It Begins: California Begins Indoctrinating Children Into The LGBT Lifestyle Against Parents Wishes

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A Libertarian! That explains a lot. Maybe the parents should just determine the entire curriculum and do away with the school boards? Oh, and what about the rights of parents who do want their kids to learn about LGBT history??The problem with that though is that you will have any many different ideas as to what should be taught as there are parents. Maybe we van have one child per class. Do you see the folly you positionI'm waiting or just one person to provide an honest and rational answer to the question of what harm is done by this being taught.

`
`
I see no folly in my position. It's just that your opinion differs from mine. You have no ethical or moral high ground to judge from, nor do I. I'm simply stating I will not allow the state to usurp parental rights.You disagree. So be it.

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

 

[beagle9]

I'd love to hear a gay persons opinion on this

Parents in CA call all the shots...you know that the OP is a conspiracy queen.

It isn't hard for me to believe Californians are sick enough to support this.

I really don't think they had a choice or even care anymore. Many no hablo English.

Or maybe they are smart enough to know that this policy is not a threat in any way. That the bigots are hyping it up and spreading hysteria

There's no reason for it. Let parents teach their kids what they want about the topic.

. If parents have no say in what their children are being taught, then welcome to communism, socialism, Marxism, and the indoctrination of your children with any such vehicles like these to be used. Sad times in America.

 

[beagle9]

A Libertarian! That explains a lot. Maybe the parents should just determine the entire curriculum and do away with the school boards? Oh, and what about the rights of parents who do want their kids to learn about LGBT history??The problem with that though is that you will have any many different ideas as to what should be taught as there are parents. Maybe we van have one child per class. Do you see the folly you positionI'm waiting or just one person to provide an honest and rational answer to the question of what harm is done by this being taught.

`
`
I see no folly in my position. It's just that your opinion differs from mine. You have no ethical or moral high ground to judge from, nor do I. I'm simply stating I will not allow the state to usurp parental rights.You disagree. So be it.

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

. You mean those parents that want it taught to other people's children besides their own ?

 

[Windparadox]

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

`
What about them? They already made their choice by forcing through laws that mandate certain things be taught in public schools that many parents object to. They have rights too. I may not agree with their religious beliefs but I don't see them pushing their perspective by force of state law, least ways in this educational venue.

It does NOT take a village to raise a child, just a family.
`

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A Libertarian! That explains a lot. Maybe the parents should just determine the entire curriculum and do away with the school boards? Oh, and what about the rights of parents who do want their kids to learn about LGBT history??The problem with that though is that you will have any many different ideas as to what should be taught as there are parents. Maybe we van have one child per class. Do you see the folly you positionI'm waiting or just one person to provide an honest and rational answer to the question of what harm is done by this being taught.

`
`
I see no folly in my position. It's just that your opinion differs from mine. You have no ethical or moral high ground to judge from, nor do I. I'm simply stating I will not allow the state to usurp parental rights.You disagree. So be it.

PS: I know that this will not mean much to a Libertarian- which I regard as a non violent anarchist- but the law was passed by the legislature, and the Governor signed it. All government officials elected by the people to serve their best interest, and they determined that there is a public interest in such a law.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Before they were just suggesting it. Now, California parents have no choice: It Begins: California Announces Ban for Parents

It Begins: California Announces Ban for Parents
By
Warner Todd Huston
-
December 27, 2017
Share
Despite their reputation for being the “Party of choice,” Democrats in California have ruled that parents are not allowed to opt their school-aged children out of the mandatory LGBT indoctrination in the state-sponsored school system.

Naturally, far left-wing California has become the first state in the Union to force kids to use LGBT inclusive textbooks. But at the same time it left no legal way for parents to opt out from the propaganda.

The gay propaganda law supposedly requires a “‘fair, accurate, inclusive, and respectful’ treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian Americans despite the historical insignificance,” according to Truth Revolt.

State publisher Mark Jarrett cited several historical figures who *might* have been gay saying that his textbooks will essentially make these historical figures gay icons.

