Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2007, 05:01:54 PM
Quote
Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.
"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."
"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.
"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.
(Story continues below)
Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.
The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.
Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.
Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.
"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."
Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes as well as "sexual orientation."
"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.
Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.
CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.
It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.
Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.
Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.
Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California even private, religious hospitals to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.
"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."
The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.
As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.
The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.
"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."
She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.
"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity & you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."
Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.
WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.
WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.
That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.
"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.
"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.
"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."
"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.
"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.
(Story continues below)
Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.
The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.
Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.
Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.
"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."
Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes as well as "sexual orientation."
"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.
Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.
CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.
It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.
Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.
Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.
Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California even private, religious hospitals to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.
"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."
The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.
As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.
The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.
"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."
She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.
"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity & you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."
Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.
WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.
WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.
That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.
"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.
Post by: never_retreat on October 13, 2007, 05:09:35 PM
I think its time to buy property in western neveda, so when we blow comi-fornia of the US nevada becomes beach front.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2007, 05:15:02 PM
Quote
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
What the hell. Really.
Post by: Bigjake on October 13, 2007, 05:48:37 PM
Post by: De Selby on October 13, 2007, 05:52:25 PM
It's part of a movement to bring homosexuality to the same level of protection as race, not a secret plot to destroy the world.
Post by: The Viking on October 13, 2007, 05:55:19 PM
They can't be serious, can they?
*Reads article again*
Funny though. I thought that homosexuality/bisexuality was something one was more or less born with. Not very common to see gay rights activists saying that homosexuality is a "life style choice". Seems like we usually get that from various religious groups (the ones who try to "cure" homo/bisexuals).
This is patently silly though.
Post by: Bigjake on October 13, 2007, 06:04:43 PM
Quote
It's part of a movement to bring homosexuality to the same level of protection as race, not a secret plot to destroy the world.
I'd love to know which planet your typical leftist comes from, because their "logic" never ceases to amaze.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 13, 2007, 06:07:21 PM
Quote
who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
Public schools. Boys allowed to go into girls' locker room.
Oh, yeah, THAT will work. Around eighth grade or so, what boy would NOT?!
Post by: Nitrogen on October 13, 2007, 06:48:47 PM
Quote
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
This is a many people have no experience with; gender dysphoria or whatever iut's called now. It's not about letting Little Johnny use the girls room for a cheap thrill. It's about allowing someone that has Gender Identity Disorder to be able to effectively live as a member of the opposite sex, as the DSM-IV and ICD-10 recommend as a treatment.
Read this article for a good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder
Post by: De Selby on October 13, 2007, 08:43:59 PM
Quote
It's part of a movement to bring homosexuality to the same level of protection as race, not a secret plot to destroy the world.
I'd love to know which planet your typical leftist comes from, because their "logic" never ceases to amaze.
Well, on this issue it's very simple logic: the backers of this bill think people should be protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation the same way that people are protected from discrimination on the basis of race. This bill is a part of that agenda.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2007, 08:45:39 PM
Post by: wooderson on October 13, 2007, 08:47:04 PM
Post by: De Selby on October 13, 2007, 08:47:28 PM
They already are protected from discrimination by California law. Using the terms mom and dad, husband and wife, in a text book is not discrimination.
The bill does not ban using the terms mom and dad. The article is quoting an interest group as claiming that banning discrimination against gays means that schools won't be able to use those words, but that is hype.
Post by: vernal45 on October 13, 2007, 08:50:25 PM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2007, 08:56:27 PM
Post by: De Selby on October 13, 2007, 09:00:28 PM
You can read the text of the bill and various analyses there.
It is not a bill to ban "mom" and "dad".
One key piece not covered in the article:
[Section 12] 221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution
that is controlled by a religious organization if the application
would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that
organization.
Post by: Werewolf on October 14, 2007, 07:31:20 AM
'nuff said
Post by: jefnvk on October 14, 2007, 08:39:26 AM
Quote
who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms
Hmmmm........
