CA Senate bill mandates gay history in schools

Originally posted by TheKnave
No one should be forced to tolerate another group... but we all 'should' do it on our own. There is no positivity that will grow from hate. This is of course my opinion. I believe we should all strive for good but being forced into it is wrong.

Its really pathetic that Equal Rights for a minority has to be forced - - but it does. It is not going to happen otherwise.

The Civil Rights Amendment happened in 1964 when I was a senior in high school. How surreal is that - - in my own lifetime - - people of dark skin did not have the same rights as people with white skin?

Yes - we can all strive to be good - - - but it is not enough.

Fortunately - - the majority tend to agree minorities need equal rights.

reply to post by Annee


2 simple yes or no questions:

Should the rights of one supercede the rights of another?

Should one group have more rights while infringing upon anothers?

First off we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic.

www.lexrex.com...

The Majority - Limited for Liberty

". . . this sacred principle . . ." [Majority must respect Minority's rights] (President Jefferson's First Inaugural Address)

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

www.lexrex.com...

reply to post by Annee


ok so um.....


2 simple yes or no questions:

Should the rights of one supercede the rights of another?

Should one group have more rights while infringing upon anothers?

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by Annee

 

ok so um.....


2 simple yes or no questions:

Should the rights of one supercede the rights of another?

Should one group have more rights while infringing upon anothers?

I am getting really tired of this.

How many times and ways am I expected to answer your question?

And NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am NOT going to give a flat YES or NO.

reply to post by Annee


ok so you are mentally incapable of answering 2 simple yes or no questions.

Not surprising given your previous posts.

Fortunately for followers of this thread, you have now proven you are irrelevant and clearly aren't capable of holding an intellectual debate.

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by Annee

 

ok so you are mentally incapable of answering 2 simple yes or no questions.

Not surprising given your previous posts.

Fortunately for followers of this thread, you have now proven you are irrelevant and clearly aren't capable of holding an intellectual debate.

I have been doing this a long time.

I know when someone presents a question in such a way - - it is not to get an answer - - but to manipulate how the answer presents itself.

Kind of like how polls are set up.

I answered your questions. If you don't like how I answered them - - that's really your problem.

So - enough with the mind games. Have your little "party" or whatever. Its of no importance.

It's very curious that when all of that delicious Italian erotic love poetry of Michelangelo (Buonarroti) which had been penned over several decades to various male lovers (most of them much younger than the painter-sculptor...) was finally up for printed publication in Rome in the 1570's the printers were advised to change all the pronouns from HIM / HE to 'HER / SHE' etc. so the common herd (especially church-goers) would never know that Michelangelo himself was a homosexual male leading an active homosexual lifestyle until his mid 70s.

At what age should teachers begin to tell their classes that Michelangelo, Leonardo DaVinci, Alexander the Great, the Roman Emperor Hadrian, composers Peotr Tschaikovsky, Franz Schubert, Aaron Copeland & Leonard Bernstein, actor John Gielgud, poet Wilfred Owen, playwright Oscar Wilde, poet Lord Byron or even President James Buchanan and countless other famous homosexuals in history all had male lovers throughout their lives?

Some say Junior High (4th form) while others say not before High School (Brit. 5th-6th form). But eventually schoolchildren will have to be told what the real world is really like...

reply to post by Annee


I too am thankful that my parents split up. Their marriage was miserable toward the end. Should we use divorce as a tool in teaching others that the trditional heterosexual home is wrong?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I am trying to say that children who have both a father and a mother are better off emotionally. Of course there are other factors that are more important, such as alcholism, molestation and what have you. My comment should have included beforehand, "that when all else is accounted for, all things being equal....etc........."
Can children with 2 moms have a healthy life? Of course they can. 2 dads? Sure. Single parent? Yeah, I've seen it. I am not speaking in absolutes here. I am however saying that there are instances where a child does "need" a certain something that only a mother or father can provide. I have also seen children who were missing that need, turn out to have problems. So there are always intagibles, but all things being equal, the best situation for a child is two loving parents who can provide the child with their fatherly and motherly support.

I am curious as to why you said that homosexual children need the recognition of gay historical figures.
What lead you to this conclusion? Do gay children who aren't aware of a historical figure's sexuality suffer somehow? Do they suffer more than a straight child who is ignorant of Nathan Hale's sexual preference?

I have a hard time accepting that. The main reason being; if homesexuals want to equally treated in every aspect of life, why must they have special inclusions and references? The word equal means just that. I would strongly suggest that leaving sexuality out of history class be more acceptable than throwing the gay community a bone because they somehow need recognition. That's just me though. I can be convinced otherwise.

My oldest son is in Grade 6, which is middle school here in my town in Canada. He has started the first term of Sex Ed. It includes discussions about different sexual preferences, which I have no problem about him learning. We don't have any hangups about that, I'm happy he knows more than I did at that age. But that is where the discussion of sexuality belongs, in SEX ED!!!!!

