New Sherwood

The slide continues – part II

Governor Schwarzenegger has just signed three more homosexual-bisexual-transgender bills into law. Read all about them at the Campaign for Children and Families site. Some highlights:

AB 3015 forces foster parents to train foster children to support homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. The 2000 law upon which AB 3015 is based resulted in homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activism on school campuses from ‘LGBT’ students and teachers. AB 3015 will do the same for foster children, many of whom have already been emotionally damaged by sexual abuse and neglect.”

SB 1729 mandates that nurses be trained to support homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality, despite their deeply-held moral values to the contrary. According to the final Senate floor analysis, SB 1729 ‘requires all registered nurses, certified nurse assistants, licensed vocational nurses, and physicians working in skilled nursing facilities or congregate living health facilities to participate in a training program focused on preventing and eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.’ In other words, good professional nurses at convalescent homes and assisted-living centers could be disciplined or fired for not attending or not actively participating in these homosexual-bisexual-transsexual training classes, or if on the job they ever speak against homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality.”

AB 2654 elevates homosexual-bisexual-transsexual ‘rights’ above moral, religious and family values in the private insurance field and government processes. AB 2654 is one of a package of five bills passed in the last five years by Democrat legislators and signed by Schwarzenegger that applies broad definitions of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality to all other areas of the law. For example, in Government Code, Section 12926.1, ‘sexual orientation’ is defined as including not just homosexuality but also bisexuality, and, because of Penal Code, Section 422.56, defines ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as including ‘a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.’ As the Democratic Senate floor analysis of AB 2654 disclosed, ‘In doing so, this bill expands the protected classes in some statutes to encompass those recently added’ [i.e. ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender’]. This means AB 2654 essentially completes the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual takeover of government entities and imposes its sexual agenda more fully upon the private sector.”

Advertisements

October 8, 2008 - Posted by | Uncategorized

13 Comments »

  1. The state of Jefferson looks better with each passing day.

    Like

    Comment by T. Chan | October 8, 2008 | Reply

  2. I just hope they realize that it is innappropriate for foster parents to discuss sex at all with small children, let alone all these kinds. I hate to see how many foster parents they are going to lose over this one. I’d like to know what “support” means.
    ACK. Gag me with a spoon.

    Like

    Comment by Annaberri | October 8, 2008 | Reply

  3. Gag me with a backhoe. It’s hard to imagine how much further a state could get from the principle of subsidiarity.

    Like

    Comment by The Western Confucian | October 8, 2008 | Reply

  4. Mr. Chan: Indeed. For that matter South Dakota, Indiana, Virginia, and just about anywhere else is looking better with each passing day.

    Annaberri: Don’t count on the state of California suddenly discovering childhood innocence anytime soon.

    TWC: Well, on this issue I don’t think subsidiarity is so cut and dried. California ought to have laws prohibiting foster parents from introducing foster children to homosexuality, for example. The state has a role in upholding minimal standards of moral conduct wherever state money is spent – schools, foster homes, and nursing homes fall under this umbrella today. Whether the state should be involved in these areas at all is another question (and we probably have some differences there).

    Like

    Comment by Jeff Culbreath | October 9, 2008 | Reply

  5. I wonder how the California transplants in Idaho fare–the natives there, as in Washington, apparently don’t like Californians moving in to their state. But Idaho seems to be rather conservative as well. (Though I have not checked to see how it votes.)

    Like

    Comment by T. Chan | October 9, 2008 | Reply

  6. Mr. Chan, with respect to California transplants and Idaho natives, you might find this discussion illuminating.

    Like

    Comment by Jeff Culbreath | October 10, 2008 | Reply

  7. As a Catholic and a Conservative myself, I take great offense to your comments, although you are right, discussing sexuality and gender identity with young children is not right, but implying that Queer people have some agenda or are taking over the government is entirely false. I have studied Homosexuality and Bisexuality and it is just as valid a sexuality as Heterosexuality and neither of the sexualities are by choice. As for Transsexuality, it is a medical condition, and individuals like yourself are the reason why Transsexuals are murdered, beaten, thrown out into the streets by family, etc… Now the question is if you had a Transsexual child what would you do? Abandon him or her, tell him or her that he or she is a sinner, ‘prove’ how immoral he or she is? The bible says, “only he who is free from sin may cast the first stone”, and we are all sinners. Also according to the bible the angels are too pure to be either male or female. What agenda is it? To be treated fairly and equally for something that is inborn? To be accepted and protected by the law? To get acceptance and understanding? If you take physical disability, thats not protected either, so do physically disabled people also have an agenda? Go with a neuromuscular condition, nearly half of the people with such a condition are LGBT, perhaps influenced by lack of dystrophin or the body not developing properly, or there being one mistake during birth, thats what most likely happens.

