CA Senate bill mandates gay history in schools

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Because it is in California... the Progressive Utopia of America. Also because they were stupid enough to elect Jerry Brown again. Enough Said.

And Ronald Reagan

What lies and filth specifically?

Not everyone from California fits the Progressive filth/lies mold, not to mention that California started to go down hill after Reagan. Jerry Brown pretty much started the ball rolling during his first term as Gov. Look at Cali's debt and deficit. Look at thier tyrannical taxes. Look at the fact that businesses are fleeing Cali like there's no tomorrow, mainly because of the taxes and overbearing regulations. The facts speak for themselves. Progressive policies never have worked and they never will work. The reason for this is that they are based in emotion and not in rational thought and common sense. For example of this see Detroit, Cleveland, New Jersey, NYC, Illinois, and any other town/city/state that has been under progressive leadership (and I use that word very loosely) for the last several decades. The proof as they say is in the pudding, a very depressing, immoral, and bankrupt pudding. By immoral I mean that it is immoral to steal the fruits of someone's labor via the tax system, and then redistribute that to those that have not earned it, which California is great at doing. By immoral I in no way am refering to gays. This has nothing to do with gays wanting "equality". It's just that the progressive/liberal cause is almost always associated with gay rights, due to the bigotry of the religious right. I am not from the religious right, so I could care less what gays do or if they get married. They are entitled to happiness just like I am, and as long as they are not breaking any laws or infringing on anyone else's rights and liberty then they should be able to do whatever they want. Like I said earlier, my problem is with the school districts, teachers unions, the NEA and the Department of Education thinking they know what is best for my child, or just children in general. They have no idea what is best, only the parent does. It is my job as a father to teach my children about social issues, not the educational system's. Schools should stick to math, english, etc and stop pushing their liberal agenda on unsuspecting, moldable young kids. To me, teaching the history of gays in school is no different than teaching the history of tall people. In other words, it is irrelevant to the educational development of a child. It's stuff like this that has made our education system the joke of the world. While China and Japan are teaching their kids math and physics, we are teaching ours the history of gays. When America falls and freedom and liberty is dead forever, or at least for the rest of our lives we will no doubt deserve it, but at least we will know the history of gays.

Originally posted by Annee

I am not making a judgment or telling anyone what to think.

In a generation where Kobe Bryant is fined 100 thousand dollars for making a gay slur in anger.

In a generation where the founder of Chick-Fil-A - - - has speaking engagements canceled because of donations to anti-gay organizations.

. . . . plus many more real-life situations that make it clear this coming generation will not tolerate in-tolerance toward gays.

Pretty sure it was the current PC police and not the upcoming generation that was responsible for the actions you listed above.

Notice how they aren't very tolerant of people with different opinions, yet they demand people tolerate them?

The Constitution does not allow for Congress to intervene into the educational system. As I have stated previously, the Dept of Education needs to be eradicated. All Government intervention needs to eradicated, what needs to be taught in school is individualism.

Originally posted by ViperChili
Pretty sure it was the current PC police and not the upcoming generation that was responsible for the actions you listed above.

Notice how they aren't very tolerant of people with different opinions, yet they demand people tolerate them?

Pretty sure its about growing up socially and not accepting childish discriminatory actions against a minority.

"They"? Stereotyping much?

OK, to all the lame politically correct people.... History does not need a specific sexual orientation to make it better... move along and stop playing the intolerance card (as always)...

Originally posted by Target Earth
OK, to all the lame politically correct people.... History does not need a specific sexual orientation to make it better... move along and stop playing the intolerance card (as always)...

OK, to all the youth who struggle with being born gay - - and need positive role models - - I celebrate this new move in historical recognition.

And with the recognition of gay historical figures - - - non gays will also understand and recognize the importance of non-discrimination of a minority group.

I can see only positive in this decision.

If there is relevance to the subject at hand, then sure...teach about gays in history...but not as a subject.

If say, Abe decided to free the slaves because there was a male slave he wanted to be with, but didn't want to be with a slave so corrected that...well, that would be relevant history as it had profound consequences.

If however, Joan of Ark fought and died...oh, and btw, total lesbian...well, there is no real historical value in that, she didn't fight for lesbians, she didnt use her sexual preference for anything she is known for...it is simply a trivial fact, might as well have a history of which sock a person put on first.

And given that perspective...that isn't called gay history...thats just called history.
What happened, when did it happen, what was the cause, what was the effect..

As far as teaching gay history...they already do...its called sociology (they brush on all the areas, gay, rich, poor, colors, etc...the history, the people of that are known, etc). history is about cause and effect, not about trying to teach acceptance or tolerance...

Again...this is best for a sociology class, not a history class.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
If there is relevance to the subject at hand, then sure...teach about gays in history...but not as a subject.

If say, Abe decided to free the slaves because there was a male slave he wanted to be with, but didn't want to be with a slave so corrected that...well, that would be relevant history as it had profound consequences.

If however, Joan of Ark fought and died...oh, and btw, total lesbian...well, there is no real historical value in that, she didn't fight for lesbians, she didnt use her sexual preference for anything she is known for...it is simply a trivial fact, might as well have a history of which sock a person put on first.

And given that perspective...that isn't called gay history...thats just called history.
What happened, when did it happen, what was the cause, what was the effect..

As far as teaching gay history...they already do...its called sociology (they brush on all the areas, gay, rich, poor, colors, etc...the history, the people of that are known, etc). history is about cause and effect, not about trying to teach acceptance or tolerance...

Again...this is best for a sociology class, not a history class.

edit on 16-4-2011 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

And, we have a winner ladies and gentleman, somebody who gets it! I applaud you sir.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
If there is relevance to the subject at hand, then sure...teach about gays in history...but not as a subject.

