The revolution starts here- SB777 passed in California

[LG]

This might be worth making into a 'sticky'.

The California State Senate voted yesterday in favour of legislation that would require schools to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality as positive choices to children.

SB 777 would affect all grades from kindergarten to grade 12, requiring that textbooks, instructional materials and school-sponsored activities refrain from any “discrimination bias” on homosexual issues.

The bill states: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. [Section 220 of the Education Code includes “sexual orientation”.] No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.”

The measure has been called “sexual indoctrination” by parents and pro-family groups who have expressed outrage that the state government would force blanket pro-homosexual instruction on children without parental permission.

SB 777, authored by lesbian Senator Sheila Kuehl, is similar to legislation vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last session after it passed the legislature. Additional changes to the Education Code put forward by the bill include a definition of gender that is based on “appearance and behavior” instead of a person’s physical characteristics.

Sadly, all the coverage I've found on this has been negative. Parenting groups and conservative organisations have gone into major hissy fits.

Pro-family groups have accused the Republicans of not speaking out, but the latter did vote against the bill, which was passed by a majority strictly split along party lines.

I think it's a step forward. I don't think that people can be "indoctrinated" into becoming gay or TG, but that it is innate, inside them.

Let's hope the Governator doesn't fuck things up for everyone again.

What do you all think? I'm interested in hearing from the California residents especially. Hara?

[tsafficianado]

LG, couple of things concern me about the matter or at least the presentation quoted....
it seems to me there is a pretty big gulf between legislation 'that would require schools to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality as positive choices to children' and legislation that would prohibit schools from policies that 'promote a discriminatory bias etc.etc'. Since I am still not wholly convinced on the nature/nurture continuum I am inclined to share the concern that this sort of legislation can become linked to sanction or actual indoctrination. Dunno.

Being nearest and dearest to our hearts, the TS issue presents another matter that may have been discussed herein but I have yet to ferret it out. The 'i was born a woman in a man's body' justification (?) for aspirations of transsexuality can be linked in some cases to anomalous genetic makeup, but only in miniscule percentages. Beyond that I think it is likely based in large part in fetishistic and sociological inputs and, in some extremes in economically deprived societies, in economic aspiration.
I mean, really, do we think 5% of the males born in Thailand have a genetic inclination to transsexuality?

If this is the case, then this legislation in part is supportive of assignment of protected status to fetishistic behavior. In some countries bestiality is not addressed by legislation and some clinical research indicates that in some cases besitality is in fact a 'sexual orientation'. Where will the legislators draw the line. Bestiality? Necrophilia? Pedophilia? I am NOT drawing comparisons from homosexuality to bestiality to suggest a continuum of behavior, but it does seem like the legislative sanction of behavior or orientation that in fact MAY be in some or many cases elective is a slippery slope, and the endorsement of behaviors that may be fetishistic in nature is even more tenuous.

One other comment in response to the general wisdom that people 'cannot be indoctrinated into becoming gay'. There is a considerable amount of homosexual behavior acted out in prisons by men who had never engaged in homosexual behavior prior to incarceration. This is certainly an extreme case, but I think it is clear evidence that people can be indoctrinated into the commission of homosexual behavior if not into the identification with the gay orientation.

[LG]

LG, couple of things concern me about the matter or at least the presentation quoted....
it seems to me there is a pretty big gulf between legislation 'that would require schools to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality as positive choices to children' and legislation that would prohibit schools from policies that 'promote a discriminatory bias etc.etc'. Since I am still not wholly convinced on the nature/nurture continuum I am inclined to share the concern that this sort of legislation can become linked to sanction or actual indoctrination. Dunno.

Being nearest and dearest to our hearts, the TS issue presents another matter that may have been discussed herein but I have yet to ferret it out. The 'i was born a woman in a man's body' justification (?) for aspirations of transsexuality can be linked in some cases to anomalous genetic makeup, but only in miniscule percentages. Beyond that I think it is likely based in large part in fetishistic and sociological inputs and, in some extremes in economically deprived societies, in economic aspiration.
I mean, really, do we think 5% of the males born in Thailand have a genetic inclination to transsexuality?

If this is the case, then this legislation in part is supportive of assignment of protected status to fetishistic behavior. In some countries bestiality is not addressed by legislation and some clinical research indicates that in some cases besitality is in fact a 'sexual orientation'. Where will the legislators draw the line. Bestiality? Necrophilia? Pedophilia? I am NOT drawing comparisons from homosexuality to bestiality to suggest a continuum of behavior, but it does seem like the legislative sanction of behavior or orientation that in fact MAY be in some or many cases elective is a slippery slope, and the endorsement of behaviors that may be fetishistic in nature is even more tenuous.