    Like

    Comment by Maria | October 10, 2008 | Reply

  8. Mr. Culbreath, thanks for that link! I’m checking it out now…

    Like

    Comment by T. Chan | October 10, 2008 | Reply

  9. Also according to the bible the angels are too pure to be either male or female.

    ???

    Too pure? They are neither male or female because they have no bodies.

    Like

    Comment by T. Chan | October 10, 2008 | Reply

  10. “As a Catholic and a Conservative myself, I take great offense to your comments …”

    Sorry to offend, but if you were really Catholic then you would accept Catholic teaching on the subject. I won’t bore you with quotes from the Scriptures, the fathers and doctors of the Church, or the Catechism. You’re a smart lady and can look them up yourself.

    ” … but implying that Queer people have some agenda or are taking over the government is entirely false.”

    I don’t know what all “queer people” might want, but quite a few people with power are forcing the acceptance of homosexuality on everyone else by force of law. That’s inarguable.

    “I have studied Homosexuality and Bisexuality and it is just as valid a sexuality as Heterosexuality and neither of the sexualities are by choice.”

    Once again, you need to brush up on your Catholicism. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful, and the inclination itself is “intrinsically disordered”. It doesn’t matter whether the orientation is “by choice” or otherwise. We are all born with original sin and have sinful tendencies as a result. That’s why Christ went to the cross. The answer to that problem is repentance, not demands for acceptance.

    “As for Transsexuality, it is a medical condition, and individuals like yourself are the reason why Transsexuals are murdered, beaten, thrown out into the streets by family, etc…”

    Just for the record, I’m against murdering, beating, or throwing transexual persons into the streets.

    “Now the question is if you had a Transsexual child what would you do?”

    If I had a male child who wanted to be a female, or a female child who wanted to be male, I would do all in my power to persuade him or her to accept the sexual identity he or she was given by God. What would I do if I had a child who had a sex-change operation? I would weep, fast, and pray. I would not cut off communication, but neither would I permit such an example to be displayed before other children in my presence.

    Maria, homosexuality is more than a sin – it is a social calamity that affects everyone. In this way it is like suicide: a death wish for oneself and ultimately one’s neighbors. Persons afflicted with homosexual tendencies are owed all the compassion and charity that the Christian people have to offer. But not at the price of condoning the sin or the miserable, sordid, deadly lifestyle that results from it.

    Like

    Comment by Jeff Culbreath | October 10, 2008 | Reply

  11. T. Chan, I believe there has been some variation of view on whether the angels are strictly bodiless. The great scholastics (so I learn from C. S. Lewis) held them to be strictly disembodied, but some earlier Catholic writers whose names I don’t happen to know at the moment but could look up held them to have bodies made of a radically different substance from earthly bodies. They do in fact take on physical form to appear to man, and the biblical accounts seem to imply that the physical form they take then–at least of those angels as have come to earth–appears masculine to human eyes.

    Like

    Comment by Lydia | October 10, 2008 | Reply

  12. Some of the scholastics talked about spiritual matter, but nonetheless they maintained spirits did not have bodies; I doubt the Church Fathers even thought of the angels as anything but spirit. Anyways, for Catholics, that angels are purely spirit is pretty much settled.

    Like

    Comment by T. Chan | October 10, 2008 | Reply

  13. If I had a male child who wanted to be a female, or a female child who wanted to be male, I would do all in my power to persuade him or her to accept the sexual identity he or she was given by God. What would I do if I had a child who had a sex-change operation?

    The rationalizations for sexual realignment are very telling. Lydia pointed out on my blog that there cases of people who always believed they were meant to be an amputee and voluntarily have healthy and functioning limbs removed. So follow this and see the disconnect:

    –An anorexic women walks into a doctor’s office skin and bones and says, “I’m fat. Give me liposuction.” What should the doctor do? Answer: get her to a specialist in eating disorders. You don’t under any circumstances give her liposuction.

    –A man walks in to a doctor’s office and says, “Ever since I was a child, I’ve imagined myself without my left leg. Amputate it.” What should the doctor do? Answer: get him to a psychologist. You don’t amputate.

    –A man walks into a doctor’s office and says, “Ever since I was a child, I felt like a woman trapped in a man’s body. Give me a sex-change operation.” What should the doctor do? Well, common sense would tell us to to do the same thing we did with the anorexic and the wanna-be amputee. But nooooo, because this is a pelvic issue that is somehow different.

    Anyone who has paid any attention over the years and doesn’t have their head in an ideological fog readily sees that the defenders of homosex and gender-bending are less concerned about fairness than with waging war on Truth and Goodness.

    Like

    Comment by Scott W. | October 10, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: