of our society where the gamble is on children, it is based on heterosexual biology,, not the homosexuals,

self indulgent

ideology.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I can't even start in on that post, it was so bizarre.

I do not think that the Russian Revolution was a failure due to gay marriage, though


And maybe the Massachusetts legislature has just finally recognized the need for domestic violence support for gay couples, which has existed for decades if not forever.

*editing this sentence because I decided to report after all. Just because I support gay marriage and gay rights does not mean that I think it's okay to post a poster discussing detailed sexual practices - homosexual or heterosexual - on ATS.*


Where were they actually distributed in real life, by the way? On a web site that does its best to provide an experience that is appropriate for browsing by any age? Somehow I doubt it. Let me guess: a university health service? Maybe a health clinic in a largely gay neighborhood?

Wow.

 


Okay, I do want to address one item in your post in a more serious manner.

You talk about gay marriage as though it is the same thing as gay cohabitation. It's not. Most people who support gay marriage support just that - gay marriage. It would be a life joining of two people, just as heterosexual marriage is. It would usually involve a more or less total melding of assets, with all the implications that has.

Citing statistics for how long gay cohabitations last as evidence for how long gay marriages would last is like citing how long straight cohabitations last in a discussion of how long straight marriages last. It's absurd.

There is a different expectation in our society between living together and marriage. You may not like this, but it's true. Maybe allowing gay marriage as a distinct form of relationship from living together would even help restore some of the importance that straight people give to the institution of marriage.

I understand the points that you have made about the importance of language and the danger of just changing a word in terms of the repercussions that has in a purely legal sense. That is a valid argument for thinking very hard and consulting with good lawyers and other experts before changing the law. It is not an argument against changing the law though.

You are dead wrong about why society supports marriage, at least from an anthropological standpoint. A popular theory in cultural anthropology is that the institution of marriage arises out of the need to form trade relationships with other groups, whether they be kin groups or tribes. Bride exchange is the earliest form of diplomacy -- that's where marriage originally got its importance according to most anthropologists.

And "it has never worked in the past" is not a logical proof that it will never work in the future. To begin with, the conditions in the past were never what they are now. Next, "it" has never been tried in the past. Not what we're discussing, which is allowing gay couples access to an institution that is already in existence and does not need to be redefined. The French and Russian revolutions both involved attempts to fundamentally redefine "bourgeois" "capitalist" personal relations. Supporters of gay marriage just want to let gays have those same relations.


[edit on 3/16/2009 by americandingbat]

[edit on 3/16/2009 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

And maybe the Massachusetts legislature has just finally recognized the need for domestic violence support for gay couples, which has existed for decades if not forever.

I thought about reporting the T&C violations of the images you include, but decided you probably wanted children to see them, since it serves your purpose.

Where were they actually distributed in real life, by the way? On a web site that does its best to provide an experience that is appropriate for browsing by any age? Somehow I doubt it. Let me guess: a university health service? Maybe a health clinic in a largely gay neighborhood?

Wow.



First it doesn't surprise me YOU of all people would think such a post was Bizaar, nor would it surprise me you thought of Mod alerting. I would gladly trade your feelings of being offended for my outrage seeing this kind of thing ANYDAY! Not that their is any images gays would be offended by when almost all their websites are laced with sex talk and porn but I think it's important that Parents get to see EXACTLY what their tax dollars are paying for and on March 2, 2009, Handouts given to kids during "gay day".



On Dec. 17, 2008, Newton North High School, in Newton, MA held a school-wide "Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Awareness Day", which included an entire day of homosexual-related presentations, workshops, and activities.

It was paid for with tax dollars



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

First it doesn't surprise me YOU of all people would think such a post was Bizaar, nor would it surprise me you thought of Mod alerting.


I'm not quite sure what I've done to earn this, but okay then. Yup, I thought it was bizarre. And after going back and forth with my conscience for a while I decided to alert the mods. Mostly because I respect the guidelines this site has, but also because I have friends here who are on ATS while their young children are around.

I didn't find the posters personally offensive, but they certainly were inappropriate for any child who is too young to understand sex. And more important, they are in flagrant violation of the Terms and Conditions of this site.


I would gladly trade your feelings of being offended for my outrage seeing this kind of thing ANYDAY! Not that their is any images gays would be offended by when almost all their websites are laced with sex talk and porn


I confess I don't spend that much time on gay-targeted web sites. But I guess I know which kind you like to visit.


but I think it's important that Parents get to see EXACTLY what their tax dollars are paying for and on March 2, 2009, Handouts given to kids during "gay day".


Now I'm confused. Are you saying that the poster that hopefully by now has been removed was given to schoolchildren on March 2? Of what age and grade? To all children or only to children who approached the school nurse with relevant concerns?

You do see the difference, don't you? Actually, don't answer that: it would be totally off topic, since it has nothing to do with committed partnerships between two adult homosexuals.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
I'm not quite sure what I've done to earn this, but okay then. Yup, I thought it was bizarre. And after going back and forth with my conscience for a while I decided to alert the mods. Mostly because I respect the guidelines this site has, but also because I have friends here who are on ATS while their young children are around.