One other comment in response to the general wisdom that people 'cannot be indoctrinated into becoming gay'. There is a considerable amount of homosexual behavior acted out in prisons by men who had never engaged in homosexual behavior prior to incarceration. This is certainly an extreme case, but I think it is clear evidence that people can be indoctrinated into the commission of homosexual behavior if not into the identification with the gay orientation.

Interesting ideas and arguments, but I can't agree with all you say. I can see where you're coming from, but I think you need to look at the actual legislation. I'd say that the wording of the news reports is quite wrong and that the bill will not indoctrinate anyone.

I for one do think that there is a natural inclination of some people towards transgenderism and that there is pretty sound scientific evidence to suggest this if not confirm it (as detailed in a previous post in the general discussion where I discussed research into transsexuals' hypothalami with HaraJuku and Peggy, amongst others). I would not class transsexuality as a fetish, although sometimes crossdressing can be a fetish. A fetish is something that sexually excites the fetishist. These girls don't go to enourmous lengths (lasers, boob jobs, hormones, shaving the Adam's apple, FFs and SRS) just to get their rocks off. They do these things so they can feel normal.

You might perhaps suggest, though, that admirers are fetishists, and some are, but it is more complicated than that.

As for incarcerated men being indoctrinated into becoming gay, I see your point but I can't totally agree, because their is no actual indoctrination involved. Indoctrination would involve actually being taught or brainwashed into doing something. Inmates and other men practice sodomy as a neccessity, often on unwilling subjects. It is they only way they can get laid, and in some cases it is also used a a show of power and agression. When they get out, most go back to being straight.

I don't think it's fair to describe this kind of behaviour with the realisation that one is transgender or has gender dysphoria or to suggest their is any kind of progression leading to bestiality or necrophilia.

In the case of Thailand, I can't say if the natural inclination for transgenderism is higher as a percentage, but it may be that ladyboys are more accepted there than transwomen in other countries and thus are more able to be open about their transgenderism.

Anyway, the bill is here:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_777&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070510_amended_sen_v97.pdf

[guyone]

Listen to their joyous melodies as they walk into the abattoir...

[LG]

Listen to their joyous melodies as they walk into the abattoir...
:what
Please explain...

[guyone]

Does the Ludiviko treatment sound familiar?

[White_Male_Canada]

Does the Ludiviko treatment sound familiar?

Prepare the serum !

Communist Manifesto

Plank No. 10: " Free education" for all children.

[LG]

Does the Ludiviko treatment sound familiar?


Is that from A Clockwork Orange? Haven't seen it in ages, actually.

Are you referring to indoctrination? I'd suggest you read the bill first.

[LG]

Does the Ludiviko treatment sound familiar?

Prepare the serum !

Communist Manifesto

Plank No. 10: " Free education" for all children.

Need I remind you which forum this is?

[guyone]

Legislating thought infringes on the first amendment.

SB777 is clearly unconstitutional.

Whatever happened to "Sticks & stones will break my bones but names will never harm me"?

AND WHAT THE FUCK DOES SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAVE TO DO WITH LEARNING GEOMETRY OR SPANISH???

[Caleigh]

Obviously the main focus of the legislation is to
try and make clear that verbal abuse and bullying
will no be tolerated by the school system. The 2nd
aspect is not in any way to indoctrinate, there is no
clause stating that "homosexuality" will be taught in
schools just that being homosexual will be considered
just as valid a lifestyle as being Christian or being
Muslim or being a vegetarian.

I think there needs to be a clear distinction between
"being homosexual" and carrying on homosexual
acts. It is clear by history and social evidence that
a person, any person, can and often will engage in
sexual activity with people of the same gender. This
does not make that person homosexual. Homosexuality
is a question of a persons PREFERENCE in terms of
sexual partners. This is not a 100% this or that thing.
There are always shades of grey and they can be
influenced by availability or lack thereof of the usual
preferred sexual partner.

Some people may take offence that I have put religion
and sexuality in the same class in my first paragraph.
What I suggest in fact is that sexuality since it is
at least partially biological (from most recent studies)
should be MORE protected than religion. Religion is
a learned social structure and belief system. Thus
there are better grounds for insulting someone based
on their beliefs, since they are learned and changeable
than there is for insulting or denigrating someone
based on their sexuality or gender identity since
these things seem to be strongly biological.

I'm prepared for the melee to follow, bring it on.

:)

[LG]

Legislating thought infringes on the first amendment.

SB777 is clearly unconstitutional.

