California’s indoctrination of children reaches new lows

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by Annee

 

Women were property - they had no rights. They were sold/bartered - - used to strengthen political alliances etc. Legal Marriage is a government contract (no god or sanctity of marriage involved). The legal contract is to protect the rights/property of individuals joining together as a single unit/family. It affords certain privileges and tax breaks not afforded by any other means.

As the Bible states, you(husband), are to treat and respect your wife as you do the Bible,church, Jesus. A pretty simple quote as to how to hold your wife up to the same respect as God. Go look it up, It is not verbatim from me, but gives you the basis.
Yes, it also states a woman should submit to her husband, but when looking at the entire text from that section, a man must do the same as a give and take on both parties.

As for the legal contract....screw the lawyers and the government. I was married by neither, I was married in front of our Lord and committed myself to him, not any POS lawyer or Government entity.

I payed a tax to the state of Pa. for their useless piece of paper

I have zero interest in what the bible says.

I don't care if you were married by Zeus.

America is a secular country. A legal government marriage license is secular. Any god belief is irrelevant.

reply to post by Annee


Then why do you even care about marriage? It was well established before this government and lawyers BS.
Of course you do not care about the Bible, it is easier to discount any opposition to most Christian's beliefs by denying it all together.

Originally posted by Jiggyfly


This is to prevent people from saying "look at this gay man, he killed someone. Aren't gay people awful?" in the classroom. It is also to prevent the omission of important figures, such as Alexander the Great, Socrates, John Keynes (that's for all you job creator types) and others simply because they played for the wrong team.

Hmmmm.

With that line of thinking,

California will be the first state to make it mandatory for students to adhere to "honor killings",and respect those who BELIEVE that its right to do so.History dictates it.


Step further?

That joining a gang is rich in Americana Lore,and in California,is the norm. Weekly "gang color day" will be introduced in EVERY California school,as not to offend the many gangs that rule California.


Lets NOT offend everyone,right?
Sheesh..............

reply to post by seabag


Tyrannical global hideousness abounds and strikes again.

What an outrage.

I hope folks take their kids into home schooling en masse. Not easy in this economy. Sigh.

Originally posted by seabag

Well of course CA wouldn't want that in their text books. That would be conservative and moral, everything CA is against.

And here we see your bias shining bright as day. Anyone not conservative is immoral.

Why do our children need to know that specific person was gay? Who gives a sh#t about the historical figures sexual orientation? What is so inadequate about discussing and teaching the students about the contributions and accomplishments of the historical figure, that we need to include what sex that person likes to sleep with?


Thanks for saying how it is. We don't need to hear about someone's sex life and sure as hell don't want our children hearing about it. Fortunately, my children are grown and in their last year of High School or I would be pulling them out.

Complete insanity that can only be described as liberalist extremism from the epicenter of madness, California.
I fear the madness from the liberals on both Coasts has taken a costly toll on our Nation. One we will not likely recover from, and have no doubt our demise will be pinpointed to the rampant chaos complete moral decay caused by the degenerate "progressive". They talk about witch hunts yet are some of the most blatant hypocrites I've ever seen,willing to sacrifice your freedom for the promises of a government who panders to them in return for their vote. They possess no logic or reasoning. No rational mind would think they way they do and no one with an ounce of dignity or honor would conduct themselves in the manner of a far left liberal.
Most of these people I've found are extremely cowardly and expect the government to protect and provide for them instead of them fending for themselves.
The greedy lawyers and bankers,corrupt judges and bureaucrats alike all worshiping the dollar and drunk with power, they all profit and fulfill their sick needs with aid of their ignorant loudmouth lefty footsoldier.
The reason they get away with it is because most people have been harassed for years by the mentally abnormal and manipulative left. Seeping into the fabric of our country and leeching away at values and morale.
You know these people too,they lack any direction,void of independent thinking, generally resort to profanity and misdirection when asked to answer a question.

Yup, this place is nuts!

It will be 2 years in January I have been here in So CA.

You should see how they drive. One going 40 all the way out on the left (four lanes wide), guy zooming around on the right at 90 MPH. The took out a motorcycle cop on the shoulder about a year ago doing that. Killed the cop.

Oh, and we have the "dream act". Stop the dream act site link here

We send the illegals to university when we have not enough money or seats for the natives.

Oh well, gotta make a living. At least I can do that here, for the moment.

List of nutty new laws for CA 2012 here

Child Booster Seat Law (8 year olds must be in a car seat)
Employment Credit Check Law ( employer can not check your credit)
California Handgun Open Carry Law
California Human Trafficking Law
California Gay Bullying Law (Seth's Law)
LGBT Equality and Equal Access in Higher Education Law
Domestic Partnership Equality Law
Protection of Parent-Child Relationships Law
Transgender Non-Discrimination Law
Transgender Vital Statistics Law
LGBT Equal Benefits Law
Judicial Applicant and Appointment Demographics Inclusion Law
Gay Divorce Law
California Gay History Law
Internet Sales Tax
California Renters Right to Recycling Law
California Reader Privacy Law
New DUI Checkpoint Vehicle Impound Law (can not impound for failure to have a DL, helps illegals )
California Male Circumcision Law (not making this up)
Mandatory DMV Organ Donation Answer

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by Annee

 

Then why do you even care about marriage? It was well established before this government and lawyers BS.
Of course you do not care about the Bible, it is easier to discount any opposition to most Christian's beliefs by denying it all together.

Again - Legal Marriage is a government contract for protection of person/property joining together as one unit/family.

