Gov. Arnold tosses school moral codes

[ballz2wallz]

Gov. Arnold tosses school moral codes

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.




i'm curious to know how the bill 'condones' homosexuality. if it is true, that's too bad. they should condone education.

[Scrum]

By condone I think they mean overlook.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

By condone I think they mean overlook.

that doesn't mean much to me

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

that doesn't mean much to me

How about this?

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

4 results for: condone

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
con‧done  /kənˈdoʊn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-dohn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -doned, -don‧ing.

1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
4. to cause the condonation of.
5. Law. to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).

[IminWonderland]

I think that your article that you posted really blows it out of context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OF THE LAND
Gov. Arnold tosses
school moral codes
Bill forces condoning of homosexuality,
critics say 'the gates of hell are prevailing'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 29, 2006
9:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com



Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions, critics note.


"The gates of hell are prevailing against the church," Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, told WorldNetDaily. "It's because Christian colleges and churches have ignored the political process for so long. Now the political process, absent religious values, is coming back to assault the church."

"As a citizen of California and a religious person, I am terribly disappointed in Gov. Schwarzenegger," said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for CRI. "It is bad public policy to add to the list of protected classes a sexual behavior.

If you look at the other side of this:

Pro-gay bills head to governor's desk in California


By a 22-15 vote, the Senate sent the governor a bill by openly lesbian state senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) that would prohibit schools from using textbooks or providing instruction that criticizes people because of their sexual orientation.

At one point the bill, SB1437, also would have required social science textbooks to discuss the historic contributions of gays. Kuehl dropped that provision in the Assembly in hopes of getting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the measure, but his aides have made statements indicating that he still might veto the bill.

Pro-gay bills head to governor's desk in California | News | Advocate.com

So, what was proposed might be worded "condone" but I believe de facto, is that they don't want teachers to be using texts and books that condemn sexual orientation. And I can understand why. We would feel the same if it were blacks, or women, or native Americans, all of which at one point in history were used by a Christian Majority for oppression, and they believed that it was a biblical principle. Sexual Orientation is no different.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

How about this?

much better, but i'd like to see the bill itself.

This is a huge overstepping of his bounds/powers as governor. Public institutions are one thing but private are a completely different matter all together.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

This is a huge overstepping of his bounds/powers as governor. Public institutions are one thing but private are a completely different matter all together.

not if they recieve state funds

they can operate truly privately and do whatever they want

the same way that businesses with govt contracts cannot sexually discriminate, but a golf course can tell women to go away

sounds very fair to me

[thomez]

also, how is he overstepping bounds when signing a bill, obviously passed by the state legislature?

[Publius]

I have to agree with thomez with one caveat: if some of the kids in these schools are receiving unrelated state funds (like, say, some genius kid with a full ride to a private school, but parents on Welfare) then it shouldn't impact the school at all. But if they have students receiving state assisted tuitions, they come under the same controlling factors as public schools and government institutions at least so far as anti-discrimination laws go.

If these schools want to continue on their way preaching discrimination, they should stop accepting students who receive state assistance. I don't think the law should affect the standing of the schools though if they have students currently enrolled with state assistance though, that smacks of ex-post-facto lawmaking.

[kinggovernor]

government has no place with morals

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think that your article that you posted really blows it out of context.




If you look at the other side of this:



Pro-gay bills head to governor's desk in California | News | Advocate.com

So, what was proposed might be worded "condone" but I believe de facto, is that they don't want teachers to be using texts and books that condemn sexual orientation. And I can understand why. We would feel the same if it were blacks, or women, or native Americans, all of which at one point in history were used by a Christian Majority for oppression, and they believed that it was a biblical principle. Sexual Orientation is no different.

now i might start having a problem with this:

also would have required social science textbooks to discuss the historic contributions of gays.

what ARE the historic contributions of gays? why is the emphasis placed on their sexuality? why isn't the emphasis placed on the actual person and their contribution, which is what is most important, and not there sexuality which is least important?

for example, i didn't watch brokeback mountain because it's main theme was homosexuality. some say 'it's a love story' but it's not just a love story, it's a gay love story. emphasis on the gay. on the other hand, i did watch capote, which was about a gay man, but the emphasis was not about his sexuality, it was about his story. and that is what's important in social studies and history, not some sexuality issue.