If say, Abe decided to free the slaves because there was a male slave he wanted to be with, but didn't want to be with a slave so corrected that...well, that would be relevant history as it had profound consequences.

If however, Joan of Ark fought and died...oh, and btw, total lesbian...well, there is no real historical value in that, she didn't fight for lesbians, she didnt use her sexual preference for anything she is known for...it is simply a trivial fact, might as well have a history of which sock a person put on first.

And given that perspective...that isn't called gay history...thats just called history.
What happened, when did it happen, what was the cause, what was the effect..

As far as teaching gay history...they already do...its called sociology (they brush on all the areas, gay, rich, poor, colors, etc...the history, the people of that are known, etc). history is about cause and effect, not about trying to teach acceptance or tolerance...

Again...this is best for a sociology class, not a history class.

edit on 16-4-2011 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

I would have to agree with you. While I still think having a gay history elective class would not be detremental I can understand why people would rather have it in sociology. I just still dont see this as a big issue. The only reason why this is an issue is because of peoples inate uncomfortability with homosexuality.

Originally posted by TheKnave
While I still think having a gay history elective class would not be detremental I can understand why people would rather have it in sociology. I just still dont see this as a big issue. The only reason why this is an issue is because of peoples inate uncomfortability with homosexuality.

It isn't a big deal.

I don't see any major difference other then historical gays will be identified.

It is important that gays are accepted as having been an integral part of all aspects of life.

Its time to take the blinders off.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I agree with you 100 %, Saturn.

A child, a son more specifically, should indeed have a father figure in his life. Times and norms have nothing to do with it. It does not matter if the parents are lesbians or what have you. A son needs a father for emotional reasons. Someone to look up to and respect. An example to strive for. A woman cannot teach a boy to be a man by example. The same goes for a female child. Sure they can be raised by a single dad, but here will always be something missing. The child would have a much healthier development with a mother around for her to learn from and such.

I do not think this is "old school" thinking at all. I feel it's a matter of nature's way of doing things.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I just think children with hetero sexual parents benefit from the fact that they have both male and female parents to experience life with.

Originally posted by spinalremain

I do not think this is "old school" thinking at all. I feel it's a matter of nature's way of doing things.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I just think children with hetero sexual parents benefit from the fact that they have both male and female parents to experience life with.

All I can say is "thank whatever force there is that my parents did not stay together".

Yeah - sometimes you hear a boy say his father is his hero. But more often you hear it was an uncle or teacher or coach - or someone else.

Let's talk "Old School" - - since I am from the 50s. In most cases the father went to work and the mom ran the household and raised the kids. The father came home - - ate dinner - - watched TV or read the paper. There was very little inter-action back then between the "breadwinner" and kids.

It is a created illusion in most cases that a father actually took an interest in his kids.

I agree kids need role models - - - but it doesn't have to be one parent or the other.

Most gays know when they are children they are different. They don't always know what that difference is - - but they recognize it.

Children who are gay need the recognition of gay historical figures. And children who are not - - need to know - - so they can support their friends who are.

reply to post by Annee


What is with you assuming that you, of all people, know what other people "need"?

Sexual orientation is not important in terms of history.

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by Annee

 

What is with you assuming that you, of all people, know what other people "need"?

Sexual orientation is not important in terms of history.

Spoken like someone who is straight and doesn't need the recognition. You have your own.

Or to feel important because many came before you.

Originally posted by Annee

Spoken like someone who is straight and doesn't need the recognition. You have your own.

Or to feel important because many came before you.

Your post sounds like it was spoken like someone who is gay and extremely insecure to the point where they need outside influences to reaffirm their sexuality for some reason.

If indeed that is the case, you have bigger problems than "gay history" not being taught in school.

reply to post by Annee



Yes every adult needs to work out equal rights. Leaves the kids out of it. As a guardian/parent it is your responsibility to educate your child. Schools are for mainstream education, such as sciences, languages, social studies, some history, though most history accounts are twisted anyways, and physical education. And yes gay and child predator is not synonymous. Reread my post, I am against any curriculum that focuses on sex, as in this constant mention about ones sexual preference. "Oh this historical figure was gay, oh this historical figure was bi-sexual, oh this one was straight, oh this one was a he but is now a she", on and on. Where is the line drawn?? It is SEX I am against permeating text books. When you say gay is not synonymous with child molester, are you saying that there a no gay child molesters? Gays are just as guilty in abusing children as are straight people. I do not appreciate, at all, sexual conversations in the classrooms. I do not appreciate my child hearing about it every day in school. I want her to learn academics so that she is prepared for college.

Seems to me that you are so focused on the gay subject you totally missed my point. Defensive are you? It is sex as a regular curriculum I do not agree with. You say when the child you are raising asked you about what gay means, and you explained, it was not big deal. That's great. So then why is it a big deal to add it to textbooks? You contradict yourself.

Uh, is the US educational system so good, there is nothing else to learn ? Why are they trying to pimp the kids?

Originally posted by 1RedRose
reply to post by Annee

 

Yes every adult needs to work out equal rights. Leaves the kids out of it.

Absolutely not!

Children who are gay know very early. They need heroes and role models just like every one else.

Kids won't still be able to balance their check books, or know what fractional banking is... but they sure as hell will be able to tell you all about gay history...

This is freaking ridiculous, even for Commiefornia. I support gay rights all the way, but this is not gay rights, it's just idiocy.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Kids won't still be able to balance their check books, or know what fractional banking is... but they sure as hell will be able to tell you all about gay history...

There are plenty of adults from past generations that can't balance their check books. Your point?

It is not gay history. It is history recognizing the contribution of homosexuals and lesbians.