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

[Bonnie]

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/

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[MissileMan]

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.

 

[theHawk]

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

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

 

[fuzzykitten99]

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...

 

[Hobbit]

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!!!"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

California Assembly Bill 1056 and the New Definition of Tolerance
http://www.capitalresource.org/

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.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

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.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

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..............

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

Then tell me why is the Communist Party is in "solidarity" with gays today when they have never really supported them before? http://www.cpusa.org/

All you need to do is look at history to discover the real treatment of gays under Communism. It's certainly not "conspiracy" to realize that Communists in the U.S. are just using gays to further their own agenda. http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/05/01/homosexuality-and-communism/

Even the original founder of the gay movement, Harry Hay, was an avid member of the American Communist Party. (he was later kicked out of both groups)
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm

In any case, you are aware that Communists are big into "thought control"?

 

[mattskramer]

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.

It is just another reason why I think that schools should be privatized and that there should be school choice. If you want your child to be taught creationism over evolutionism take her to school A. If you want the focus to be on evolution, take him to school B. Do you want comprehensive sex education or abstinence based sex education? Do you want religious emblems, satanic emblems, or no emblems?

Oh how I remember when we were led in the “pledge of allegiance” and even had to sit through prayer in school. I sure recall how the education establishment tried free speech, thought control, whatever with respect to Christian indoctrination on me. There is a difference between Christianity being accepted and having Christianity rammed down our throat.

Anyway. I have not read the actual legislation but since I believe in school choice, I don’t think that it matters to me. That is my take on this whole mess.

 

[CockySOB]

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..............

Spot-on, dear. Who could possibly add to your words? Not I....

 

[MissileMan]

Why is it so hard for some to understand the rights of people not to accept behaviors that are abhorant to them??

Although I don't share the sentiment, I think it's perfectly acceptable for Christians to be intolerant of homosexuality, I just disagree with public policy or public funds being used to enforce that intolerance.

In the same light that I think the word "God" in the PoA is harmless, I think stories about "Heather's Two Mommies" are just as harmless. IMO, the radical atheist whacko who considers the PoA as government endorsement of religion is the same breed as the whackos who think a story is "shoving homosexuality down throats". Both are making MOUNTAINS out of molehills.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Hagbard, do you believe the Constitution protects the right for people to dislike or even hate other people? Or does the Constitution prohibit such free thought?

 

[Bonnie]

Although I don't share the sentiment, I think it's perfectly acceptable for Christians to be intolerant of homosexuality, I just disagree with public policy or public funds being used to enforce that intolerance.

In the same light that I think the word "God" in the PoA is harmless, I think stories about "Heather's Two Mommies" are just as harmless. IMO, the radical atheist whacko who considers the PoA as government endorsement of religion is the same breed as the whackos who think a story is "shoving homosexuality down throats". Both are making MOUNTAINS out of molehills.

I disagree in this instance, children are very easily influenced by authority, teachers. It is for that reason that parents who miss the boat in teaching them right from wrong at that time are often kicked in the ass for it later on.
Liberal activists decry constantly that school is no place for morality to be taught, that it's supposed to be left up to parents, and I agree with that. But it's ridiculous to say no christian values in school, but secularistic morality should not only be taught but against parents wishes. Here's what I see, all forms of Christianity have been removed from school, and the oublic by and large, and has conveniently been replaced with sociaistic humanism........On top of which any time parents confront this they are labeled wrong, closed minded, homophobic..............So you tell me who is shoving values down who's throats???

 

[MissileMan]

I disagree in this instance, children are very easily influenced by authority, teachers. It is for that reason that parents who miss the boat in teaching them right from wrong at that time are often kicked in the ass for it later on.
Liberal activists decry constantly that school is no place for morality to be taught, that it's supposed to be left up to parents, and I agree with that. But it's ridiculous to say no christian values in school, but secularistic morality should not only be taught but against parents wishes. Here's what I see, all forms of Christianity have been removed from school, and the oublic by and large, and has conveniently been replaced with sociaistic humanism........On top of which any time parents confront this they are labeled wrong, closed minded, homophobic..............So you tell me who is shoving values down who's throats???

You see "Heather's Two Mommies" as a story about morality...I'd argue it's a story about reality. Making the children aware of the existence of same-sex parent families isn't some huge conspiracy to alter children's mores. IMO, it's an effort to prevent the alienation of children in the class due to something the child has NO control over...the sexual makeup of his/her parents. I'd call that a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Bonnie]

You see "Heather's Two Mommies" as a story about morality...I'd argue it's a story about reality. Making the children aware of the existence of same-sex parent families isn't some huge conspiracy to alter children's mores. IMO, it's an effort to prevent the alienation of children in the class due to something the child has NO control over...the sexual makeup of his/her parents. I'd call that a worthwhile endeavor.

Says you, many parents want the exclusive rights to form their childrens opinions on homosexuality, as they should. And yes acceptance of homosexual lifestyles being taught in schools is most certainly being presented as a morality issue as in" this is normal behavior and you must be good little boys and girls and accept it". If parents want to teach their children homosexuality is wrong but at the same time teach them not to ever hurt or alienate someone else for a situation they have no control over, that is up to the parents. Should schools have the right to stop violence within their walls of course, but teaching about the normality of the gay lifestyle crosses that boundary and has nothing to do with it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You see "Heather's Two Mommies" as a story about morality...I'd argue it's a story about reality. Making the children aware of the existence of same-sex parent families isn't some huge conspiracy to alter children's mores. IMO, it's an effort to prevent the alienation of children in the class due to something the child has NO control over...the sexual makeup of his/her parents. I'd call that a worthwhile endeavor.

Since when are such "reality" matters supposed to be on a second grader's curriculum in the first place?
If so, why not just bring in Jerry Springer's "reality" show to teach the kids? :fifty:

 

[MissileMan]

Says you, many parents want the exclusive rights to form their childrens opinions on homosexuality, as they should. And yes acceptance of homosexual lifestyles being taught in schools is most certainly being presented as a morality issue as in" this is normal behavior and you must be good little boys and girls and accept it". If parents want to teach their children homosexuality is wrong but at the same time teach them not to ever hurt or alienate someone else for a situation they have no control over, that is up to the parents. Should schools have the right to stop violence within their walls of course, but teaching about the normality of the gay lifestyle crosses that boundary and has nothing to do with it.

Except we aren't talking about teaching kids to accept homosexuals, but their children. If Heather's parents are homosexuals, she shouldn't have to suffer because her classmates' parents don't condone their lifestyle.