As far as history is concerned, most of our history up here in the GWN centers around the First Nations (what Americans call Indians), and early Canada, ie, building of the national railroad, WW's1 and 2, French/English Canadian battles, etc. How on earth does a gay lifestyle enter into that equation???? It may be that workers on the railroad were gay, who the heck knows? I'd be mighty pissed if the educators in our system focused on the sexual orientation on those who were gay, as if it made a difference in the driving of the last spike.

But as for revising history texts to be gay-inclusive? What, we need MORE reasons to divide the human race???

Oh Know! W can't et children know gay people exist!

This is just like Terrorism! And the Nazis! Yeah, Hitler was all about forcing people to learn about teh gays.

What do they mean by "gay history?" What exactly will this type of study cover? If it's the history of the gay community's activism in pursuit of equal rights, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's no different than the history of blacks or women fighting for equality. It has historical relevance.

I think the problem here is that people are jumping to conclusions about the contents of the information that will be taught as a result of this "gay history" legislation.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

This is just like Terrorism! And the Nazis! Yeah, Hitler was all about forcing people to learn about teh gays.

He was?

Originally posted by misnomer68
How on earth does a gay lifestyle enter into that equation????

So you really have no clue if there were any homosexuals that contributed significantly to the history of your country.

Isn't that the point? That you have no clue?

If you are a child who is gay - - - wouldn't it make you feel proud to know prominent homosexuals helped build your country?

Originally posted by spinalremain

I am curious as to why you said that homosexual children need the recognition of gay historical figures.
What lead you to this conclusion? Do gay children who aren't aware of a historical figure's sexuality suffer somehow?

Do you understand what you just said? I mean - do you really understand?

What exactly does gay children's sexuality - - - have to do with feeling proud of a historical figure that is homosexual?

Originally posted by Sigismundus
It's very curious that when all of that delicious Italian erotic love poetry of Michelangelo (Buonarroti) which had been penned over several decades to various male lovers (most of them much younger than the painter-sculptor...) was finally up for printed publication in Rome in the 1570's the printers were advised to change all the pronouns from HIM / HE to 'HER / SHE' etc. so the common herd (especially church-goers) would never know that Michelangelo himself was a homosexual male leading an active homosexual lifestyle until his mid 70s.

At what age should teachers begin to tell their classes that Michelangelo, Leonardo DaVinci, Alexander the Great, the Roman Emperor Hadrian, composers Peotr Tschaikovsky, Franz Schubert, Aaron Copeland & Leonard Bernstein, actor John Gielgud, poet Wilfred Owen, playwright Oscar Wilde, poet Lord Byron or even President James Buchanan and countless other famous homosexuals in history all had male lovers throughout their lives?

Some say Junior High (4th form) while others say not before High School (Brit. 5th-6th form). But eventually schoolchildren will have to be told what the real world is really like...

I can say without a doubt that if I had known that Michelangelo was gay, I would likely have become gay myself. Learning about gay people makes one gay. It's a known fact.

Originally posted by Komaratzi11
My son's social studies book pays homage to so many different ethnic and cultural groups, there's hardly any space for actual history lessons. He gets a basic overview of each historical event. If Illinois decides to add gay history to the mix, I'm looking into private school regardless of cost. Where we live, in a small town, it seems like everytime I turn around someone different is coming out. Are there really that many gay people out there, or is it just "in vogue" right now? Seriously, you have multiple girlfriends(boyfriends), get married, have children, then out of the blue decide you are attracted to the opposite sex? I wonder if the gays who were gay when gay wasn't cool get offended by all this?

And how does someone else's gayness affect you or your child again?

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
That would require every person becoming homosexual, and excluding the technique of artificial insemination. Even if everybody suddenly became gay we could still reproduce without the use of heterosexual sex.

Artificial insemination is man playing God.
This is not the way God intended it to be.
Man is subverting creation on all levels
else we would not have a place called
the LHC creating the God Particle.

edit on 4/14/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)

Taking aspirin is playing God as well.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by fenceSitter

 

Why can't gays shut up and live their lives without trying to cram it down my throat (no pun intended)?

What pun?

Do heterosexuals not practice fellatio?

Would the pun have been apparent to you if you were talking about heterosexuals "trying to cram it down your throat"?

Do all homosexuals have penises?

What does this say about you and your preconceptions of homosexuals?

You don't need to answer but you do need to evaluate yourself.

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by Annee

 

ok so you are mentally incapable of answering 2 simple yes or no questions.

Not surprising given your previous posts.

Fortunately for followers of this thread, you have now proven you are irrelevant and clearly aren't capable of holding an intellectual debate.

I know you weren't addressing me but calling a member out as mentally incapable and irrelevant only ironically portrays yourself as just that.