SaveCalifornia: Alameda School District Tramples Parents

In Alameda County, school districts are implementing plans for indoctrinating children in gay and lesbian themed lessons and forbidding parents from interfering.  Here it comes!  “Whether you like it or not!”

—Beetle Blogger

California school district tramples parents

Tuesday night, over the protests of parents, the Alameda Unified School Board voted to keep and recraft its “Lesson 9” homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality curriculum.

The Dec. 8 vote was 4-1 to “retain Lesson 9 until a replacement that specifically addresses all six of the ‘protected classes’ is…adopted by the board.” Read the blow-by-blow account of the school board meeting.

This means the preying on children to indoctrinate them into the unnatural and unhealthy LGBTQ (“lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning”) lifestyles is even worse now, and will become a more salable model for school districts near you. This is because Alameda school board members voted to hide the curriculum under a more expansive “anti-bullying” label that will continue to teach children that “LGBTQ” lifestyles are good, natural, and maybe even for them.

Alameda’s attack on children and families comes a week after a judge, despite the arguments of pro-family attorneys, ruled that California law trumps a claim to parental rights in this situation. The judge ruled that parents cannot “opt out” their children from Alameda’s pro-LGBTQ lifestyle curriculum. See the school district’s triumphant Dec. 2 news release.


1. Any government school district can push homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality curriculum on students. There is no California state law prohibiting this. All pro-family efforts to protect kid’s minds have been and will continue to be defeated in Democrat-controlled committees of the California Legislature. “LBGTQ-friendly” curriculum is already taught to kids in San Francisco and Oakland. Now, with Alameda on board, it can easily spread to other California school districts (most of which are controlled by liberals or uncourageous conservatives) under the cover of “anti-bullying” curriculum. (See actual video clips of homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality indoctrination in Massachusetts.)

2. California school districts are more likely than ever to trump parental rights with immoral education: In a 1995 speech, Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools” project leader, homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, explained how he successfully imposed homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality indoctrination by packaging it as “safety.” This deception has been crushing moral standards in California public schools for several years now. Despite many U.S. Supreme Court rulings upholding the inherent right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children, has witnessed, over the last decade, the California Legislature passing law after law that either limit or eliminate parental rights in public schools.

3. School districts are already permitting student clubs and campus activities promoting homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to other children: Public schools can and do hold lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender “diversity day,” “week” and “month.” Public schools can and many do permit the pro-“LGBTQ” “Day of Silence” every April. Public school districts must permit “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs on high school and junior high campuses. We often hear other horror stories too.

4. Don’t think this isn’t happening your community? There are now 5 statewide California laws promoting homosexual, bisexual and transsexual lifestyles to children: Read what AB 537, SB 71, SB 777, AB 394 and SB 572 push on children as young as kindergarten.



  1. Choice and Accountability said,

    December 9, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    W.O.W. I would not hesitate for 2 seconds, to home school.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    December 10, 2009 at 5:36 am

    C&A, I agree. When the government and public school system by extension sets itself up in direct opposition to the mandates of parenthood, to raise and rear children in a healthy environment, the only solution left is to abandon that government system. Luckily, in California, we can still home school our children. It is a sorry state of affairs that good parents are being forced out of the system simply because school officials have an anti-family agenda. That kind of business has no business being in a school. School as a social tool to politically influence the next generation is an old and effective trick. But it has nothing to do with education, and in fact comes at the expense of true education.

  3. Julie said,

    December 12, 2009 at 8:51 am

    I was confused by your piece. I don’t understand why you used words like “indoctrinated, trampled, preying, attack, crushing”.

    As I see it the school board is trying to prevent bullying – name calling and physical abuse. I see they are trying to teach tolerance and respect. Great things in our diverse country.

    I DOUBT they are encouraging anyone to be LGBT. You can’t be! You can’t make anyone be gay by talking about it. It’s sexual prefference. No one can form lasting relationships without chemistry. It’s like ice cream. Whats your favorite? Choc? I can’t make you like my fave which is vanilla.

