You're starting to argue like JeffW now, Madman

Holy panties in a wad, Madman! You spend every Monday trying to get riled up?

Toleration and acceptance are two different things. I tolerate pro-lifers. I don't accept what they are preaching.

Are we doing this with all the kids that end up pregnant in their teens? Whose fault is that? People who want to only teach abstinence, or people who believe you should try and prevent unwanted pregnancies?

You're already buying into the WND bullshit. Nowhere does it say any of that in the bills.

Shouldn't that be for EVERYONE? Keep the sex at home - regardless of who you're bonking.

I didn't start the thread.

I also wasn't the one who started debating that the premise of the article was wrong.

No, that'd be me. Because it IS.

It would be like someone saying, "your handguns are effectively banned with the Brady Bill."

Bullshit.

Come on Moby. The analogy between the two is completely riduculous. It's like comparing Barry Bonds to the midget Beetlejuice (from Howard Stern Show).

I'm not even sure you understand the point of the WND article. I'm not one of the biggest fans of WND, but I don't think you comprehended the article correctly.

The point the article made was under the framework of this legislation, the possibilities down the road are ominous.

They specifically used the word "effectively" to describe possible ramifications. They also stated that "offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits."

That was their point. These bills not only set up a legal framework for policy and agenda moving forward, there will be many future lawsuits that will further set legal policy and whatever desired agenda in CA educational system because of this legislation.

The possibilities are endless. It is not unreasonable in light of this legislation to think that terms such as "Mom" and "Dad" could be banned sometime in the near future in the CA educational system because they have been found discriminatory or hostile to certain "lifestyles" either by the Gestapo Committee set up by this legislation or a court ruling using these laws as the basis for a lawsuit.

You are naive to think otherwise.

There will also be lawsuits going the other way. The first time someone is accused under this law of something without having to face their accuser, the whole thing could be deemed unconstitutional.

What kind of Stalinist system would allow someone to be accused of a crime or discrimination without allowing the accused to face their accuser?

There is a lot of trampling on civil liberties going on in some of these bills.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is anyone granted the right to not be offended.

I saw "Knocked Up" last night and I want to have some serious gender with Katherine Heigl.

Well, I guess if I'm going to hound Madman for the rest of his days about unwarranted personal attacks, hypocrisy, and general slinging of BS, balance demands an "atta boy" when he manages a well-argued, relevant post like his last one.

You often have good, defensible, debateable points, Madman, that's why it's a shame that you so often sound like a nut job. If you want to be credible, write like that last post every time. Now just work on keeping an open mind and you'll be all set.

Somebody toss the guy a treat.