You know, I get very confused about my gender identity right about the time the womens volleyball games get done........
Post by: BryanP on October 14, 2007, 10:27:50 AM
I'm sure this is an ubiased and absolutely correct accounting of what the bill actually does, right?
Of course it is. Worldnutdaily is well known for their unbiased carefully researched in depth non-partisan reporting.
Post by: charby on October 14, 2007, 03:57:27 PM
Oh the fun I would had with it if happened while I was in college.
Post by: Nitrogen on October 15, 2007, 01:06:44 AM
So with this Bill at a state university a male could shower with the females if he just said he associated himself as homosexual?
Oh the fun I would had with it if happened while I was in college.
Oh the fun I would had with it if happened while I was in college.
Wrong.
He/she would have to be under treatment for gender dysphoria. If someone wants to use the woman's shower, they have to be living as a woman, even if they are genetically male, for instance.
As I said before, it's NOT to allow someone to just walk into somewhere to get their jollies.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 15, 2007, 04:51:01 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 15, 2007, 04:52:57 AM
Wrong.
He/she would have to be under treatment for gender dysphoria. If someone wants to use the woman's shower, they have to be living as a woman, even if they are genetically male, for instance.
He/she would have to be under treatment for gender dysphoria. If someone wants to use the woman's shower, they have to be living as a woman, even if they are genetically male, for instance.
And the legal definition of "living as a woman" is...?
Just wait'll the first time a "Chester the Molester" decides to declare themselves female and lives as a very ugly man in a dress just so they can use the women's shower at the local gym...
Post by: K Frame on October 15, 2007, 05:29:05 AM
Being married?
Post by: charby on October 15, 2007, 07:18:46 AM
Post by: cordex on October 15, 2007, 07:40:52 AM
He/she would have to be under treatment for gender dysphoria. If someone wants to use the woman's shower, they have to be living as a woman, even if they are genetically male, for instance.
Whoa ... women and men are supposed to live differently? Isn't that discriminatory?If someone is genetically male but feel that they are really a strong female that chooses to dress and behave in a traditionally "masculine" manner, are they not protected?
As I said before, it's NOT to allow someone to just walk into somewhere to get their jollies.
I agree, this law is not intended to achieve that goal.
Post by: longeyes on October 15, 2007, 08:33:45 AM
Enjoy.
Post by: Strings on October 15, 2007, 01:57:24 PM
I have to ask: who decides when someone is suffering from "gender dysphoria"? Does it take an actual psychological eval, or what? I mean, I've always been a lesbian trapped in a man's body...
And what's up with "not consulting the parents"? shouldn't they KNOW if their child is being treated in such a manner?
no... this still sounds like a bad idea...
Post by: jnojr on October 15, 2007, 02:12:37 PM
So Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts will be no more in California?
They could become the "Person Scouts".
Post by: roo_ster on October 17, 2007, 04:41:58 AM
What is amazing is how, in this matter and in the matter of gun laws, a small number of uber-zealots, aided and abetted by a cadre of wacked-out jurists and lawyers and the general apathy of the consumer class, can overturn a society in short order.
Enjoy.
This needs to be repeated.
Enjoy.
Post by: GigaBuist on October 17, 2007, 10:17:19 AM
I mean, I've always been a lesbian trapped in a man's body...
I had an in-law go that route. It didn't sit too well with his wife of 18 years and explaining why "Keith" was no longer at family functions to the 80 year old grand parents took a while.Man, now I can't stop thinking of that scene in Kintergarden Cop where a boy (he looked like a boy, probably had boy parts, but he might have been a girl on the inside) stands up and says, "Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina."
Anybody having trouble figuring out which one they are should drop everything else in their life and get that one sorted out as soon as possible.