“We’re not trying to make anybody gay; we’re not saying there’s an agenda; we’re not saying that these people are better than other people; what we’re saying is this is another group of Americans and they face certain prejudices,” said state publisher Mark Jarrett, whose history textbooks include special mention of the sexual preferences of historical figures like Jane Adams, Emily Dickinson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, President James Buchanan, though it’s inconclusive if these prominent Americans were gay or not.

“I think we should say, ‘Buchanan, he never married. He had a very good friend who was living with him. He may have been gay,’” Jarrett added. “On the other hand, at that time, being gay was seen as something evil and wrong.”

It should be noted that men sharing expenses with other men and living together was an extremely common thing in our country’s history. Senators did it, Congressmen did it, and so do regular Americans all across the nation.

In Fact, it was extremely common even into the 20th century. It has only been since WWII that Americans developed a sense that living completely on alone with no co-habitating partners, whether platonic or romantic, was considered the thing to do.

As to President Buchanan, gay activists have tried to claim him as their own for decades but there is no direct proof of his sexual proclivities.

Gay activists have also ridiculously tried to make President Abraham Lincoln gay, as well.

The radical gay agenda is infused throughout California’s textbooks, Truth Revolt report:

California approved the textbooks written by Jarrett, a Ph.D, to be used in the 8th grade. Students will read that legendary stagecoach driver Charlie Parkhurst “was a woman who identified as a man,” according to Fox News. They will read that George Washington’s chief of staff Baron Von Steuben “may have been gay,” and that poet Walt Whitman “was drawn to young men… but denied his same sex preferences in public.”

Critics say much of these accounts are speculation, but California rejected any publisher that didn’t mention the homosexual preferences or claims against historical figures in their textbooks. In one textbook, the state forced the publisher to add “lesbian” to describe NASA astronaut Sally Ride.

So, to appease the radical gay lobby, California is now taking what are supposed to be factual school textbooks and filling them with “speculation” on the sexual leanings of historical figures despite the FACT that the facts are not known.

California is now officially indoctrinating, not educating, its children.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

`
What about them? They already made their choice by forcing through laws that mandate certain things be taught in public schools that many parents object to. They have rights too. I may not agree with their religious beliefs but I don't see them pushing their perspective by force of state law, least ways in this educational venue.

It does NOT take a village to raise a child, just a family.
`

I don't know for a fact that anything was "forced through" I don't know who introduced the bill or at who's behest. Maybe you do.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A Libertarian! That explains a lot. Maybe the parents should just determine the entire curriculum and do away with the school boards? Oh, and what about the rights of parents who do want their kids to learn about LGBT history??The problem with that though is that you will have any many different ideas as to what should be taught as there are parents. Maybe we van have one child per class. Do you see the folly you positionI'm waiting or just one person to provide an honest and rational answer to the question of what harm is done by this being taught.

`
`
I see no folly in my position. It's just that your opinion differs from mine. You have no ethical or moral high ground to judge from, nor do I. I'm simply stating I will not allow the state to usurp parental rights.You disagree. So be it.

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

Go with recognized historical fact and meaning. There is no right to have every niche catered to.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Parents in CA call all the shots...you know that the OP is a conspiracy queen.

It isn't hard for me to believe Californians are sick enough to support this.

I really don't think they had a choice or even care anymore. Many no hablo English.

Or maybe they are smart enough to know that this policy is not a threat in any way. That the bigots are hyping it up and spreading hysteria

There's no reason for it. Let parents teach their kids what they want about the topic.

. If parents have no say in what their children are being taught, then welcome to communism, socialism, Marxism, and the indoctrination of your children with any such vehicles like these to be used. Sad times in America.

Providing facts is not indoctrination. It is education. Got any?

 

[Hossfly]

Why does that unholy shit have to be taught in schools fer chrissakes? Parents are supposed to teach their kids about sex, not sick perversion. By the time kids are 12 years old they learn that crap from one another. I sure as hell don't want my kids to learn about the birds and the bees from some flaming faggot.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why does that unholy shit have to be taught in schools fer chrissakes? Parents are supposed to teach their kids about sex, not sick perversion. By the time kids are 12 years old they learn that crap from one another. I sure as hell don't want my kids to learn about the birds and the bees from some flaming faggot.

