Is California really forcing "gay sex ed" on kindergarten classes?

[chorpler]

@lynxie

My frienf taught grade one and they had sex ed. Basically, it was body parts, 2 mommies were okay and where NOT to be touched. Because of this, she discovered a sexual abuse case.

Okay, now this is very interesting – was this in California?

And, from what you say, it sounds like the only gay-related education for the young kids is that you shouldn’t make fun of somebody if they have gay parents. Is that accurate?

I can’t understand why anybody would have a problem with something like that.

[chorpler]

@Balthisar

Saying psychology is a science is like calling art a science; it’s an art. Without leaning one way or the other, what’s “scientifically correct” today won’t be correct tomorrow. Then it will be correct again in a couple weeks.

We’re always dealing with opinions when it comes to psychology and psychiatry. And of course opinions always involve politics. Okay, my statement’s not very scientific; it’s common sense. Agree with me or not; I don’t care. In many repsects, “hard science” is very much an accord of opinions.

Well, this is really quite a hijack, but I think psychology/psychiatry is still in its very early stages. We’re basically just using chemicals and other therapies to do our best to treat various problems, and we often know the basics of what certain treatments do (i.e., we know that adjusting serotonin levels can alter mood, or that activating opioid receptors can relieve pain and cause euphoria), but we have no real understanding of how it affects our consciousness, since we don’t really know what consciousness is. Once we gain a decent understanding of how the brain works and how consciousness comes about and all that good stuff, psychology should move from our current clumsy efforts into the realm of hard science. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

[chorpler]

I found this page, from the “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry” which obviously is quite biased, which specifies what my in-laws were talking about: Assembly Bill 222 and Senate Bill 1260. This is what the page says about them:

AB 222 would result in homosexual curriculum and promotion of homosexual “marriage” to students in K-12 public schools, public colleges and universities. Quotas for homosexual instructors would be indirectly pursued, and federal “hate crime” funds would be used to punish schools that resist the gay agenda. If AB 222 passes, religious schools who do not comply could be banned from interscholastic sports leagues, and students at religious colleges could be prohibited from receiving state financial aid. A second bill, SB1260, would require homosexual curriculum to be taught to schoolchildren as young as kindergarten, including mandated sessions on “homophobia.”

So does anybody have the real story on what these two bills are about? I haven’t been able to find the text of the bills themselves, or at least an objective summary, so far.

[lynxie]

@chorpler

Okay, now this is very interesting – was this in California?

And, from what you say, it sounds like the only gay-related education for the young kids is that you shouldn’t make fun of somebody if they have gay parents. Is that accurate?

I can’t understand why anybody would have a problem with something like that.

No, I’m in Ontario, Canada. You got the gist of it. Oh, this is only a one day session as well.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@chorpler

So does anybody have the real story on what these two bills are about? I haven’t been able to find the text of the bills themselves, or at least an objective summary, so far.

Here’s a couple of other views of them, from quite different organizations:

From California Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights
(link here)
“AB 222 (Kuehl) This bill would prohibit discrimination and harassment against gay and lesbian students and those students perceived to be gay or lesbian. The measure also would add sexual orientation to the basis on which discrimination is prohibited relating to employment and advancement of teachers and classified school employees, school district residency requirements, specified postsecondary financial aid programs, employers in work-study programs and the operation of alternative schools, charter schools or interscholastic athletics.”

From the ACLU, (link here)
“The Dignity for All Students Act, AB 222 (Kuehl, D-Los Angeles) extends the protections against discrimination to sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation in the Education Code. These changes would protect students and employees from discrimination based upon their real or perceived sexual orientation -— though religious schools are exempt. During the campaign Governor Gray Davis indicated he would sign the legislation protecting students from discrimination.”

The offical Legislature site on the bill
is here – that site includes the full text of the bill.

[Iceland_Blue]

@chorpler

I found this page, from the “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry” which obviously is quite biased, which specifies what my in-laws were talking about: Assembly Bill 222 and Senate Bill 1260. This is what the page says about them:

So does anybody have the real story on what these two bills are about? I haven’t been able to find the text of the bills themselves, or at least an objective summary, so far.

So does this mean that if Student A refuses to attend the sex-ed seminar on homosexuality,this could be classed as ‘resisting’ the school homosexuality code and punishment following or even as ‘a hate crime’ with criminal proceedings.

[Marley23]

@Iceland_Blue

So does this mean that if Student A refuses to attend the sex-ed seminar on homosexuality,this could be classed as ‘resisting’ the school homosexuality code and punishment following or even as ‘a hate crime’ with criminal proceedings.

If you read the probably-less-biased versions, I don’t think you’d find anything to support that.