Schwarzenegger Institutionalizes Sexual Perversion
News; Posted on: 2007-10-23 08:02:06
By Pat Shannan
SACRAMENTO, Calif.–Govt.Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law four bills requiring all public school instruction and activities to positively portray trans-sexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten.
He has also signed bills undermining marriage and infringing upon the moral conscience of business owners, churches, and non-profit organizations.
On Friday the 13th, Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren by requiring changes to all instruction and activities) and AB 394, 102 and 14 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of students, parents, and teachers via “anti-harassment” training).
Signing the bills was a switch for Schwarzenegger, who vetoed nearly the same bills last year, in the midst of his re-election campaign.
“Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), which helped lead the state wide charge against these bills. “This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms. Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual- bisexual-transsexual indoctrination centre.”
SB 777 prohibits any “instruction” or school-sponsored “activity” that “promotes a discriminatory bias” against “gender” (the bill’s definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes) and “sexual orientation” (the bill’s definition includes bisexuality). Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages trans-sexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB 777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school. {Of course discriminatory bias against white boys will continue}
Otherwise, “discriminatory” schools will be subject to intimidation and lawsuits by the State Department of Education. Under these bills, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2008, the following will be eliminated from California public schools because they are deemed to have a “discriminatory
bias”:
– Textbooks and other instruction that portray marriage as only between a man and a woman; {some women prefer to marry whales?}
– Textbooks and other instruction that say people are born male or female (and not in between); {and now Shems?}
– Textbooks that leave out transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual historical figures;
– Sex education and school assemblies that omit the option of hormone injections, or sex changes; {And free Sex change operations?}
– Homecoming king and queen contests that allow only boys to run for king and girls to run for queen; {Sally slit licker and Mary J Rotten crotch will make a lovely royal couple}
– Separate bathrooms for boys and girls. {Sexual Harassment will be a daily occurance}
“Mum and Dad” as well as “husband and wife” effectively have been banned from California schools. “SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values,” said Meredith Tourney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Govt. Schwarzenegger’s unbelievable decision. The terms ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ or ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
“Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic –not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centres for sexual experimentation,” she said.
“We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California,” said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.
(Issue #44, October 29, 2007)
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute – as long as full credit is given to American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
Related link
Arnold Swarzenegger is well known for a quote of challenge against “girlie men”. That was before required to recognise that the economy is now dependent on these people, for the removal of laws in discrimination the demand that their sexuality is closeted and private. The freedom to have one’s sexuality exposed to eveyday as if to have it repressed is a breach of human rights has meant not only that one’s sexual preferences become a market instrument but that there is room for those who decide that they are in fact “gay” to put pressure on the rest of society to be more like them.
This post, makes it look as if the job to return sexual preferences back to the adult’s bedroom where they belong far too advanced for any simple transition to be accepted by those who are now “out”. I say belong because the move to remove discrimination on homosexuality was in itself a direct and unlawful discrimination on hetrosexuality. We are now suffering, and it would appear about to suffer worse from the extremes and absolute stupidity of those who hold or held the reigns of control and power. Women championed this position of freedom to accept homosexuality because most obviously, homosexuals present no threat to women. Homosexuality does not put any strain on the functionality of giving birth; unlike men. This matured and women then wanted to control giving birth entirely so they had to advance this unlawful discrimination into being direct agaisnt child hood and thereby introducing the indirect as unlawful discrimination against fatherhood.
California is presently burning from raging fires. Not many deaths but certainly the buildings are being destroyed in their thousands.
The most difficult of problems from here is how to craft logic into those who want power from this point. Then they will contest the above formula (less the fires) and present its legal reply before th public to justify homosexuality. Unfortunately for eveybody they cannot. This subjective evolution of homosexuality if to be accepted has to be accepted without grounds of substance in the objective.
This means that those who wouold argue against homosexuality being entitled to legal equality on the grounds that it is a corruption of existing laws afgainst discrimination would be right. I have started to read the Hansard on the debate at the time the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was before the House and so far I haven’t seen any text to suggest that anyone thought that outward homosexuality may well be a direct discrimination against sex – being hetrosexuality and therefore unlawful. This of course will be covered in the legislation as it redefines “sex” to include homosexuality. What will be missing though, almost certainly, is a description on how this inconsistency with our present then every day human rights is a justifiable limitation in a free and democratic society. Everyone was likely drugged to think like they were sheep.