It is a contract that affords certain benefits that are not available by any other means.

Equal Rights shall not exclude a minority.

Separate by Equal is never acceptable.

Real reasons - - - not personal emotions or belief.

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by Annee

 

Then why do you even care about marriage? It was well established before this government and lawyers BS.
Of course you do not care about the Bible, it is easier to discount any opposition to most Christian's beliefs by denying it all together.

I was raised Christian.

I know Christian belief.

Originally posted by sonnny1

That joining a gang is rich in Americana Lore,and in California,is the norm. Weekly "gang color day" will be introduced in EVERY California school,as not to offend the many gangs that rule California.

And how long have you lived in California?

reply to post by kozmo


Hi Coz -

All very well, of course, but it seems to me that (at least in the US) 'EQUALITY & JUSTICE for ALL' means 'EQUALITY & JUSTICE for ALL', and that includes the legal right for BOTH gays and straights to marry.

Oh, and speaking of David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 20:30 (and 2 Sam chapter 1) bi-sexuals too...

But enough about Dick Cheney and his openly Lesbian Daughter (now a proud adoptive mother !!)

Originally posted by DrChuck
Right-wing extremism? You think I'm planning a massive genocide of homosexuals because I think they are sub-human? Sheesh, say one thing that seems against homosexuality and your branded a evil horrifying tyrant.

I'm not complaining about someones sexual orientation in a history book, sometimes it is necessary to know every aspect of a given historical figure to fully comprehend the decisions they made. There are PLENTY of history textbooks that mentions homosexuality at the college level and beyond, where it might be necessary to understand the dynamics of the figure or a culture.

Its the part where they put it in childrens textbooks I have a problem with.

edit on 5-1-2012 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

First off, the post above your quote was directed towards the OP, not you. His post reads out like something a far-right radio host would say. The post underneath your quote was directed towards you.

Secondly, the people complaining about homosexuality being mentioned in textbooks, are the reasons why it's being mentioned in textbooks to begin with, which is why I said that. Sorry about accusing you of being homophobe.

Back to the subject at hand (sort of), so what exactly is the problem with having homosexuality taught in children's textbooks? Because I really can't see any other reason behind the opposition to homosexuality being mentioned in textbooks other than homophobia, especially when you see how often kids are exposed to heterosexuality in comparison.

Originally posted by Aeons
I presume that you are a socialist then.

No

You are incorrect. Democratic socialism is a form of socialism.

dictionary.reference.com...

so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

That's a Democratic system. Ergo making a distinction between Socialism and Democratic Socialism is pointless as they're one in the same.

Socialism is not inherently democratic. Please, feel free to look into it. You are incorrect. Many forms of socialism can exist without necessitating voting, often congregating power into a small group.

There is nothing that suggests that a voting is a component of socialism. Collective ownership and collectivization of social engineering underlie the fundamental concepts of socialism. Not voting. Not democracy. Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive, so you can have forms of socialism that include democratic principles.

The changing definition of socialism within socialist groups to redefine it to make themselves into white knights - and of course reject their failures - seems to be a common tactic of socialists. Perhaps this is why you are under the impression that socialism must include democracy. Socialists have positioned themselves to claim democracy as their great accomplishment.

Currently socialism is under the move to redefine and claim all liberal and progressive conservative thought as their own.

cps.sagepub.com...
www.palgrave-journals.com...

A little reference showing you in a scholars use of socialism and socialist democracy.

Originally posted by Aeons
Socialists have positioned themselves to claim democracy as their great accomplishment.

Currently socialism is under the move to redefine and claim all liberal and progressive conservative thought as their own.

No slant there.

I bet if I tried really hard I could find a scholarly viewpoint of a different nature.

That isn't slant. I live in a country where this exact phenomena is happening.

Please feel free to look at political theory in a more profound way. I have given examples of scholarly use. I've given you a dictionary definition which clearly shows no reference to democracy. I have been reading on political theory for 20 years. I'm sure you can cherry pick, and I encourage you to be more honest.

This doesn't fit what you want it to say, and so you don't want it to be true. This is a psychological phenomena, one I encourage you to challenge and look more closely.

I can give you examples of definitions of socialism over the last century for every decade, and only recently have some socialists started to redefine socialism this way. This is likely a prelude to inclusiveness of collectivist globalism pushing pluralism to override individualist political nations with collectivist ideology as a basis for creation of a larger socialist-collectivist monoculture and to do so the theory must bridge between democratic socialist states and religious theocratic collectivist ones.

Originally posted by Aeons
That isn't slant. I live in a country where this exact phenomena is happening.

Yes it is.

You're gonna honestly try to pull off - - - that for every right leaning theory - - - there isn't a left leaning theory? (right and left used only symbolically for simplification).

I'm sorry - - but I can't help but suspect any phenomena you feel is happening - - - is your chosen perspective.

I'm not saying your perspective is wrong - - - it just isn't the only perspective.

Originally posted by Aeons
I have been reading on political theory for 20 years. I'm sure you can cherry pick, and I encourage you to be more honest.

I don't think I am the one who is cherry picking.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
I have been reading on political theory for 20 years. I'm sure you can cherry pick, and I encourage you to be more honest.

I don't think I am the one who is cherry picking.

How many definitions do you want. Just to satisfy that I was not incorrect, I spent an hour today looking through socialist political theory and practice. Mostly abstracts. Yesterday I spent 45 minutes looking through from the early 1900s to today to see how the definitions have been changing.

How many sources and definitions would you like?