This is hysterical as my posts have nothing on them that hasn't been judged age appropriate for children 14 - 18 but I bet they might find your avatar a scandalous bit risque




I didn't find the posters personally offensive, but they certainly were inappropriate for any child who is too young to understand sex.


Yet Obama added an addendum to an Illinois senate bill to educate kingergartners on sex education and they teach transgenderism in gradeschool. You say you care about children then you insult me with the innuendo about what websites I frequent?


I confess I don't spend that much time on gay-targeted web sites. But I guess I know which kind you like to visit.


Are YOU a parent? Do you ever check to see what YOUR kids are surfing? Or are you afraid someone like YOU would insult you when you try to explain what is out there and what kind of agenda the gay community in Calif has plans for in our public schools.

I agree sex like this is not appropriate for children so if you are serious quit thinking about how bizaar this is and CHECK IT YOURSELF if you don't believe me.


but I think it's important that Parents get to see EXACTLY what their tax dollars are paying for and on March 2, 2009, Handouts given to kids during "gay day".





Now I'm confused. Are you saying that the poster that hopefully by now has been removed was given to schoolchildren on March 2? Of what age and grade? To all children or only to children who approached the school nurse with relevant concerns?



This is given to all children during gay day in massachussets which is a day the gay community with their new married status has been given more than equal rights, they even have their own day and a flag for that day to be flown just beneath the state flag.




This is to show why anyone thinking it is going to stop at marriage is nuts. In fact that is only the beginning of a long and detailed agenda they have for states government and most of it is beyond anything we might think is "copaesthetic" even easy to change gender drivers licenses





]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
This is hysterical as my posts have nothing on them that hasn't been judged age appropriate for children 14 - 18 but I bet they might find your avatar a scandalous bit risque


And I have friends whose children under the age of ten are frequently in the room with them while they are on ATS. I noticed you took one of the two images down; in my opinion the second one is also in violation of T&C, since a four-letter-word that begins with "f" appears on it, and I don't mean one that also refers to a hand.

If you think that my avatar is in violation of T&C, feel free to report it. I did Photoshop it to provide some coverage.




I didn't find the posters personally offensive, but they certainly were inappropriate for any child who is too young to understand sex.


Yet Obama added an addendum to an Illinois senate bill to educate kingergartners on sex education and they teach transgenderism in gradeschool. You say you care about children then you insult me with the innuendo about what websites I frequent?


What they teach in kindergarten sex ed is not which specific sexual practices have what sort of risk of sexually transmitted disease. When I was in fourth grade, we got a little book called "Love, Sex, and Growing Up" in school. It covered a whole range of stuff, including the different parts that boys and girls have, and how we could expect those things to change soon. That's sex ed. Kindergarteners probably learn that boys and girls have different parts and that it's not a good idea to kick a boy there. "Teaching" transgenderism means talking about how boys and girls are different, both the ways that they really are different and the misconceptions that some people about them being different (like girls are bad at math, say), and also teaching them that sometimes a person identifies on the inside with the other gender from what they are on the outside.

You posted illustrated material about specific sexual practices with information on what order should be used to lessen the risk of HIV transmission. Despite your hysterics, that is not what's going to happen in a kindergarted sex ed class.

Teenagers are sexually active themselves and need very different information.



I confess I don't spend that much time on gay-targeted web sites. But I guess I know which kind you like to visit.


Are YOU a parent? Do you ever check to see what YOUR kids are surfing? Or are you afraid someone like YOU would insult you when you try to explain what is out there and what kind of agenda the gay community in Calif has plans for in our public schools.


No, I'm not a parent. If I were, I would check to see what my kids were surfing, yes. If I found that they were surfing gay porn, I would have a look at the security settings on the computer and a talk with the child, which would very much depend on what age that child was.

If I caused you fear, I apologize. If you are getting your information about the gay community in California from porn sites, then I recommend setting your Google preferences to "moderate safe browsing". You will get a much more mainstream view of the world.


I agree sex like this is not appropriate for children so if you are serious quit thinking about how bizaar this is and CHECK IT YOURSELF if you don't believe me.


What I find so bizarre is that you would bring a poster like that onto a web site that does not even allow cursing. I have by the way been unable to locate the source of that particular pamphlet (though I did temporarily take my Google search off "moderate safe browsing" to try
)




Now I'm confused. Are you saying that the poster that hopefully by now has been removed was given to schoolchildren on March 2? Of what age and grade? To all children or only to children who approached the school nurse with relevant concerns?



This is given to all children during gay day in massachussets which is a day the gay community with their new married status has been given more than equal rights, they even have their own day and a flag for that day to be flown just beneath the state flag.


You mean the poster that I objected to was given to all school children? Or the one you posted in your reply? Cause the one in the reply looks perfectly okay to me, but the one with the discussion of fisting, rimming, water sports, oral sex and plain-vanilla anal sex under another name is not appropriate for kids under 14.


