SB 777
SB 777 (Amended May 10) is a bill that Mandates Radical Changes to all School Textbooks, Instructional Materials, and School Sponsored Activities in California Public Schools for Children as Young as Kindergarten, Without Parental Consent. It will be put into effect starting January 2008 in all public schools in the state of California.
The main purpose behind amending this bill is to ensure that there is no discriminatory bias towards homosexuality, bisexuality, and transexuality by teachers in the instruction they give or in any other school related activities. This bill futhermore would redefine "gender" as 'sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotipically associated with the person's assigned gender at birth,' therefore implimenting an "anything-goes" definition of transexuality and sex change, bisexuality and homosexuality into the California Education Code, and deletes the true definition of sex, which is the "biological condition or quality or being a male or female human being."
The acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals, transexuals, and bisexuals should be encouraged in schools, but the way the Gay Party is bringing it about violates the rest of our, the Heterosexual Party's, rights. Our definition of gender shouldn't be compromised to give special treatment to an exclusive party. In a way, they are actually forcing their lifestyle choices on our young and vulnerable children's minds. Implimenting this into the education system and teaching this way to children as young as kindergarten without the consent of parents violates the child's and their parent's rights. Schools should not teach about sexual orientation. This would cause the school's focus to stray away from the more important aspects of what school should be about, the education of their students in math, science and humanities.
In order to abide by the amendment, schools would have to create a new system to erase all forms of gender such as new bathroom/locker room rules. Who goes where depending on what they "feel" their "gender" is? This "solution," as the Gay Party most likely sees this amendment as, would in fact create more friction and problems within the school system between school officials, teachers, students and parents.
To read more about what exactly is being amended to the SB 777 bill, click the link.
http://www.savecalifornia.com/SB777_051707flooralert.pdf
There are many ways in which these changes would be abused, such as bathroom regulations. But, in your opinion, is this right? Should a child, as young as kindergarten aged children, be exposed to this sort of anything goes gender environment? Can you really choose to be male, female, or even something in between? What do you think, should this amendment be passed or vetoed?
Leave comments!
Peace.
27 November 2007
Current Event: NOV 28
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've got three problems with this and I'm going to quote your wrinting on this
1)"SB 777 (Amended May 10) is a bill that Mandates Radical Changes to all School Textbooks, Instructional Materials, and School Sponsored Activities in California Public Schools for Children as Young as Kindergarten, Without Parental Consent. It will be put into effect starting January 2008 in all public schools in the state of California."
When the hell did we vote on this? I thought this needed to be signed the governor and I'm pretty sure he would have vetoed this in the spot. And it's hard to imagine that there s enough votes to overturn this.
-----------------------------------
2)"This bill futhermore would redefine "gender" as 'sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotipically associated with the person's assigned gender at birth,' therefore implimenting an "anything-goes" definition of transexuality and sex change, bisexuality and homosexuality into the California Education Code, and deletes the true definition of sex, which is the "biological condition or quality or being a male or female human being."
This is just further making things "politically correct" i'm tired of having other people defining my identity or the identity of others with out there consent.Who gives them the authority to label me or remove my right to be labeled? If i want to be called mexican and not "latino american" then so be it.
Another part of the bill was to change the definition of pupils with metal or physical disabilities from handicapped students to pupils with disabilities which i think sounds worse. By changing something because you think it sounds wrong then you convince the world that it is.
-----------------------------------
3)"Schools should not teach about sexual orientation. This would cause the school's focus to stray away from the more important aspects of what school should be about, the education of their students in math, science and humanities."
Sexual oreintation is extremly importan. It's an important part socialization.
-----------------------------------
4)"In order to abide by the amendment, schools would have to create a new system to erase all forms of gender such as new bathroom/locker room rules. Who goes where depending on what they "feel" their "gender" is?"
That bad because of two things
1) Social taboo's which will make people feel uncomfortable.
2) Who decides that this individual is this orientation and they have "proven" themselves to be worthy of being allowed into the male/female bathroom/lockers? Whos has the power to decide what yo are. This conflicts with the point of the law.
-----------------------------------
ok im going to shut up
just my two cents on the topic
"yes i was bored. but hey, i learned something"
_@" pce
Veronica-
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Team Roemer is gravely concerned by this turn of events, and will monitor the situation closely.
Post a Comment