Post by: Strings on October 17, 2007, 01:02:55 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 17, 2007, 01:10:19 PM
Brad
Post by: Devonai on October 18, 2007, 06:21:35 AM
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmpi
Post by: Antibubba on October 18, 2007, 11:56:42 AM
The effects of this law are pretty narrow--the stuff about boys and girls bathroom is nonsense.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 18, 2007, 12:08:06 PM
You know, I'd just call that..."confused".
Post by: roo_ster on October 19, 2007, 04:04:13 AM
The group who wrote that article are in the "God hates fags" category, OK? They're not an unbiased observer. As for gender dysphoria, the Wiki article is a good start. Also look up "Intersex".
The effects of this law are pretty narrow--the stuff about boys and girls bathroom is nonsense.
Really? I did not see a link to determine the source. If you have the source, please share your information.The effects of this law are pretty narrow--the stuff about boys and girls bathroom is nonsense.
I dogpiled (a meta-search engine) the Capitol Resource Institute (the org of the first gal quoted) and came up with their website. Does not look to be a "God hates fags" sort of org, especially since I recognize a few of the names on the BoD as being regular conservative types.
To sum up, AB, show us something that either links the group to the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, or some such organiztion.
Post by: Antibubba on October 19, 2007, 08:14:52 PM
You know, when they tried to muster support for the ERA back in the 70's, the folks opposing it used the "bathrooms" threat too.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 20, 2007, 06:24:36 AM
Here's a quick run-down on Phelps' teachings.
1. WBC members should pray that no one else converts to their point of view. They are taught to pray that every single person not of their tiny cult will go to hell, and should go to hell, to the glory of God.
2. "Deep-dyed fagots" are totally incapable of repentance and beyond any hope of redemption. I heard Phelps say this on a radio interview. Totally contradicts with the religious right's much-vilified belief that homosexuals can change.
3. God is using the Iraq war to punish America for being a "fag-loving" country. They hold banners saying things like, "Thank God for I.E.D.'s."
Most of this can be found on the "church's" website, in addition to their hatred of James Dobson's Focus on the Family and similar pro-family groups.
Bringing Phelps into this is completely disingenuous, and no different than shouting "NAZI!" every time you disagree with someone.
Post by: InfidelSerf on October 21, 2007, 07:43:48 AM
But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?
If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.
I'm sorry that's why I call bull*cough* on all this talk of your born with this or that.
I'm supposed to be predisposed to being an alcoholic.
Should I be ashamed of the fact that I've never had a problem with alcohol?
The conversion of behavioral conditions to uncontrollable genetic ones is one of the biggest lies pushed on us.
I see no difference from "Guns kill people" to "I have no control over this behavior, I'm born with it"
With beliefs in psycho babble like that you are essentially saying freewill doesn't exist.
JMHO
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 21, 2007, 08:09:35 AM
Ok I know this is just a tad off topic.
But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?
If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.
I'm sorry that's why I call bull*cough* on all this talk of your born with this or that.
I'm supposed to be predisposed to being an alcoholic.
Should I be ashamed of the fact that I've never had a problem with alcohol?
The conversion of behavioral conditions to uncontrollable genetic ones is one of the biggest lies pushed on us.
I see no difference from "Guns kill people" to "I have no control over this behavior, I'm born with it"
With beliefs in psycho babble like that you are essentially saying freewill doesn't exist.
JMHO
But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?
If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.
I'm sorry that's why I call bull*cough* on all this talk of your born with this or that.
I'm supposed to be predisposed to being an alcoholic.
Should I be ashamed of the fact that I've never had a problem with alcohol?
The conversion of behavioral conditions to uncontrollable genetic ones is one of the biggest lies pushed on us.
I see no difference from "Guns kill people" to "I have no control over this behavior, I'm born with it"
With beliefs in psycho babble like that you are essentially saying freewill doesn't exist.
JMHO
Whoa! There's the Big Boot of Logic stomping all over the Politically Correct's sensibilities!
Post by: Strings on October 21, 2007, 08:33:09 AM
Umm... not really. We honestly DON'T know what behaviour is hardwired, and what is learned...
