Of course it'd be a senator from San Francisco, where else would you expect:
A state lawmaker wants a new lesson plan for California classrooms. He wants to recognize the contributions made by gay Americans.Of course, homosexuality is a behavior that should never be compared to something genetic like race, but why spoil a good leftwing propaganda?
Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco is proposing Senate Bill 48, known as the Fair Education Act. It would require classroom text books to be re-written with historical details about the gay movement in America and California. The books would also highlight gay people who have played a significant role in our country's history.
Some parents are fighting the option of a gay lesson plan for students. Dianna Awuy believes it's cool if you're gay, but she thinks the gay agenda shouldn't be forced onto students. "When they grow up they're going to be emotionally scared, because they don't know about gay and stuff like that."
Members of Equality California are promoting the Senate bill. They feel it's about time LGBT contributions are known to all students. Mario Guerrero says this bill is far from an agenda. "The LGBT community has our civil rights has it's beginning, so just talking about that, or important authors or important individuals that describe themselves as being part of the community should not be overlooked in history."
The bill is only in the discussion phase now. Parents and lawmakers will get a chance to give their opinions as the proposal moves forward in the Assembly. If approved, it could be a year or two before those new textbooks with gay contributions are printed.
RELATED: Uncivil Rights
Posts
The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal morality devolving into societal amorality and ultimately immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. Yet when society sanctions degenerate homosexual behavior – well, that does hurt me. If millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society in vastly destructive ways. A homosexual's moral self-destruction may have no consequences for me specifically, but destruction of societal standards always has consequences. When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and nihilism. Immoral homosexual personal behavior may not personally affect me, but exempting their immoral behavior from societal scrutiny certainly does. A society without moral standards is an unhappy, unhealthy society - a society with no future...and all of us have to live in that society. Also, in an effort to affect public policy and gain acceptance, the assertion often is made that homosexuals deserve equal rights just as other minority groups—and should not be punished for, or forbidden from, expressing their homosexuality. The fight for the acceptance of homosexuality often is compared to civil rights movements of racial minorities. Due to America’s failure to settle fully the civil rights issue (i.e., full and equal citizenship of racial minorities), social liberals, feminists, and homosexual activists were provided with the perfect coat tail to ride to advance their agenda. Using this camouflage of innate civil liberties, homosexual activists were able to divert attention away from the behavior, and focus it on the rights. The crux of the problem is Afro-Americans are a race, and women are a gender - homosexuality is neither - and therefore incomparable. Until the nature verses nurture argument is settled in favor of nature, homosexuality will be perceived as a choice by many and a choice does not elicit "rights" by any means. Even then the behavior - which IS a choice - will always be subjugated by the standards and morals defined by a given society.
ReplyDeleteThe rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal morality devolving into societal amorality and ultimately immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. Yet when society sanctions degenerate homosexual behavior – well, that does hurt me. If millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society in vastly destructive ways. A homosexual's moral self-destruction may have no consequences for me specifically, but destruction of societal standards always has consequences. When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and nihilism. Immoral homosexual personal behavior may not personally affect me, but exempting their immoral behavior from societal scrutiny certainly does. A society without moral standards is an unhappy, unhealthy society - a society with no future...and all of us have to live in that society.
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to affect public policy and gain acceptance, the assertion often is made that homosexuals deserve equal rights just as other minority groups—and should not be punished for, or forbidden from, expressing their homosexuality. The fight for the acceptance of homosexuality often is compared to civil rights movements of racial minorities. Due to America’s failure to settle fully the civil rights issue (i.e., full and equal citizenship of racial minorities), social liberals, feminists, and homosexual activists were provided with the perfect coat tail to ride to advance their agenda. Using this camouflage of innate civil liberties, homosexual activists were able to divert attention away from the behavior, and focus it on the rights. The crux of the problem is Afro-Americans are a race, and women are a gender - homosexuality is neither - and therefore incomparable. Until the nature verses nurture argument is settled in favor of nature, homosexuality will be perceived as a choice by many and a choice does not elicit "rights" by any means. Even then the behavior - which IS a choice - will always be subjugated by the standards and morals defined by a given society.