Originally Posted by thomez

not if they recieve state funds

they can operate truly privately and do whatever they want

the same way that businesses with govt contracts cannot sexually discriminate, but a golf course can tell women to go away

sounds very fair to me

Yes thats right but if a STUDENT is getting aid from the state they should be able to use that money at whatever university they see fit. If I get a state scholarship/grant of 2000 bucks to use wherever and I chose to go to SNU (christian college) thats my choice and the state should have no say over the university. Now if the U is voluntarily taking state funds directly then yes they should abide by state rules.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

now i might start having a problem with this:



what ARE the historic contributions of gays? why is the emphasis placed on their sexuality? why isn't the emphasis placed on the actual person and their contribution, which is what is most important, and not there sexuality which is least important?

for example, i didn't watch brokeback mountain because it's main theme was homosexuality. some say 'it's a love story' but it's not just a love story, it's a gay love story. emphasis on the gay. on the other hand, i did watch capote, which was about a gay man, but the emphasis was not about his sexuality, it was about his story. and that is what's important in social studies and history, not some sexuality issue.

I have to agree with you here, and it's good that the aspect of the bill you're discussing was withdrawn.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Yes thats right but if a STUDENT is getting aid from the state they should be able to use that money at whatever university they see fit. If I get a state scholarship/grant of 2000 bucks to use wherever and I chose to go to SNU (christian college) thats my choice and the state should have no say over the university. Now if the U is voluntarily taking state funds directly then yes they should abide by state rules.

Okay, I have to agree here as well. Add another caveat to my agreement with thomez then: it should only impact the schools if they receive funding directly from the gov't, and not just as secondary recipients as a result of students receiving, say, FAFSA grants/loans directly from the government.

[ballz2wallz]

so if all the bill does is keep the schools from using textbooks that criticize homosexuality, how is it necessarily pro-gay?

the other thing i might have a problem with is this: if kids are going to a private school, and they are getting government funding, a sort of scholarship deal, i don't think they should risk getting kicked out of hte school because the private school (often times religiously oriented) doesn't want to take a pro-gay stance. that's punishing the kid more than anything else, and i don't think that's fair.

edit: yeah, 6speed beat me to it

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

so if all the bill does is keep the schools from using textbooks that criticize homosexuality, how is it necessarily pro-gay?

the other thing i might have a problem with is this: if kids are going to a private school, and they are getting government funding, a sort of scholarship deal, i don't think they should risk getting kicked out of hte school because the private school (often times religiously oriented) doesn't want to take a pro-gay stance. that's punishing the kid more than anything else, and i don't think that's fair.

edit: yeah, 6speed beat me to it

and , I think the people calling this "pro-gay" are overreacting quite a bit. If anything, it's "pro-unbiased-education" rather than "pro-discrimination"

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

I think the people calling this "pro-gay" are overreacting quite a bit. If anything, it's "pro-unbiased-education" rather than "pro-discrimination"

the gays are calling it pro-gay

the link that iminwonderland provided

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the gays are calling it pro-gay

the link that iminwonderland provided

And they're overreacting. This isn't some massive victory for the gay movement, it's a move towards ensuring discriminatory material isn't in our classrooms (a place where I think we can ALL agree such things don't belong, whether you like or dislike homosexuals and homosexuality).

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Publius

if some of the kids in these schools are receiving unrelated state funds (like, say, some genius kid with a full ride to a private school, but parents on Welfare)

ya, as long as the funds recieved weren't for education it wouldn't matter