Before I get arrested and put into prison for a life sentence for my comments in this writing it should be important to note that in my defence I have no objection to homosexual people. There’s is a free choice. That they discriminate against me as being hetrosexual is only a moderate concern and I had never thought about it enough to feel threatened by overt homosexual behaviour as long as it wasn’t directed straight into my face. My complaint as it remains is that this has now advanced where that lobby group – rich and very, very, very powerful have decided that they can have babies. At this point life becomes different. Homosexual people are no longer directly discriminating agaisnt the function of mankind for their sexual preference but the behaviour has been advanced to include a defenceless child. If there is a God (as people say), then it should be fair to presume that God protects laws that are made by man that are true and just. But when those laws are corrupted to protect a behaviour that is against the law of human functionality, then surely there must be a serious problem for everyone.
Compassion and security have two completely different meanings.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fatherscoalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 25th October 2007 @ 11:29 am
I’m unmoved by the exaggerated tone of this article. Banning instruction or activities that promote a discriminatory bias on the basis of gender or sexual orientation does not equate to requiring positive portrayals of “these sexual lifestyles”. The laws do not appear to ban the terms “mum and dad” or “husband and wife” at all, but do require some mention of other non-heterosexual forms of relationship. I don’t see how these laws will result in discrimination against students with traditional family or religious values; nothing in those laws appear to stifle such students’ choices or free speech in favour of their own values. Schwarzenegger has probably realised that these laws are reasonable in overcoming the continued violent persecution of minority sexual orientations that has plagued human civilizations, based on little more than superstitious fear and religious dogma.
The men’s and fathers’ movement would do well to separate itself from such homophobic nonsense. There is a place for reasoned discussion of issues around homosexuality. Whether homosexual couples should be seen as equivalent to heterosexual couples in adopting and raising children is a matter of reasoned debate, and in the interests of children’s welfare I do not currently agree with that proposition. One can argue that some special status of marriage is appropriate for couples intending to bring children into the world and to rear them, but that doesn’t mean homosexual couples should not have available some legal recognition and protection regarding their committed relationships. In striving to remove unjustified discrimination against homosexuality, policy makers may sometimes go further than is sensible and such excesses should be challenged. But the lies and over-reaction contained in this article are far from reasoned debate. Supporting or perpetrating such propoganda will only bring the men’s movement into disrepute.
Every society includes a proportion of non-heterosexual people, and this proportion is likely to remain quite constant even if we increase tolerance and inclusion regarding those minority groups.
Men in western democracies are now experiencing something of what it is like to be discriminated against and unjustifiably maligned. It is hypocrisy to complain about such things when they are directed at us but to condone them when directed at others.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 26th October 2007 @ 11:20 pm
I concur Hans,
as is reasonable I believe, whether an individual is Christian or non Christian. The principle of kindness, respect and fairness toward and for your fellow man (or woman) is abundantly obvious as against its opposite in behaviour. Hit someone in any form and invariably they will find a way to hit you back. Don’t hit them and they have no such need.
Yet your challenge is mute. You descibe the necessity to challenge a behaviour and yet you mitigate this into being reasonable. Abusing children is not reasonable. We have a nation reeling in child abuse and spending extraordinary amounts of money to compete with its advance. Additionally we are talking about the principles governing birht. With birht comes new life and with new lifew comes evolution. Once corruption takes a hold, like rust, it is very difficult to contain. To support your view of tolerance on homosexuality limiting the rights to complain to include an acceptance for homosexual couples to have and raise children without providing the child with the influence by association of their hetrosexual inheritiance is not a limit at all. It is a freedom. And it is presently being exploited. And it clearly is detrimental to the child born because an adult behaviour is accepted as holding a greater value that the necessities for the child. That is simple.
So when a policy of education is introduced into the schools without teaching the learning child the governing principles of discrimination and the policy is discriminatory, in this case against the child and fatherhood, then you teach that child to accept those discriminations as acceptable and “natural”.
The naturality of the equation is about three simple things. A male and a female copulate to make a baby. That baby is made equally of male and female. The infant is naturally entitled to develop to the accord of those equal influences. To separate this from human functionality is to pervert that human function.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 27th October 2007 @ 10:49 am
I should add that the point from where our problems stem are in the sentence of: “That baby is made equally of male and female”.
Our legislation recognises, reasonably that preferential treatment as relative to childbirth does not constiute unlawful discrimination. Men cannot have babies and to want to would be as equal a perversion as two women wanting to have the same. Yet this preferential treatment has been manipulated in ignorance to create the presumption that women are therefore more important to the child than the father. This is the problem we have to challenge as subjectively as it is objective.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 27th October 2007 @ 12:10 pm
I can only hope little girls will not be permitted to enter toilets where little boys are relieving themselves. That is a gross invasion of privacy.
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Sun 28th October 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Please note homosexuality is NOT on-topic for MENZ Issues.
Comment by JohnP — Wed 31st October 2007 @ 2:15 pm