    So simmer down. No need to use words like attack. You be you. Let others be others. They are not asking you to be just like you. Only YOU are being that disrespectful to want such.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    December 12, 2009 at 9:33 am

    Julie, are you familiar with the Alameda school district’s situation?

  5. beetlebabee said,

    December 12, 2009 at 9:35 am

    If the school is having a problem with kindness, they should teach kindness…..not lesbianism. I believe in parental rights with regard to their children’s education. In a system where parents are invited and encouraged to participate in the system for the good of their children, to have the school district ignore the overwhelming response against what they were doing is I’d say a good description of “trampling”.

  6. Chairm said,

    December 12, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Opting out of the public school system is a legitimate approach. However, pushing people out of the system is one of the purposes of the pro-gay bigotry that is being pressed into the system. The idea is to marginalize dissent and opposition even when the pro-gay faction is a minority view and most people disagree with it. By attrition, the public system loses.

    Where this has occured in other jurisdictions, resistance is reduced and then the pro-gay bigotry is turned toward coralling home schoolers.

    Parents are right to think of their children first. But we also have to consider the costs of retreat into enclaves.

  7. Julie said,

    December 12, 2009 at 10:11 am

    I understand your frustration and feeling disempowered. I know thats not a nice place to be in.

    But how would any school teach lesbianism – I don’t get it.

    All I can imagine they are saying is statingTHE fact that there is a percent of our populace that is different. FACT. I doubt they give detailed information re how to put on a strap on.

    Your wishing homosexuals didn’t exist or your anger and bluster won’t change the fact that gays exist. I’m sure you are used to using anger to bully others to do and think what you want them to do so naturally you support bullying.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    December 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    Julie, the lesson material is quite explicit, and goes further than teaching the existence of gays and lesbians. If parents do not want this pushed on their children, who are you to tell them they must have it anyway? There is too much of the attitude that same-sex behavior must be pushed in the classroom and the public arena, “whether we like it or not”.

    Your brash assumptions and characterizations are off mark, as are your hasty and reckless conclusions.

  9. Patrick said,

    December 12, 2009 at 1:42 pm


    I have to reask beetlebabee’s question – have you even read what is going on in the Alameda school district? You ask the question “how can any school teach lesbianism – I don’t get it.” Check out the Alameda school districts own website — the “Caring Schools Curriculum.” You will be much better informed before posting on this blog with ridiculous accusations to people you’ve never even met and how they “naturally support bullying.” Are you serious??

    On the Alameda website, teachers are given resources of famous LGBT – so yes there is teaching of lesbianism going on with K-5. One of the “famous gay Americans” listed is Lance Bass, from N*Sync. Do you have any children? If you did, would you want your teachers wasting time teaching your elementary school children about Lance Bass and how he “came out” on the cover of People Magazine. This is now what passes for education in California.

    Next, please read the specific curriculum for each grade. Take a look at the 3rd grade curriculum – where the kids read the book “And Tango Makes 3.” Read the discussion guide where teachers are supposed to ask students about how two male penguins are good parents and ask students “what makes good parents?” 3rd grade is about the time many kids learn about the birds and the bees. At this point in the lesson I can guarantee an inquisitive child will ask the teacher “I thought only babies could come from mommies and daddies — how can two daddies make a baby?”

    My point in making this long illustration is that Alameda is not teaching social studies, history, or anti-bullying – this is SEX EDUCATION. And in California, parents have a right to opt-out of sex education. However, if you do a little more research on the Alameda school district you’ll find that the school district went out of their way to set up this curriculum to prevent parents from pulling their kids out of this curriculum. They are essentially saying “we as a school district know better how to teach your children morals than you as parents do.”

    Julie, you might personally believe that your morals are better than mine because you don’t believe LGBT is immoral. But that is beside the point – the point is that this debate has absolutely no place in the schools. In California our schools are failing -over 20% of our high school students are DROPPING OUT! Take a look at the test scores especially in lower-income neighborhoods. CA schools need to focus on reading, writing and arithmetic if we want to produce students who can do something other that work at McDonalds. You might believe it is important to proclaim your facts about how gays and lesbians exist. That is fine — just don’t try to shove the gay ideology down the throats of my children in school. I want my kids learning math in school, not Lance Bass.