I know too many gays that had a nice, relaxed childhood (no trauma), that the "it's a learned behavior" just doesn't make sense. Of course, when asked "nature or nurture?", I usually reply "Both!"
Post by: roo_ster on October 21, 2007, 09:46:38 AM
I didn't mean to imply that they ARE the same group. They're views and histrionics are the same though.
You know, when they tried to muster support for the ERA back in the 70's, the folks opposing it used the "bathrooms" threat too.
AB:You know, when they tried to muster support for the ERA back in the 70's, the folks opposing it used the "bathrooms" threat too.
Gotcha. I think that your conflation of the two groups is made in ignorance, not malice. Conservative Christians have been beat over the head with the WBC loons by the MS enough to prompt a lot us to research what they actually believe.
WBC is not on polite terms with any right-of-center religious group that I can think of. That is a polite way of saying that folks in the religious right think Phelps & WBC are nucking futz. They may appear to be on the way right of the RR*, but their doctrine is such that it is incompatible with every single overtly-Christian conservative group I have ever participated in or read about.
fistful gives examples of some, but not all of the deal-breakers. These are not "logical extensions" of Christian doctrine, but something Phelps has cooked up in his little cult of personality. The wonder of it is that he, like fistful wrote, posts it for all to read what a complete fruitcake he is. Another wonder is that the MSM and others confuse his doctrine with the religious rights' (which also has no problem posting its different doctrines).
--------
The "Unipotty" argument is made for two reasons:
1. It has the virtue of being true, given what has happened elsewhere such policies have been enacted
2. It is effective
* At least, they are portrayed, gleefully, by MSM this way.
Post by: longeyes on October 22, 2007, 06:30:38 AM
Post by: Antibubba on October 22, 2007, 07:54:05 AM
But "Banishment of Mom and Dad"? "Boys and girls sharing bathrooms at school"? Where's the part about dogs and cats living together? Unsupportable scare tactics and lies don't help their cause.
Post by: roo_ster on October 22, 2007, 11:58:56 AM
I do agree the tone of the piece is a bit breathy.
Post by: Strings on October 22, 2007, 12:52:00 PM
"possession with intent to sell", anyone?
Post by: Iapetus on October 27, 2007, 09:02:17 AM
Ok I know this is just a tad off topic.
But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?
If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.
But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?
If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.
I expect all those are at least partly, probably mostly genetic.
But IMO it doesn't really matter whether they are due to genes or due to choice. If someone is (or chooses) to be homosexual, they are not harming anyone, and should be left to themselves. If someone is (or chooses) to be an active paedophile, then they are terribly harming children, and need to be "corrected". Permanently.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2007, 11:08:48 AM
Ok I know this is just a tad off topic.
But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?
If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.
But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?
If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.
I expect all those are at least partly, probably mostly genetic.
But IMO it doesn't really matter whether they are due to genes or due to choice. If someone is (or chooses) to be homosexual, they are not harming anyone, and should be left to themselves. If someone is (or chooses) to be an active paedophile, then they are terribly harming children, and need to be "corrected". Permanently.
Yeah, more or less. "Nature made me this way," really doesn't answer whether something is wrong or right, or should be legal or illegal. Genes can predispose us to alcoholism, or deform us at birth, so they are no guide to what is moral or good for us.
Post by: Chris on November 01, 2007, 06:57:01 AM
Post by: jeepmor on November 04, 2007, 02:49:34 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on November 08, 2007, 01:12:27 PM
antibubba, do you have any idea of the "views and histrionics" of the WBC? Their views are totally unlike any other Christian conservative, pro-family type of group I've ever seen.
Here's a quick run-down on Phelps' teachings.
1. WBC members should pray that no one else converts to their point of view. They are taught to pray that every single person not of their tiny cult will go to hell, and should go to hell, to the glory of God.
