The New Definition of Gay Tolerance..Just what Those Opposed Thought it WAS!!

California Assembly Bill 1056 and the New Definition of Tolerance
By Press Release: (08/21/2006)

http://americandaily.com/article/15200
SACRAMENTO, Ca., Aug. 21 /Christian Newswire/ -- Tolerance. Diversity. Live and let live. All terms that are tied to the movement to gain popular acceptance of homosexuality. While many believe that the goal is not merely to have us privately permit, but to publicly applaud such sexual non-conformity, we have always thought that we at least knew the plain meaning of the terms. Until now.

In the California Assembly, there is a relatively unnoticed move to redefine the word tolerance. If Assembly Bill 1056 passes, tolerance will no longer be a passive act, but requires that the target of the bill, school children, actively embrace these alternative lifestyle choices.
For purposes of this article, the term "school" means any public school that provides instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive.

(e) For purposes of this article, "tolerance" means attitudes and behaviors that convey respect toward individuals and groups, especially those individuals and groups that have been, and continue to be, systematically and historically marginalized. Tolerance does not mean a passive allowance or indulgence of the beliefs or practices of another individual.

Let’s be clear. For years the homosexual community has been demanding to be left alone, screaming “keep your laws out of our bedroom”. Those of us who believe that homosexuality is wrong for reasons ranging from health to (gulp) morality, have been asked to give it a rest and agree to disagree. And for the most part, we have complied. There are no credible efforts to restrict homosexuality. The most visible movement, to ban homosexual marriage, is merely an attempt to defend the status quo.
It is fair to say that we have agreed to tolerate. However, we tolerate like we tolerate the garage band practicing next door. We allow it even though we may personally dislike it. But, we do not send them a thank you note.

Traditional tolerance is apparently not enough. In a devious move, our opponents are in essence saying, “now that you have agreed to tolerate, let us tell you what we mean by that term.” I am not exactly sure what would qualify as “attitudes and behaviors that convey respect” but I am sure that it does not include statements like “homosexuality is immoral”.

And that exposes the true agenda of the homosexual movement. It is not satisfied to leave such an issue of morality to the individual. It wants aggressive government involvement. And it wants that government not to merely tolerate but to advocate. Government is asked to change the traditional definition of marriage to include a union between two men. Government is asked to endorse a day of silence in solidarity with those who are stigmatized by their sexual identity or orientation. And now government and school children are asked to show respect for beliefs with which we disagree. Mere passive allowance or indulgence of those beliefs is not enough.
AB 1056 would provide a total of $250,000.00 to ten schools to conduct a pilot program embracing this new definition of tolerance. I would like to propose an alternative. Pay these same funds to Capitol Resource Institute and we will provide for every member of the California Legislature a state of the art workshop in tolerance training. Of course, it will concentrate exclusively on tolerance for the religious and moral beliefs of the rest of us.

http://www.capitalresource.org/

 

Glad I'm not stationed in that cesspool of fag-loving left-wingnuts anymore.

 

First Kansas and now California. WTF is up with this new need to redefine words. If the current definition doesn't fit, find a different word, or make a new word.

 

And I'm glad I don't live there anymore

 

I am glad I have never lived there...seeing this every day would get my blood pressure up so often I would have a stroke at 26!

i took this picture when Tim & I drove to Santa Monica from Vegas. I thought of what Pale would say if I ever posted it...

 

I think he would say something like, "GET THAT @#&*ING FAG RAG AWAY FROM OLD GLORY!!!"

 

So "Secularism" wants to impose its own morality? What a surprise....not!

The "gay rights" agenda has never really been about gays...its really about control. If the Far Left can manage to legislate how you are to think and behave toward others and how you must "accept" what you consider immoral behavior in others - they control you. They can then further legislate all sorts of unconstitutional behavioral controls.

California is definitely a test state for the communist/totalitarian Far Left.

 

Blah, blah, blah. Another conspiracy nut. The root cause of the gay movement is the need for homosexuals to feel accepted by the rest of society. It's a basic human need. Everybody wants to feel accepted. As I've said in another thread, every ideology or group has its own radicals or militants, but in this case I think militant gays intent on forcing their sexuality on the rest of us were born out of militant intolerance from the other side of the spectrum. Once again, hate begats hate. So the next time you feel the burning hatred welling up inside your "Christian" chest when you see a queer, you might want to look inside yourSELF and figure out why you feel that way to begin with.

 

Actually, it is about control. There is a difference between gays being accepted and having homosexuality rammed down our throat (pardon the expression).

It's not just control, it's thought control. Seems to me that now, thinking the wrong way is becoming a crime. Is this George Orwell's 1984 or the United States of America? This isn't a "Christian vs Gay" issue. This is a First Amendment issue and California is going over the line.

 

So your saying that it's not the fault of Gays but really the fault of parents not wanting their children to have homosexuality shoved down their throats that is the cause of this? That's a pretty vacant twist to this.
Why is it so hard for some to understand the rights of people not to accept behaviors that are abhorant to them??
It's such hypocrisy for liberals to say don't shove religion down our throats but we can shove homosexuality down yours..............