    And lastly, you might think this LGBT indoctrination is necessary because it teaches “anti-bullying.” Take a look at the Op-Ed piece in the liberal LA Times who agreed that the Alameda school district was trying to push an agenda with this “Caring Schools Curriculum.” I have a very easy, straightforward idea for anti-bullying curriculum: tell the kids not to say words that make other students feel bad. Simple and to the point. You don’t need to spell out every single word that makes someone feel bad. Kids aren’t stupid and they don’t need to be indoctrinated in LGBT talking points to learn anti-bullying.

    Again, please do your homework before posting.

  10. Julie said,

    December 13, 2009 at 8:07 am

    Ok guys I gotta come clean – you are right I really don’t know anything about the Alameda school district.

    And I really do understand that frustration of a school force feeding our kids values one doesn’t agree with. I also don’t like how our California schools don’t encourage our kids to think. So my kids go to a private school that is in keeping with my spiritual values.

    Although I don’t think the 20% high school drop out rate has much to do with any gay material they heard. More the exhaustion of being told open wide, ingest these boring facts, endless tests, papers and bazillion hours of homework. And our budget cuts can’t be helping the system.

    And I think the teachers reading a book about a gay family is fair. In that its fact that in California we have thousands of LGTB couples who are raising children. Have you read the American Association of Pediatrics study? They found children raised by homosexuals suffer no untowards effects. See this link for other study results too

    Kids are sponges and will act out your values until the teens when they re-evaluate and find there own. If you hold angry, judgemental, hateful attitudes towards LGTQ people and families chances are your children will too. Hence the bullying risk at schools.

    I apologise from shooting from the hip and not doing my homework.

  11. Chairm said,

    December 13, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Well, if Julie means what she says, then, she’d be okay with teaching kids the fact that there are people whose sexual orientation is dirven by what is known as genetic sexual attraction. That is: Related people who are ostracized for these feelings and for acting on these feelings.

    They exist. They form loving relationships. Their children would be targets in schoolgrounds, surely. If SSM is justified on the basis that SSMers insist, then, these related people must be included rather than excluded — whether they can marry or not.

    But SSMers do not mean what they say. Not really.

    Julie, what is it about same-sex sexual behavior that merits the special treatment you think should just be considered a fact of life?

  12. beetlebabee said,

    December 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm


    “Kids are sponges and will act out your values until the teens when they re-evaluate and find there own. If you hold angry, judgemental, hateful attitudes towards LGTQ people and families chances are your children will too. Hence the bullying risk at schools.”

    Rather than continue to lob unfounded accusations about the character and intent of those on the other side of the issue from yourself, why don’t we discuss why SSM and homosexuality SHOULD be taught in the schools?

  13. beetlebabee said,

    December 13, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Regarding the flawed study from the AAP, see this research:

    “Conclusive” Report by American Academy of Pediatrics on Homosexual Adoption Shown to be Full of Holes Said to contain “major quotation and interpretive errors that … invalidate the conclusions in the article.”

    Over the past five years, Dr. Sharon Quick, a member of the American Society of Anesthesiologists and retired Clinical Assistant Professor from the Washington School of Medicine, has analyzed all of the major scientific literature that was used in the 2002 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Technical Report on Same-Sex “Marriage” Adoptions. The final report was printed in the highly influential Pediatrics journal and concludes by supporting the adoption of children by Gay and Lesbian Couples.

    In an Iowa court-case in late May, Dr. Quick gave her official testimony that the Technical Report “contains major quotation and interpretive errors that, irrespective of the quality of the studies cited, invalidate the conclusions in the article.”

    Many medical societies trust the accuracy of the AAP’s investigations and base their policies upon its reports. The report influenced the American Medical association, for example, to support the adoption of children by same-sex parents. The Report was also as evidence in the Massachusetts legal battle over same-sex union and in United States Supreme Court cases as well.

    Dr. Sharon Quick discovered that the report inaccurately references an unprecedented 57 percent of its scientific literature. The list of grossly misgathered and misrepresented information reveals the bias and inaccuracy in the Technical Report.

    These errors spread through a Policy Statement (2002) and Special Article entitled, “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children,” (2006) both printed in Pediatrics. The section on “gay and lesbian parents and their children” in the Special Article drew about half of its information and conclusions from the Technical Report, replicating quotation errors, and so heaping inaccuracy upon inaccuracy. The Article stated, for example, “Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles.” The original studies, however, did not specifically focus on lesbian maternal roles. The Report also ignores some of M. Kirkpatrick’s original data (1987) which records a Lesbian mother calling her partner’s son a “macho creep”.

    Out of 63 studies, 45 groups used volunteers for their samples. Much of the research was prone to participant, interviewer and researcher bias. For example, in some cases, participants were interviewed by lesbians or by researchers who supported same-sex unions.

    In the case of Golombok et al (2003), the researchers were short of lesbian mothers for their investigation, so the researchers approached lesbian friends and acquaintances all from the same location and asked them to fill up the same space. Some primary researchers stated that their finding may not be conclusive, but secondary sources such as the TR have selectively reported these findings as indisputable fact.

    Some background studies were funded by the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, the Equity Foundation’s Lesbian Project and other pro-homosexual organizations. Other cases did not take into account extraneous variables or the condition of the homosexual home from which the sample children were taken. In several cases, children from single-parent homes were representatives for norms within heterosexual families. These results are inconclusive, however, because they may be “actually dependent on the father’s absence or presence rather than on the mother’s sexual orientation.”

    Many studies investigated very small samples of young children (between 5 and 85 per group) while some of the studies used overlapping or duplicate samples. The majority of the studies did not investigate the harmful, long-term effects of coming from a same-sex marriage household.

    Other flaws included broad generalizations, vague definitions, conflicting data, poor classifications of homosexual feelings and relationships and weak use of statistics by relying more on description. Dr. Quick concludes, “The AAP’s standard for evidence-based medicine in a technical report is violated by the extent of the misrepresentation of the data, unsupported or misleading statements, and failure to report conflicting evidence contained within the report’s own references…the conclusions of the report cannot be trusted and should not be used to define policy.”

    See the entire analysis by Dr. Quick (39 page pdf document)

  14. beetlebabee said,

    December 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    If you are interested in less cherrypicking in your data, try The American College of Pediatricians who show quite clearly that gender is real and fathers and mothers matter to kids:

    No amount of social politicking can change that.

  15. Julie said,

    December 14, 2009 at 12:09 am

    I agree it’s a no brainer that children raised in a loving, conflict free marriage where the parents are financially secure and balanced have good odds of turning out healthy kids. But sadly parental absence, domestic violence, mental illness, alcoholism etc crosses all ethnic, social, class, sexual bounds.

    I think the difficulty of talking about this kinda stuff is that apples aren’t being compared to apples.

    Sexual abuse, incest, pedophilia and rape are all crimes because the perpertrator is using force, duress and manipulation and harms another. It is wholly different to consenting adults choosing and enjoying homosexuality. Lumping these situations together is not comparing apples to apples.

    Yes I do tell my kids that there are unwell people out there who are confused and want to do adult things with children. But that they must never let anyone touch their private parts until they grow up. I tell them that to empower and protect them so that they shout “no” and tell. It’s just fact and I want to prepare them to thrive in the world.

    Why teach children homosexuality?

    Children are naturally curious and honest. They ask why someone is in a wheelchair and notice the first 500lb person they see. I think the best thing is to answer matter of factly eg he may have broken his spinal cord and is now paralysed. It’s possible just to state things without bias, judgement nor values. So kids will ask how can 2 daddies have a child (coz they will come across a couple sooner or later). It’s natural to wonder. The answer is easy. “Those men are homosexual they choose to be together rather than being with women. They love each other and want to love a child like your mom and I love you. They may have adopted their child or used artifical insemination with a surrigate to have him.”

    Like I said before it’s just a fact of modern life. America encourages freedom and self expression. Homosexuality is not new, it ain’t going anywhere.

    And how does it hurt you? I don’t get it. As master of MY fate, MY destiny what has gays got to do with you. No one’s asking you to be gay. No one is going to make you marry a gay. Why oh WHY do you care?

  16. beetlebabee said,

    December 14, 2009 at 9:15 am


    In this case I care because I value parental rights and those rights have been trampled by a political group trying to force a certain brand of politics into the classroom. That effort is not to teach tolerance, because there are far more tolerant ways to teach kindness for others. What people choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business, but when it is pushed in the classroom, it stops being a private matter and becomes a public one.

    You may personally agree with the politics being pushed, but don’t let that cloud your judgment. What Alameda School District has done here is in blatant disregard for parental rights and the democratic system that supports the schools.

  17. beetlebabee said,

    December 14, 2009 at 9:18 am


    “Sexual abuse, incest, pedophilia and rape are all crimes because the perpertrator is using force, duress and manipulation and harms another. It is wholly different to consenting adults choosing and enjoying homosexuality. Lumping these situations together is not comparing apples to apples.”

    Is this in reply to something I said? You’ve lost me here.

  18. beetlebabee said,

    December 14, 2009 at 9:46 am

    “The answer is easy. “Those men are homosexual they choose to be together rather than being with women. They love each other and want to love a child like your mom and I love you. They may have adopted their child or used artifical insemination with a surrigate to have him.””

    Or, the answer could be just as easy. “Those men are homosexual. They choose to be together rather than marrying and having children like mommy and daddy did. It’s very sad, but they think that having a mom isn’t important in the life of a child and have created a situation where the child they’re raising is denied a mother by design. That’s their choice, but it’s kind of sad for the baby who didn’t get to choose and who will never have a mommy because of what these two men chose.

    It’s all easy. The presentation however is key. Who gets to decide how children are taught about homosexuality? Parents or State Bureaucrats? That’s the question in Alameda, at least it was until Alameda School District locked parents out of the system as if children attending public school were being held as wards of the state rather than free entities with families and cultures of their own.

  19. Julie said,

    December 14, 2009 at 10:59 am

    Beetlebabee the above bit was in response to Chairms comment.

    Maybe the solution would be if you and the school treat yourselves like the Johovah Witness parents. In that they don’t value any holiday or birthday celebrations and therefore their kids are allowed to be excused to the library during such. So the teachers/school/district could honor your values by excusing your kids during the “caring lessons”. That seems fair to me!

  20. Julie said,

    December 14, 2009 at 11:07 am

    I have several “same sex family” friends and they ensure their kids are exposed to opposite gender loving family members eg grandmothers, uncles etc. They are not lacking for adoration, nuturing nor appropriate gender role modelling. They are not lacking security, nuturing, nor having their physical needs met.

  21. beetlebabee said,

    December 14, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Julie, the “opt out” was specifically denied parents in Alameda. That is part of the uproar. This is forced indoctrination, in violation of parents’ rights to teach their children morals and values.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    December 14, 2009 at 11:24 am

    Julie, while your anecdotal evidence is very heartwarming and sincere I’m sure, having aunties and grandmas does not replace a mother. The idea that a union of one gender is equal to a union of two genders is false on many fronts, most blatantly for children. When a child has to live without a mother or a father by death or divorce, society considers this a tragedy in the life of that child. Other adults try their best to fill the gap left, but no one argues that aunties and grandmas can completely fill that void. To create this situation on purpose simply to gratify the selfish desires of the adults in the situation is a tragedy for the child or children involved.

  23. Chairm said,

    December 14, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Julie, how is your previous comment a response to my previous comment? Please explain what you are responding to, specifically.

    * * *

    You said: “apples aren’t being compared to apples.”

    Okay, what are you comparing, in fact? State the commonalities.

    I had asked you about related people who experience genetic sexual attraction, engage in sexual behavior together (as consenting adults) and live together out of wedlock because they are ineligible. Their loving relationships arise from their orientation — genetic sexual attraction — and teaching that it is okay would fit your own stated standards.

    Is that not an apple to apple comparison with what you are advocating?

    * * *

    What you said about role models is quaint but does not fit the social scientific evidence.

    Besides, your standards would suite the grandmom-mom household, too, where children are raised in loving home. But it seems that for you the sexual attraction and behavior makes all the differnence where lesbians are the two women. Right? But there is no evidence that same-sex sexual behavior enhances the outcomes for children.

    Maybe having more than one “mom” is the key? Okay, then, the polygamous marriage would fit your stated standards, also.

    If these are not apple-apple comparisons, then, you will need to explain the differences that make them apple-orange comparisons.

  24. Julie said,

    December 14, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Oh Guys! I see you are very committed to being right and righteous. I see you have no desire to see this from any other viewpoint. When you are ready to get out of your heads and meet real people with great kids I recommend you do. See for yourself the truth thats always out there for you to see. But you can’t see anything except your fixed homophobia.

    How far are you going to take your being right? All the way to murder? Or to jail? Or refusing the services of the paramedic who comes to your house when you’re having a heart attack who happens to look butch? Or the ER nurse who’s effiminent – remember he controls the pain meds! Are you going to have no relationship with your children or grandchildren if they happen to seem gay? Just to be RIGHT? Seems a sad loss. A sad loss of meeting interesting, smart people.

    I grew up in Zimbabwe. The African polygomists had no effect on my life. Not for me, but they effected me not. If a related couple lived next door to me and were good neighbors I wouldn’t know nor care if they were related. I can’t imagine a romantic relationship with my brother but its their lives – not hurting me.

    If you are so into “Rules” and what’s right then why don’t you adhere the LAW that says homosexuals should not be discriminated against.

    If you are so anti government social interference then why are you so activily attempting to socially engineer? “Talk about the pot calling the kettle black”?

    Sometimes in life there are surprising opposites that happen. Eg there was a study that looked at happiness. And they found that paraplegics rated themselves as one of the happiest groups. Strangely lottery winners rated themselves as some of the unhappiest. My point is sometimes we hold wrong perceptions. And your perceptions that a child brought up by same sex parents is tragically unhappy/scared is just such a misconception. Go out and meet these kids. See them laugh, play, excell, love.

    Now Tiger Woods – there’s a great hetrosexual father!

    OK Guys I’m signing out. I see no point in talking with you anymore as it’s not a discussion. You are to fixed in your intellectual, homophobic tunnel vision.

    I’m sorry for whatever has happened to you to make you so full of poison and hate. I know sex abuse is a horrible experience.

    I know Jesus would have eaten with the gay, the tax man and the prositute. But I guess you’re better than that.

    Good bye. I hope your kids forgive you. I know I do.

  25. beetlebabee said,

    December 15, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Julie, you are right on one point at least. This has not been a discussion nearly as much as I would have liked. You seem to have your agenda and are unwilling to respond to the comments made… It’s unfortunate too, because there is much understanding that can be had by honest discussion.

  26. Chairm said,

    December 15, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Before Julie walked out, she said: “The African polygomists had no effect on my life. Not for me, but they effected me not. If a related couple lived next door to me and were good neighbors I wouldn’t know nor care if they were related. I can’t imagine a romantic relationship with my brother but its their lives – not hurting me.”

    Given the question I asked, it is fair to say that, for Julie, polygamy and incestuous marriage provide an apples-to-apples comparison with SSM.

    Julie, your rhetoric about murder is way over the top. I’m not sure if your remarks about being righteous really do amount to disapprobation. But if you meant it as a way of chiding us, then, how come you got so indignent and, well, righteous-like?

    Rules? The SSM campaign is set on attacking the rules of eligibility based not on what marriage is but on what SSM is not. Two discrete things. And if you are going to insist on certain intellectual rules of argumentation, which your comments did invoke, then, why complain now about rules?

    Up to about half-way through your last comment, you were civil and generous, I thought. I had hoped you’d not runaway from the actual disagreement. But I am thankful that you felt welcome to discuss these things, here, at a pro-marriage blogsite of one of the most clear-minded of marriage defenders, namely our host.


  27. Julie said,

    December 16, 2009 at 6:38 am

    Alright, I apologise for unecessary innuendo. I agree over the top! I didn’t leave in indignation, rather to encourage you to get out into the real world rather than arguing in concept and word games. You guys are so clever you can seem to win any such argument.

    I too am glad we had this chat as now I understand your viewpoint better. And I see it is more rooted in protection of children than in just mean spiritedness.

    I know a lovely gay LDS couple with a beautiful daugther who I think you should meet. They are smart, kind and sucessful men.

    I know we are all God’s creations doing our best. We are all unique. To love our fellow man means respecting our differences especially if they cause us NO harm. Lets all be in the real world. Living in our hearts. Living in the grace, joy, forgiviness, peace and love of God.

    As LDS men I would think you’d understand from LDS history what prejudice and oestricism felt like. Now you are the perputrators of such. Is that who you really want to be?

  28. beetlebabee said,

    December 16, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Julie, Chairm and I are not “LDS men”. I’m not sure what would have given you that idea. Marriage is not about prejudice or ostracism. Marriage is about bringing the sexes together in a way that securely binds them to each other and to any children that may be born of that unique union. Marriage is the glue that binds families. No matter how wonderful two people are, if they are not willing to fill the requirements for marriage, they cannot and ought not be married, no matter what the reason. They are however, free to seek other arrangements. Science is clear on the fact that children fare best in this arrangement. I’m sure your friends are wonderful people, but alone they can never provide what a mom and a dad can provide for that child.

    Your concept of the real world seems to be anything that agrees with you. Looking at two men and the heap of logic you have to lay aside in order to equate them to a man and a woman is just too much of a stretch. How is that reality? Biology, gender, chromosomes, science all tell us that the genders are different and that mothers and fathers matter.

  29. Chairm said,

    December 16, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    Julie, your apology is warmly accepted. The argument is not just about words but about meaning. The core meaning of a social institution that is foundational for civilization. This is realworld.

    On the other hand, the notion of SSM is very vague and highly abstract. To call it “marriage” requires gutting marriage of its core meaning and replacing it with something else.

    If SSM has merit, then, it might be stood on its own two feet — warts and all. That hasn’t happened anywhere that SSM has been enacted or imposed. Always, it is about merger with marriage. And that means abolishing from marriage whatever does not fit the SSM notion. When that notion is so vague that it can mean anything and everything, as in your comments (and that’s typical of what SSMers reveal in their arguments), then, the merger amounts to an attack on the core of marriage rather than a building-up of what SSM is or might become.

    The social ills that are the consequence of nonmarital trends are realworld. The SSM-merger would do zilch to stall, much less to reverse, such trends. On the other hand, the reaffirmation of the core meaning of marriage had started to do this work — but then the SSM campaign was pushed to the top of the agenda and has become a huge distraction from the business of marriage in our civilization. That’s real. It is not merely word games at stake.

  30. Julie said,

    December 16, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Honey why would you lie? This is why I think you’re LDS.

    Just goes to show what lies you are willing to put out there just to hurt other people. Shame on you.

    As I know you know hetrosexual marriages also come in all shapes and sizes eg swinger couples or open marriages. Also not for me but none of my business.

  31. beetlebabee said,

    December 16, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    Julie, let me clarify further :-) As I’ve said, I am not an LDS man, neither is Chairm. I’m actually, very much a woman, and yes, my blog is listed in many places. Thank you for noticing. Do you wish to discuss religion? I’m trying to figure out why you brought it up and what relevance it has to what happened in Alameda School District.

  32. Julie said,

    December 17, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    My interest was always why do YOU care if a book about 2 penguins daddies is read in class. Why is it such a big deal? Like I said it is a fair reflection of our society. Fact gay Dad’s exist.

