ProudParenting.com - California - Comments

Rainbow Flag is a great choice

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:52:28 -0700

Dangerous for lesbian families my ass. Everything normally works out fine. Things sometimes go wrong as in heterosexual relationships, but it seems to be a lot rarer for there to be problems with Rainbow Flag donors.

It is *not* possible to get a known donor through *any* other sperm bank. What you can get is an ID-release donor. That means the children don't know who their donor is till he's 18, and even then some sperm banks let the donor change his mind.

- They'll test for the same diseases as any other bank.
- They do *not* take only gay donors.
- Not paying donors is a good thing, not a reason to criticise them.
- The AAP does *not* recommend that parents circumcise boys. In fact, no national medical organisation does.

Agreed

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:27:17 -0800

I also think this is not something to just freak out about. There are registries. one is free and new and called donoroffspringmatches.com. Anyone can register. There is also a great place for people to post health issues in donor offspring. It is called donoroffspringhealth.com. Both are newer sites.

I know you can register at both and both are free. Thankfully my donor conceived child is healthy but there are places where you can connect and find out this info.

Link to Fact Sheet on SB 777

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:29:01 -0800

Here is a link to a fact sheet on SB 777:

Information from the sponsoring agency, EQCA:
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=9oINKWMCF&b=2292609&ct=3...

The number of this bill is interesting: three 7's, a very biblical number. No one has mentioned that yet, and I don't think it is something that could have been planned. It just might mean something, like look twice before starting to scream about this, or follow someone else's summary of SB 777 so that they can get your signature on a petition you may not really agree with if you did your own homework.

always atacking on a

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:35:40 -0800

always atacking on a personal level, never on subject.

you must be kidding. why

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:49:16 -0800

you must be kidding. why dont you go back to church and get some more "directions" from your pastor. your just a complete fool. read the law and dont think you know what your talking about.

trators

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:54:09 -0800

You are so right there are many laws that are unconstitutional and no one seemsto care

No worries

Momsinthetub — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:54:25 -0800

I'm sure this is an isolated incident, which happened against incredible odds. Egg and sperm donation still seem to be safe - effective ways for us to grow our families.

Let's not over-react.

Oh that's an well educated reply!

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:49:23 -0800

The truth hurts! Doesn't it?

I am all for fairness

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:03:06 -0800

But what about fairness for traditional family types? As a hard core democrat I want justice for all but I can't in good conscience overlook those who wish to shelter their children from aleternative life styles. Why should their children be subjected to ideas that the parent is not comfortable with? Also what does the LGBT commnity gain from this?

Some Clarity...

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:54:13 -0800

I think the bathroom thing is being derived from the bills definition of Gender.

210.7 "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

In other bills, bathrooms are “Gender” specific, so even though my “sex” is male, if I consider my “gender” to be female, I can therefore enter a woman’s bathroom. It’s not what the bill intends, but it can be used that way if someone wants to take it to an extreme. It will boil down to whom ever has the best lawyer.

The same thing can be derived from what the bill says about textbooks not discriminating against someone’s sexual orientation. Therefore the textbook should include information about various LGBT lifestyles. But if information is added to textbooks about LGBT lifestyles, isn’t that discriminating against religious beliefs that such lifestyles are unacceptable? Information about religious beliefs would have to be added to textbooks as well so not to discriminate against them. Now we get into separation of church and state. What a mess. So it gets down to whom ever has the best lawyer again.

This bill is silly and typical of politicians who just muddy up the water allowing people from both extremes to manipulate the law. The State should teach about culture and cultural diversity and against discrimination and biases, but it should not get into the details of such issues. Textbooks should not focus on one type of behavior (LGBT lifestyles, Christian lifestyles, etc.) over another. If one lifestyle is mentioned, then the opposite lifestyle must also be mentioned with equal fervor otherwise there is discrimination. Just teach the subject and keep God and sexual preference out of it.

I agree

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:50:22 -0800

Haha, you're so right, it's always the conservative anti-gay senators like R-Larry Craig...

What's the point

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:17:09 -0800

I can solve the whole thing for everyone. Ask yourself why are we spending billions on brick and mortar school houses, administrators and teachers just to baby sit and coddle a bunch of miscreants anyway? Very few kids actually learn anything past the fourth grade. Let's abolish the whole damn system and run on-line education centers with a police officer overseeing behavior. One teacher on-line can instruct a great many more students than they can in a classroom. Home school fans could just stay home and log on, and folk who need the baby sitting could drop off their little bundles with a cop. No more bullying and behavior problems, we save buckets of money, and the little darlings might learn something.

Nope - Just drama queens

Momsinthetub — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:51:02 -0800

The bill doesn't say anything about unisex bathrooms. It's rhetoric from frightened conservatives, who also think that gay marriage will lead to marrying donkeys and dogs.

Just more signs that "end of days" is near. Silly, scared, and senseless.

I am a little confused. Does

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:04:39 -0800

I am a little confused. Does this bill promote unisex bathrooms in school? That would be ridiculous.

why would you think

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:52:52 -0800

why would you think conservatives, who favor family values, would enact such a bill?
This isn't a conservative bill... nor a liberal one. It's an extreme politically correct bill

I hear that a petition of a million signatures can nullify the bill if sent before Jan 1, when the bill will be put into place.
This is just awkward