Whatever happened to "Sticks & stones will break my bones but names will never harm me"?

AND WHAT THE FUCK DOES SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAVE TO DO WITH LEARNING GEOMETRY OR SPANISH???

Have you actually read the bill?

[tsafficianado]

interesting perspective

[LG]

Obviously the main focus of the legislation is to
try and make clear that verbal abuse and bullying
will no be tolerated by the school system. The 2nd
aspect is not in any way to indoctrinate, there is no
clause stating that "homosexuality" will be taught in
schools just that being homosexual will be considered
just as valid a lifestyle as being Christian or being
Muslim or being a vegetarian.

I think there needs to be a clear distinction between
"being homosexual" and carrying on homosexual
acts. It is clear by history and social evidence that
a person, any person, can and often will engage in
sexual activity with people of the same gender. This
does not make that person homosexual. Homosexuality
is a question of a persons PREFERENCE in terms of
sexual partners. This is not a 100% this or that thing.
There are always shades of grey and they can be
influenced by availability or lack thereof of the usual
preferred sexual partner.

Some people may take offence that I have put religion
and sexuality in the same class in my first paragraph.
What I suggest in fact is that sexuality since it is
at least partially biological (from most recent studies)
should be MORE protected than religion. Religion is
a learned social structure and belief system. Thus
there are better grounds for insulting someone based
on their beliefs, since they are learned and changeable
than there is for insulting or denigrating someone
based on their sexuality or gender identity since
these things seem to be strongly biological.

I'm prepared for the melee to follow, bring it on.

:)

I'm with you on this.

And for everyone else, here are some parts of the important parts of the legislation so that everyone knows what they are talking about.

Section 2:
"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.

Section 11:
Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read:
220.No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis
of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, or any other 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 an educational
institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial
assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.


Section 37:
Section 66251 of the Education Code is amended to read:
-66251. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all
persons, regardless of disability, gender, nationality, race or
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other basis that is
contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision
(a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, equal rights and
opportunities in the postsecondary institutions of the state. The
purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that
policy and to provide remedies therefor.

[guyone]

It just weakens the individuals internal fortitude. More thought crime legislation. With this the future generations will no longer spawn rugged individualists. When we give the state the right to define morality we willingly handcuff ourselves.

[chefmike]

It just weakens the individuals internal fortitude. More thought crime legislation. With this the future generations will no longer spawn rugged individualists. When we give the state the right to define morality we willingly handcuff ourselves.

LMFAO...

That is fucking hilarious coming from you, gumpone! Best laugh that I've had all weekend...fucking priceless...

And as for rugged individualists...LMFAO...you are nothing but a pawn and a shill for the worst president ever... in WWII you would have called yourself a "good german"...

[guyone]

Case in point. You're not debating anything just hurling insults.
What's your point Chef? You prefer a mediocre society? A fan of entropy?

[LG]

It just weakens the individuals internal fortitude. More thought crime legislation. With this the future generations will no longer spawn rugged individualists. When we give the state the right to define morality we willingly handcuff ourselves.

guyone, please explain the idea of "rugged individualists", especially in the context of today's America. This isn't the Wild West. I don't see any grizzlies out there. Individualists are supposed to be able to think for themselves, but now the term "rugged individualist" has lost its meaning, to the extent that it now simply is defined as "capitalist". I would offer another definition: "selfish". Because if individualism is the opposite of collectivism and if looking out only for the one's self is the opposite of caring for society, I for one am glad that "rugged individualists" are becoming extinct.

As for giving the state the right to define morality and willingly handcuffing ourselves, where, then, do you stand on abortion? What about stem cell research? Gay marriages? Cannabis use? Euthanasia?

I rest my case. Please read the bill before arguing further on the subject.

[insert_namehere]

Guyone,

Trust me, even with this legislation, there will be more than enough bullies either on or outside the playground to make sure any kid that doesn't fit the accepted norm feels harassed, put upon, excluded and ostracized. At the same time, it reins in teachers and administrators from subtly doing the same thing.

The school experience doesn't end with what's on the blackboard or in a textbook. To a large extent, it's the social strata pressure cooker kids are dumped into. The dynamics of the schoolyard sort kids out, shifts alliances constantly and teach us that society is a fluid mass - what's completely dorkish one day may be the ultimate in hip tomorrow - as well as understanding that for the most part, people think in mass.

Your arguments regarding "rugged individualism" would bear a lot more weight if your avatar wasn't lifted from a mass entertainment item that was cynically written and executed to appeal to the supposed "rebel" in the adolescent mindset - the irony is right up there with a guy in a panic to buy a "Fight Club" t-shirt.

Individualism isn't antithetical to considering the "greater good", no matter how much Ayn Rand would like to argue otherwise. It's more a matter of discovering your inner character and not surrendering your core values just to fit in. That has little or nothing to do with "legislating thought". Remember, without Citizen Smith, 1984 would have had nothing to say.

[guyone]

An individuals character is defined when he looks deep into the darkness of a chasm and sees nothing looking back.

Stand on abortion? Don't care...I'm not paying for it unless I'm responsible.
What about stem cell research? You really like the idea of baby farms?
Gay marriages? Gays have the right to be just as unhappy as anyone else.
Cannabis use? Good for the soul.
Euthanasia? I'm for youth everywhere.

I must say that Stem Cell Research & Euthanasia is an interesting combination.

[LG]

guyone said:

Stand on abortion? Don't care...I'm not paying for it unless I'm responsible.
What about stem cell research? You really like the idea of baby farms?

I think you've seen The Matrix far too many times. The debate is much more complex than that. Emryos are already used in in-vitro fertilization. Furthermore, stem cells need not be derived exclusively from embryos.

Cannabis use? Good for the soul.
Excellent. How very progressive of you. I doubt most of your fellow conservatives agree.

Euthanasia? I'm for youth everywhere.
Nice one. :D

I must say that Stem Cell Research & Euthanasia is an interesting combination.
I must say that your acceptance of abortions but not of stem cell research is equally interesting.

And finally, please read the legislation.

[guyone]

Do you really think that the Earth can sustain the current human populations rate of growth?

Let nature take it's course. It's been around a lot longer than we have.

[trish]

We ARE nature. There is nothing that anyone can do that is not a process of nature. There is nothing that we can produce that won’t be a product of nature. The distinction between artifact and natural formation is only a relative one. Whatever we do will be nature taking its course. So since we are homo-sapiens, let’s opt for the humane course and support stem cell research.

[LG]

Do you really think that the Earth can sustain the current human populations rate of growth?

Let nature take it's course. It's been around a lot longer than we have.

Hell, let's just kill everyone off! It's faster!

:what

And your point is...?

[guyone]

Well if you're just going to avoid the answering the question...

[chefmike]

Well if you're just going to avoid the answering the question...

The answer?

The answer is that you are a clueless simpleton, gump...surely this isn't the first time that you've been told that, chump.

If it is, then you most definitely need a hearing aid, gomer....

[guyone]

I feel sorry for you. You must have a pretty miserable life to be constantly spewing so much venom. You really shouldn't hate yourself so much. You should get out more and interact with the rest of humanity. Take a walk in the sunshine once in a while. Who knows? It may brighten your outlook in life.

And stop drinking. Can't you see what it's doing to your liver?

[chefmike]

Enough with your passive-aggressive routine already, gooberone...you've already proven yourself to be a schmuck here countless times, sport.

I would say that you should quit while you're ahead, but we all know that you've never been there as far as this forum is concerned.

[guyone]

Don't you ever have anything nice to say?

[chefmike]

Not to you, slick. You drew a line in the sand, and then crossed over it some time ago.

Maybe you should be careful when letting your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass in the future, gump.

[guyone]

How have I cross the line?

[guyone]

I'm waiting!

[LG]

So...what about SB 777? What do people think?

[trish]

The bill states: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. [Section 220 of the Education Code includes “sexual orientation”.] No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.”


i don't see how this can be construed as state sanctioning of anything. it certainly isn't mind policing. it's just separation of sexual orientation and state. public schools neither promote religion nor tolerate discrimination based on religion. in california, this bill says public schools will neither promote any given sexual orientation nor tolerate discrimination on that basis.

[LG]

The bill states: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. [Section 220 of the Education Code includes “sexual orientation”.] No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.”


i don't see how this can be construed as state sanctioning of anything. it certainly isn't mind policing. it's just separation of sexual orientation and state. public schools neither promote religion nor tolerate discrimination based on religion. in california, this bill says public schools will neither promote any given sexual orientation nor tolerate discrimination on that basis.

Once again we agree. I think the bill is step in the right direction. I would hate to see the Governator fuck it up.

[guyone]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

[trish]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.... captivating argument, neo...is it original or did you steal from some other high powered right wing intellectual?

[guyone]

Actually I modified it a little. Thanks!

[LG]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.... captivating argument, neo...is it original or did you steal from some other high powered right wing intellectual?
:lol:

[trish]

c'mon now little neo, you think the bill is mind control. explain how. you think a teacher standing in front of a class condoning homophobia isn't mind control. expain why not. or do think "blah blah etc." about covers your position.