    So now that I know you’re a woman I’m hypothosizing maybe you are so arrogant or insecure or delusional that you think a man can’t do the job of a wife and mother as well as you or women in general. But there are many many hetrosexual households in the US who the primary or at least 50% nuturing care is provided by the childs Dad. Times are a changing there are many men out of work. So they are staying home and their wives are working full time. I wonder if you are thinking they are tragic abused kids? My guess is that you don’t.

    My kids Dad is a wonderful, nuturing, organised, clean, very competent Dad. I joke that he is a better Mom than me.

    It would be interesting to see CPS files of mistreated kids. I think you’ll find the majority come from hetrosexual homes. My fact is people are people – social ills extend throughout gender, class, race, sexual orientation. Hetrosexuals aren’t all perfect and gay couples aren’t all evil. That’s silly! We’re all in this soup of life together. Are we gonna gang up all against red heads next – coz we all know how they are.

    I bought up religious values as I know how LDS members value their faith. And was wondering if you are a homophobe due to religious misconceptions.

    All and all I’m still confused as to why you work so activily to fight stuff that seems to hurt no one?

    Is it just to prove how clever and powerful you are? Kinda like a bully? Or you’re just cruel and if it wasn’t for gay bashing you’d be abusing your kids or killing cats?

  33. Julie said,

    December 17, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    Also what marriage is . . . that’s obvious. We all agree it’s when two people love each other enough that they want to publically admit and commit themselves to loving one another for the rest of their lives. It’s much more about romance and a declaration of love than what the state recognises which is the merging of assets and liabilities.

    That’s why civil unions don’t appeal to anyone as they are not romantic rather just legalistic.

    You have to know REAL gay couples to see and sense their love for their partner. To get how they really love one another and want to openly declare their commitment and wear tux’s and cut the cake. We’re all the same, we all want ritual and celebration.

    Why have you fought so hard to take that pleasure away for innocent people who have done nothing to you?

    It’s kinda like a little kids fight where they see anyone who’s not with them as against them. That’s silly! Or a greedy toddler who doesn’t want share the cookies or toys.

  34. Giles said,

    December 18, 2009 at 10:06 am

    So we should redefine marriage because you think people who disagree with ssm abuse kids and kill cats? Is it just me or did Julie just admit that she has no arguments except personal attacks?

  35. Julie said,

    December 18, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    My question always was why do you care?

    Why do you personally attack in words and actions the possible 3 million gays in our country?

    Why do you fight so hard to remove the legal right to marry this group gained in Califirnia and elsewhere?

    Your fixation to discredit gays rights is seems like Rowling’s pure bloods use of dark magic to exterminate mud bloods in “Harry Potter”. Harry etc had to fight back against the evil. Defence against the dark arts. You are not superior (no one is) only agrogant and hurtful like Malfoy.

  36. beetlebabee said,

    December 18, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Actually Julie, Laying your penchant for personal ridicule aside for a moment, posters in this thread have repeatedly given reasons why they oppose what Alameda School district has done. These bureaucrats, against tolerance and reason, are forcing one socio/moral/political view on children in their care, against the distinct wishes of the parents in their district.

    You have failed to provide any kind of justification for these actions by the district beyond articulating the necessity for teaching kindness. On this point we agree. There is a clear need for families and schools to work together to not only teach kindness in the classroom, but to model kindness and tolerance for others in our speech and actions. Wouldn’t it be nice if Alameda practiced what it preached?

    Is there any rational reason why children must be taught lesbianism in order to be taught kindness for others? Isn’t the very policy Alameda District is pushing epitomizing the very bullying they claim to be fighting? They have the power, and they’ve made it clear that they’re going to use it to bully and force their policies on captive classrooms of children whose parents are not even allowed the simple option of removing them from class during lessons they find offensive. Parents won’t even be given the courtesy of prior notice so children can be removed from school on those days. No common courtesy or compromise that parents have suggested has been acceptable to the school board.

    None of those concerns has anything to do with drowning children, torturing cats, or Harry Potter. I’d actually like your view on how these bully tactics, including your clearly derogatory comments, can possibly communicate tolerance and love for others?

  37. Lisa~ said,

    January 24, 2010 at 7:53 am


    What are the “religious misconceptions” you speak of?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: