Bill requires gays' history to be taught

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   

SACRAMENTO - The state Senate will consider a bill that would require California schools to teach students about the contributions gay people have made to society -- an effort that supporters say is an attempt to battle discrimination and opponents say is designed to use the classroom to get children to embrace homosexuality.

The bill, which was passed by a Senate committee Tuesday, would require schools to buy textbooks ``accurately'' portraying ``the sexual diversity of our society.'' More controversially, it could require that students hear history lessons on ``the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.''




Pink Link

Little doubt of the recruitment agrenda of the homosexual "movement". How about teaching actual american history and civics. Stop with the social engineering.

Where does this insanity stop...........history of lefthanded, 3'-1" tall, transsexuals seeking to be half sheep and half human? How they changed the sweater industry...........




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Quite an interesting bill...i agree i would be under the impression that there would be more taught in school about histroy.....i do realise that homosexuality and individuals are a part of history, however what has some ones sexual preference to do with learning....

Would i be wronging by saying, that in all the books that have been written about great individuals that a grave discrimination has been incurred. We did not mention that they were not homosexuals.....

The acts or good deeds done by individuals is important and as i have mentioned, their sexual preference is a private matter.....



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Why would the sexual orientation of anyone who has contributed something to society be relevent?
Is the contribution of a gay person any worthier than that of a straight person?
Honestly, I don't give a hoot what someones sexual orientation may be but I do object to having it rammed down peoples throats all the bloody time. why can't people in the gay community just go through life doing the things that normal people do? why must everything about them be so special. Bunch of bloody drama queens!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Sad.

Lets just make more segregation, more groups, more division.

If it goes any deeper, I will be a reject. What group would I be in if I am a highly tattooed computer geek, straight, firefighting, tattoo artist with hillbilly blood? Can I start a bill for my type to be taught in school - heck, we changed the way moonshine was made by making interactive instructions on the internet and get a tattoo while waiting for the juice.

I want to be recognised too doggone it!!!!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Why would the sexual orientation of anyone who has contributed something to society be relevent?
Is the contribution of a gay person any worthier than that of a straight person?
Honestly, I don't give a hoot what someones sexual orientation may be but I do object to having it rammed down peoples throats all the bloody time. why can't people in the gay community just go through life doing the things that normal people do? why must everything about them be so special. Bunch of bloody drama queens!



You have voted Britguy for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


On of the few times we have ever agreed on anything



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
shhhhhh.... don't tell anyone



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I disagree with this, too. What has sexual preference got to do with contribution to society? I do agree that history should be accurately portrayed, but not the contributors' personal love life! We have never elaborated on heterosexuality.

I think moves like this only serve to separate people more. I disagree with any attempt to elevate any group to 'special' status in history. Women in history, Blacks in history, Gays in history, Christians in history... Why don't we just stick with people who made history and leave their sexual organs and preferences, color, religion and all that other personal traits out of it.

It's one thing to elaborate on a history-maker, i.e., "He was a gay, black man who lived in Illinois at the time he started the Church of Holy Acceptance" or whatever. But to have a 'special' segment devoted to "Gay people in history" is just separatist in my view.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I am positive that many gays are already represented in history. Do we really have to indentify them as gay? Wouldn't all the historical personages who were gay but not indentified as gay be mad. Should we also have a history of left handers. Of people with one testical, what if you were born w/o a testicle would you be more or less important, historically. I declare myself to be a completely unique individual unlike every other person and demand that my history be as important as everyone else. There might be a slight problem with that. Why not just record all important event in one's diary.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I agree BH, what sexual preferences has to do with performing your best in our society.

Regardless of bisexual preferences we are still males and females and what we do in our society is just part of our personality and achievements sex is part of our private lives.

I agree also that our classrooms in the US are lacking as it is about historical teachings already.

If what some groups wants is to make children aware of people with that do not subscribe to social norms then tolerance is what should be teach, but not only to homosexuality but to racism, religion and many other topics that needs to be addressed in our schools.

What a joke.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
To sum it up I agree with all posters comments before me.


The article did not specify what age group of students these (pending textbooks) would be supplied to, not that it makes a difference in my book but I am curious as to the ominous sounding quote" accurate portrayal of our sexual diverse nation" or some such garbage.

I guess my question is will they portray the illustrious gay historical figures in illustrative glory as well as written text?

Would children in primary school be subjected to pictures of gays engaged in various states of homosexual activity?

As a kid growing up references were made about famous historical figures being gay (Lord Byron) but I didn't learn this from a textbook in school, and it didn't dimminish his poetry in my eyes.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Ok, yeah.

This is going a bit to far.

Ok, yeah, History should'nt say everyone was straight, and for a few historical figure I think there should be a note or something about it, but this is blown out of perportions.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
why can't people in the gay community just go through life doing the things that normal people do?


You mean like serve in the military, get married, raise families?

You mean like walk down the street holding hands with their lover without it provoking a lot of stares, dirty looks, cat-calls, and nasty comments?

You mean like visit a sick partner in the hospital, or cover him/her on their employer's medical plan, or leave assets to him/her in a will without it being automatically contested?

You mean like serve as clergy in the religion of their sincere belief, should that be their calling?

I am sure gay people could tell you why they don't do all these things that "normal" people can do.

But then, if you think about it, I'm also sure you can figure it out for yourself.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
Sad.

Lets just make more segregation, more groups, more division.

If it goes any deeper, I will be a reject. What group would I be in if I am a highly tattooed computer geek, straight, firefighting, tattoo artist with hillbilly blood? Can I start a bill for my type to be taught in school - heck, we changed the way moonshine was made by making interactive instructions on the internet and get a tattoo while waiting for the juice.

I want to be recognised too doggone it!!!!


I think they have established a bias against Tats and Moonshine being linked in having a grand ole' time......................



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I must agree with everyone, that it's an absurd idea. Sure, it's meant to do good, but not well thought-through. You want to teach children that all sexual orientations are equal, but you keep them separate, pointing out a historic person's sex-life? You want to educate a (possible) homophobic society about gays by shoving the ideas down their throats? Methinks it's just going to boomerang.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
All right, here's my take on it.

This would indeed be an absurd idea, something over the top, off the wall, out of bounds, beyond the pale, and half a dozen similar metaphors I haven't the time to bother typine, except that people's attitudes in this culture towards gay people are, on the whole, so outrageous that absurd, over the top, off the wall, etc. measures are fully justified to try to correct the problem.

If they work, that is -- and that's my biggest complaint about the measure. I have my doubts that it will.

A minority of human beings of both sexes have always been attracted to their own gender, and always will be. There is nothing they or anyone else can do about it, even granting that anything ought to be done. Yet these people are subjected to all kinds of official and unofficial persecution in this culture. A lot of heterosexuals, perhaps most of them, feel uncomfortable about gay sex and don't want to be confronted with it. And when I say "gay sex" I don't mean REALLY sex like a porn show on the sidewalk (most people wouldn't want to be confronted with straight sex to that extent in public either), but simple innocuous things like a couple holding hands, or giving each other a farewell peck, or even just referring to their relationship with their partner!

I'm not talking about religious beliefs here. I'm talking about visceral loathing, unearned and unwarranted, that leads almost always to social ostracism, often to persecution, and sometimes to violence.

This is an attitude that needs to change. I'm not at all convinced the method being suggested here, with textbooks highlighting gay people's contributions to history, will do much to change it. And I'm dubious about it for that reason.

But given the prevailing misguided public attitude towards homosexuality, it would take a lot more than this for me to believe an effort to correct that attitude is genuinely over the top. I think I'd draw that line at hard-labor reeducation camps, instead.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Actually, the above suggests to me a good test for whether or not you have the moral capital to object to this bill.

Imagine a homosexual sex-related activity being performed in front of you. Do this a number of times, with different intensities of performance, ranging from hand-holding and loving looks right up to a gay orgy in somebody's front lawn.

For each such act, switch to imagining a comparable heterosexual sex-related activity -- a man and woman holding hands and giving each other loving looks, for example.

It's perfectly OK to object to some blatant homosexual displays; I don't want to see no gay orgies in front lawns either. (Well, maybe if they were lesbians and all really hot . . . er, no, forget I said that.)

But if, for any act of gay sex-related activity that you think should not be displayed in public, you would object equally to an equivalent display of straight sexuality, why, then you are sufficiently free of bias against gay people to be entitled to an opinion on this measure.

If not -- then you are one of those towards whom it is targeted, and frankly, you are not so entitled.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Excellent posts, Two Steps, I couldn't agree more. I've known way too many gays, lesbians, transgenders that have had to suffer humiliation, hate, violence and yes, even killiing, for me to be anything but sympathetic to them. How many people actually know the history of gays and their struggle for recognition and the right to just live a normal life.
I'll bet there are ALOT of gays/lesbians throughout history that most of you aren't aware of at all. It's important for children to learn the history of ALL Americans, not just history written by white males, as it was when I went through school. It's important for all children to have heroes they can relate to, which is why Black history has been taught, also Women's History. I had no idea there had been so many brilliant women throughout history until I started studying on my own. Now I can be proud of women who went before me to make this a better world.
There are also alot of gays/lesbians living in California and because of that, young people are more aware of being gay when they are in junior high or high school - they should know what their own history of civil rights struggle is.
It's called consciousness-raising.

-Forestlady



new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join