2. "Deep-dyed fagots" are totally incapable of repentance and beyond any hope of redemption. I heard Phelps say this on a radio interview. Totally contradicts with the religious right's much-vilified belief that homosexuals can change.
3. God is using the Iraq war to punish America for being a "fag-loving" country. They hold banners saying things like, "Thank God for I.E.D.'s."
Most of this can be found on the "church's" website, in addition to their hatred of James Dobson's Focus on the Family and similar pro-family groups.
Bringing Phelps into this is completely disingenuous, and no different than shouting "NAZI!" every time you disagree with someone.
Here's a quick run-down on Phelps' teachings.
1. WBC members should pray that no one else converts to their point of view. They are taught to pray that every single person not of their tiny cult will go to hell, and should go to hell, to the glory of God.
2. "Deep-dyed fagots" are totally incapable of repentance and beyond any hope of redemption. I heard Phelps say this on a radio interview. Totally contradicts with the religious right's much-vilified belief that homosexuals can change.
3. God is using the Iraq war to punish America for being a "fag-loving" country. They hold banners saying things like, "Thank God for I.E.D.'s."
Most of this can be found on the "church's" website, in addition to their hatred of James Dobson's Focus on the Family and similar pro-family groups.
Bringing Phelps into this is completely disingenuous, and no different than shouting "NAZI!" every time you disagree with someone.
He is just explaining Christianity to everyone.
Either way there is a lot of confusion about this.
WHERE IS THE LINK IN THE FIRST POSTING?
Post by: LAK on November 09, 2007, 01:42:30 AM
Quote
Wrong.
He/she would have to be under treatment for gender dysphoria. If someone wants to use the woman's shower, they have to be living as a woman, even if they are genetically male, for instance.
As I said before, it's NOT to allow someone to just walk into somewhere to get their jollies.
And just exactly who are these mind readers that are going to certify without doubt that anyone is not faking this "disorder"?He/she would have to be under treatment for gender dysphoria. If someone wants to use the woman's shower, they have to be living as a woman, even if they are genetically male, for instance.
As I said before, it's NOT to allow someone to just walk into somewhere to get their jollies.
--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 01:58:02 AM
antibubba, do you have any idea of the "views and histrionics" of the WBC? Their views are totally unlike any other Christian conservative, pro-family type of group I've ever seen.
Here's a quick run-down on Phelps' teachings.
1. WBC members should pray that no one else converts to their point of view. They are taught to pray that every single person not of their tiny cult will go to hell, and should go to hell, to the glory of God.
2. "Deep-dyed fagots" are totally incapable of repentance and beyond any hope of redemption. I heard Phelps say this on a radio interview. Totally contradicts with the religious right's much-vilified belief that homosexuals can change.
3. God is using the Iraq war to punish America for being a "fag-loving" country. They hold banners saying things like, "Thank God for I.E.D.'s."
Most of this can be found on the "church's" website, in addition to their hatred of James Dobson's Focus on the Family and similar pro-family groups.
Bringing Phelps into this is completely disingenuous, and no different than shouting "NAZI!" every time you disagree with someone.
Here's a quick run-down on Phelps' teachings.
1. WBC members should pray that no one else converts to their point of view. They are taught to pray that every single person not of their tiny cult will go to hell, and should go to hell, to the glory of God.
2. "Deep-dyed fagots" are totally incapable of repentance and beyond any hope of redemption. I heard Phelps say this on a radio interview. Totally contradicts with the religious right's much-vilified belief that homosexuals can change.
3. God is using the Iraq war to punish America for being a "fag-loving" country. They hold banners saying things like, "Thank God for I.E.D.'s."
Most of this can be found on the "church's" website, in addition to their hatred of James Dobson's Focus on the Family and similar pro-family groups.
Bringing Phelps into this is completely disingenuous, and no different than shouting "NAZI!" every time you disagree with someone.
He is just explaining Christianity to everyone.
Who's explaining Christianity?