This is to show why anyone thinking it is going to stop at marriage is nuts. In fact that is only the beginning of a long and detailed agenda they have for states government and most of it is beyond anything we might think is "copaesthetic" even easy to change gender drivers licenses


How hard is it to change gender on a drivers license now? I know it's a pain in the neck to change address, but mostly that's better now that you can do it online.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


You know one of the most successfull strategy gay's have used to stay under the radar is to act all offended by their own publications in townhall meetings where parents get such diluted and carefully edited "safe" information they never really "get it" it just doesn't get the outrage until it is too late and children start showing up with AIDS and Children start getting sex changes at ages that are deplorable all funded and supported by married gays of Mass the ACLU the GLESS and GLAD Gay orgs etc,.



This all started to happen after gay marriage was recognized by the state and it is only getting,, how do I say this??

Oh I know,,

BIZAAR



Time to shut down homosexual clubs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 02, 2008
1:00 am Eastern


By Linda Harvey
© 2009


When are public health officials going to intervene and shut down homosexual clubs and other pro-homosexual programs in our schools?

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control released a report on HIV/AIDS diagnoses between 2001 and 2006. The data revealed that HIV diagnoses rose over 12 percent annually among MSM – that's males having sex with males – in the 13 to 24 age group. Among all MSM, HIV/AIDS diagnoses are up over 8 percent during that time period (an estimated 1.5 percent annually).

Did you get that? Each year, 12 percent more boys and young men were diagnosed with HIV. The trend is straight uphill. Yet homosexual activist groups like GLSEN and PFLAG, in lockstep with the ACLU and even Planned Parenthood, convince educators that safe-sex condom demonstrations, "gay straight alliances," and tolerance and diversity lessons are necessary "support" for those who are presumably born to engage in this behavior.

Our beautifully designed 14-year-old boys were created to have anal sex? Right.

It's no accident that the numbers are rising so sharply. It's the predictable result of an incessant homosexuality promotion campaign to our youth, both in schools and in the media, with few or no opposing viewpoints allowed. The message to Christians and conservatives in schools is: "Remain quiet – we don't need your hate." Well, when are we going to spare our young men all this "love" being showered on them? It may be fatal.

Ironically, last week in Irmo, S.C., the school board caved to lawyers and activist pressure and voted to establish a homosexual club, in spite of high school principal Eddie Walker's announcement he will leave over the issue. The board made one smart move. It will require parental permission for kids to join up, a policy that frustrated homosexual sympathizers. They hate sexual restraint and parental oversight. Better to just continue to allow our young to self-destruct without all that pesky parental interference.

But the club should have been voted down. You would think our side could come up with a legal strategy to halt the pro-"gay" freight train rolling over our young. Like Centers for Disease Control statistics. Or the clear lack of evidence of a biological origin for homosexuality. Even the pro-homosexual American Psychological Association admits this:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …
But instead of going back to basics and common sense, the Irmo board predictably did what most school boards are now doing: believing that they "must" allow a homosexual club to comply with the requirements of the Equal Access Act, or EAA. Some of these school board members call themselves Christians (I know this from being party to some of the community e-mail exchanges), but apparently, the word "abomination" is not in their Bibles.

They and their attorneys have drunk the Kool-Aid and accepted the notion (deftly crafted by homosexual legal groups like the ACLU) that this club is a "viewpoint" and thus deserves to be established on an equal footing with all other school non-curricular clubs.

But in the face of this CDC data, and the EAA itself, this is foolishness. The EAA does not even mention "gay straight alliances," since it was passed in the mid-1980s before such child-endangering insanity began. The law prohibits restrictions of clubs based on religious, political, philosophical or other speech. But homosexuality is not a viewpoint. It's a known high-risk, traditionally immoral behavior. By cleverly changing the language and repositioning anal sex to become a free speech issue, the legal eagles of child corruption have snookered countless public schools, with the assistance of activist judges and courts.

The EAA allows for exceptions to clubs that would endanger student welfare and safety. It also allows for exceptions if a club would be disruptive. Both are easy to prove in the case of "gay straight alliances." They are historically disruptive; they advocate a lifestyle that is not biologically determined; and they clearly endanger student health and well-being.

No, what's really needed here is the department of public health. That and some lawyers who are at least as courageous as those of the deviant sex lobby. We have a wealth of data on our side – why are there so few lawyers willing to put it to good use? If the other side had taken this wimpy and vision-less approach, there would be few such clubs and fewer young men corrupted and diseased.

Don't we have any lawyers out there who have a background in public health? Or who know a scientist or two? Do homosexuals have more gumption than our current fathers and grandfathers do?

As a mom, I am going to ask the obvious: Where are the men? Does it take us moms to protect our boys? Why can't – or won't – the men do this?



Better wake up parents



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Just one comment:


why are there so few lawyers willing to put it to good use?


Because a) homosexuality is not a behavior and b) the law is on their side.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join