With indoctination by age 12 a boy will accept being buttfucked by an older man.

 

[Windparadox]

PS: I know that this will not mean much to a Libertarian- which I regard as a non violent anarchist- but the law was passed by the legislature, and the Governor signed it. All government officials elected by the people to serve their best interest, and they determined that there is a public interest in such a law.

`
`
If a million people do a foolish thing, it is still, a foolish thing. I don't live in California so I don't have to live with that. I don't confuse "popular interest" with "vested interest" either.

 

[DGS49]

When my son was 10 (1992), he was taught methods of "safe" oral and anal sex. I could have opted him out, I suppose, and made him a pariah...

At the time, there had NEVER been a single reported case of heterosexual AIDS transmission in Allegheny County, where we live. So he was being protected against an imaginary danger.

Any historical treatment of homosexuality should include the non-judgmental fact that sodomy (the only "sexual" expression of homosexuality) is condemned by the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In short, every major Western religion. Just sayin'.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why does that unholy shit have to be taught in schools fer chrissakes? Parents are supposed to teach their kids about sex, not sick perversion. By the time kids are 12 years old they learn that crap from one another. I sure as hell don't want my kids to learn about the birds and the bees from some flaming faggot.

You're another one who does not understand what is actually being taught, do you? You just jumped on the moronic OP without even bothering to research this issue. That is irresponsible and just plain stupid.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Any historical treatment of homosexuality should include the non-judgmental fact that sodomy (the only "sexual" expression of homosexuality) is condemned by the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon

That's a real knee slapper!! Non judgmental??

 

[Windparadox]

When my son was 10 (1992), he was taught methods of "safe" oral and anal sex. I could have opted him out, I suppose, and made him a pariah...At the time, there had NEVER been a single reported case of heterosexual AIDS transmission in Allegheny County, where we live. So he was being protected against an imaginary danger.Any historical treatment of homosexuality should include the non-judgmental fact that sodomy (the only "sexual" expression of homosexuality) is condemned by the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In short, every major Western religion. Just sayin'.

`
`
When I was in high school, upper 90's, we were taught about "safe sex" among other things. There was absolutely no mention of religions or faith as that has nothing to do stopping the spread of HIV/STD nor preventing unwanted pregnancies. In a public school, I would object to any mention of religion outside the historical and sociological aspects. Want religion? Go to a private school.

 

[mudwhistle]

A Libertarian! That explains a lot. Maybe the parents should just determine the entire curriculum and do away with the school boards? Oh, and what about the rights of parents who do want their kids to learn about LGBT history??The problem with that though is that you will have any many different ideas as to what should be taught as there are parents. Maybe we van have one child per class. Do you see the folly you positionI'm waiting or just one person to provide an honest and rational answer to the question of what harm is done by this being taught.

`
`
I see no folly in my position. It's just that your opinion differs from mine. You have no ethical or moral high ground to judge from, nor do I. I'm simply stating I will not allow the state to usurp parental rights.You disagree. So be it.

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

Yeah....I bet there's a shitload of parents that wanna teach their kids about perversion when they're still in short-pants.

 

[jillian]

Before they were just suggesting it. Now, California parents have no choice: It Begins: California Announces Ban for Parents

It Begins: California Announces Ban for Parents
By
Warner Todd Huston
-
December 27, 2017
Share
Despite their reputation for being the “Party of choice,” Democrats in California have ruled that parents are not allowed to opt their school-aged children out of the mandatory LGBT indoctrination in the state-sponsored school system.

Naturally, far left-wing California has become the first state in the Union to force kids to use LGBT inclusive textbooks. But at the same time it left no legal way for parents to opt out from the propaganda.

The gay propaganda law supposedly requires a “‘fair, accurate, inclusive, and respectful’ treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian Americans despite the historical insignificance,” according to Truth Revolt.

State publisher Mark Jarrett cited several historical figures who *might* have been gay saying that his textbooks will essentially make these historical figures gay icons.

“We’re not trying to make anybody gay; we’re not saying there’s an agenda; we’re not saying that these people are better than other people; what we’re saying is this is another group of Americans and they face certain prejudices,” said state publisher Mark Jarrett, whose history textbooks include special mention of the sexual preferences of historical figures like Jane Adams, Emily Dickinson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, President James Buchanan, though it’s inconclusive if these prominent Americans were gay or not.

“I think we should say, ‘Buchanan, he never married. He had a very good friend who was living with him. He may have been gay,’” Jarrett added. “On the other hand, at that time, being gay was seen as something evil and wrong.”

It should be noted that men sharing expenses with other men and living together was an extremely common thing in our country’s history. Senators did it, Congressmen did it, and so do regular Americans all across the nation.

In Fact, it was extremely common even into the 20th century. It has only been since WWII that Americans developed a sense that living completely on alone with no co-habitating partners, whether platonic or romantic, was considered the thing to do.

As to President Buchanan, gay activists have tried to claim him as their own for decades but there is no direct proof of his sexual proclivities.

Gay activists have also ridiculously tried to make President Abraham Lincoln gay, as well.

The radical gay agenda is infused throughout California’s textbooks, Truth Revolt report:

California approved the textbooks written by Jarrett, a Ph.D, to be used in the 8th grade. Students will read that legendary stagecoach driver Charlie Parkhurst “was a woman who identified as a man,” according to Fox News. They will read that George Washington’s chief of staff Baron Von Steuben “may have been gay,” and that poet Walt Whitman “was drawn to young men… but denied his same sex preferences in public.”

Critics say much of these accounts are speculation, but California rejected any publisher that didn’t mention the homosexual preferences or claims against historical figures in their textbooks. In one textbook, the state forced the publisher to add “lesbian” to describe NASA astronaut Sally Ride.

So, to appease the radical gay lobby, California is now taking what are supposed to be factual school textbooks and filling them with “speculation” on the sexual leanings of historical figures despite the FACT that the facts are not known.

California is now officially indoctrinating, not educating, its children.​

You mean by not teaching kids to be disgusting bigots like you?

You cannot indoctrinate anyone into a gay lifestyle, moron

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A Libertarian! That explains a lot. Maybe the parents should just determine the entire curriculum and do away with the school boards? Oh, and what about the rights of parents who do want their kids to learn about LGBT history??The problem with that though is that you will have any many different ideas as to what should be taught as there are parents. Maybe we van have one child per class. Do you see the folly you positionI'm waiting or just one person to provide an honest and rational answer to the question of what harm is done by this being taught.

`
`
I see no folly in my position. It's just that your opinion differs from mine. You have no ethical or moral high ground to judge from, nor do I. I'm simply stating I will not allow the state to usurp parental rights.You disagree. So be it.

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

Yeah....I bet there's a shitload of parents that wanna teach their kids about perversion when they're still in short-pants.

So you think that teaching children about inventors, artists , politicians, and writers , with a passing mention of their being gay is teaching perversion?? Are you fucking serious???!!

 

[Aba Incieni]

A Libertarian! That explains a lot. Maybe the parents should just determine the entire curriculum and do away with the school boards? Oh, and what about the rights of parents who do want their kids to learn about LGBT history??The problem with that though is that you will have any many different ideas as to what should be taught as there are parents. Maybe we van have one child per class. Do you see the folly you positionI'm waiting or just one person to provide an honest and rational answer to the question of what harm is done by this being taught.

`
`
I see no folly in my position. It's just that your opinion differs from mine. You have no ethical or moral high ground to judge from, nor do I. I'm simply stating I will not allow the state to usurp parental rights.You disagree. So be it.

Again, what about the rights of the parents who want LGBT history taught. ? You can't have an opt out unless you have two versions of the same text book. You want to usurp the rights of others.

Yeah....I bet there's a shitload of parents that wanna teach their kids about perversion when they're still in short-pants.

So you think that teaching children about inventors, artists , politicians, and writers , with a passing mention of their being gay is teaching perversion?? Are you fucking serious???!!

What do you mean they are gay, teacher? What does that mean? Did they like to put cocks in their butts? How do you know?