• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The nerve of some Californians....

Status
Not open for further replies.
netlinkz

netlinkz

Well-Known Member
Ok here's the situation, so it happens that a bill was passed to teach our children here in california Gay History. That's right I said gay freaking history. Ok now my argument is what the freakin hell does our children have to need this to learn about our passed or future. It's teaching them acceptance. Look we don't even accept this even now and then. Personally i'm against it. Look you you wanna get married? Sure go for it! Anybody could be with who they wanna be with. This gay b.f.s. is getting outta hand. Basically it`s forcing our children to learn to become gay. But, like always that`s just my opinion and i would love to see yours. What do you think about this?
 
I don't have a problem with teaching kids "gay history" as long as it's accurate and not a slant on actual history. After all history is just learning about past events and the gays were part of it. But why do they need a separate course for it? Is "gay history" different from "straight history"?
 
Before you get on your high horse, what exactly is encompassed in said "gay history"? I would venture a guess and say it is going to be history of those fighting for homosexual rights, the same as we teach the history for those fighting for women's and ethnic's rights. If I am wrong, please do correct me in this.
 
lordofthereef said:
what exactly is encompassed in said "gay history"?
Click to expand...

Good question. Makes you wonder if this is implemented if *insert group* will object to it being taught to our(America's) children. Kinda reminds me of the whole Evolution vs Creationism thing in school
 
Tommy78 said:
Gay history is (one would think), the history of the people whose sexual preference is gay, therefore they are teaching about sexual preference.
Click to expand...

Please do read my example above. What reason do any of us have to believe that we are teaching the history of those who's sexual preference is gay? What on earth would we teach?
 
Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday he had signed a bill that will require public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

"Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Americans," Sen. Leno said in a statement.
Click to expand...
For those who want to read more... http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/california.lgbt.education/

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local...alifornia-Schools/93mjRW9T70W-KLACaR56dA.cspx
 
History is history is history.

But that said, there are important events in the history and the evolution of our culture that are about changes in cultural fears, acceptance, leadership and so on.

For instance Martin Luther King Jr., Amelia Erhart, Irish immigrants in the industrial revolution, etc.

No one really debates learning about "women's history" or "black history".

So one example might be Harvey Milk who was the first openly gay person to win public office in California, and 4th openly gay person to win any public office in the US. To me, that has historical significance. But I might not call it "gay history" -- it's just history.

I also dont think learning promotes any particular type of lifestyle any more than learning that Emilia Erhart was the first woman to fly a plane across the Atlantic teaches me to be a woman.

Rather, it teaches me that someone who is a woman, can fly a plane. And similarly, Harvey Milk teaches us that someone who is gay can hold elected office.

That's my $0.99 anyways :)
 
...will require public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.
Click to expand...

If they were deliberately excluded from history class because of their sexual preference, then by all means put them in the lesson plan. If, however, they've been there all along and we simply didn't know they were gay, then why does it matter? It's similar to the anecdote that Einstein didn't like to wear socks having any effect on his theories in Physics.
 
alostpacket said:
So one example might be Harvey Milk who was the first openly gay person to win public office in California, and 4th openly gay person to win any public office in the US. To me, that has historical significance. But I might not call it "gay history" -- it's just history.
Click to expand...

I think you said it all right there. :cool:
 
lordofthereef said:
Please do read my example above. What reason do any of us have to believe that we are teaching the history of those who's sexual preference is gay? What on earth would we teach?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Read my post again? In my view, religion and sexual preference have no business in school. Gay history specifically talks about some sort of sexual preference.


alostpacket said:
History is history is history.

But that said, there are important events in the history and the evolution of our culture that are about changes in cultural fears, acceptance, leadership and so on.

For instance Martin Luther King Jr., Amelia Erhart, Irish immigrants in the industrial revolution, etc.

No one really debates learning about "women's history" or "black history".

So one example might be Harvey Milk who was the first openly gay person to win public office in California, and 4th openly gay person to win any public office in the US. To me, that has historical significance. But I might not call it "gay history" -- it's just history.

I also dont think learning promotes any particular type of lifestyle any more than learning that Emilia Erhart was the first woman to fly a plane across the Atlantic teaches me to be a woman.

Rather, it teaches me that someone who is a woman, can fly a plane. And similarly, Harvey Milk teaches us that someone who is gay can hold elected office.

That's my $0.99 anyways :)
Click to expand...

History is history, but like I said, in my view religion and sexual preference should not be taught to children in schools. If that is something that the parent wants to do, that's their choice and their choice alone. People have become far too easy going on allowing schools to teach pretty much anything they want to. Some things should be only talked about with a parent if they see fit.
 
lunatic59 said:
If they were deliberately excluded from history class because of their sexual preference, then by all means put them in the lesson plan. If, however, they've been there all along and we simply didn't know they were gay, then why does it matter? It's similar to the anecdote that Einstein didn't like to wear socks having any effect on his theories in Physics.
Click to expand...

I read it as "it will no longer be excluded". I certainly didn't read about important figures such as Harvey Milk in school. I am a product of the CA USD, and am certainly young enough that it could/should have been in the curriculum.

FWIW, homosexuals being elected and fighting for their cause hold the same relevance, IMO, as a black man fighting for his rights. It's ok to point out the MLK fought for the rights of blacks, is it not?
 
Tommy78 said:
History is history, but like I said, in my view religion and sexual preference should not be taught to children in schools. If that is something that the parent wants to do, that's their choice and their choice alone. People have become far too easy going on allowing schools to teach pretty much anything they want to. Some things should be only talked about with a parent if they see fit.
Click to expand...

How is it possible to teach history without religion an sex? They are such an integral part of the human condition that to try to teach without them is like baking a cake with no flour.
 
Tommy78 said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Read my post again? In my view, religion and sexual preference have no business in school. Gay history specifically talks about some sort of sexual preference.
Click to expand...
Then there is nothing to discuss. I don't know how I can be more clear that they are proposing teaching about influential homosexuals in history, and not whether or not homosexuality is cool.
 
lunatic59 said:
How is it possible to teach history without religion an sex? They are such an integral part of the human condition that to try to teach without them is like baking a cake with no flour.
Click to expand...

When a subject is so specific as to be named "Gay history", we can do without that. If you want to teach about Abraham Lincoln and mention that he was gay or straight, Christian or Catholic, that's one thing. I'm not telling you to leave these things out altogether, but I personally do not want my kids (if I had any) being personally informed about sexuality and religion unless it's from me.
 
Tommy78 said:
When a subject is so specific as to be named "Gay history", we can do without that. If you want to teach about Abraham Lincoln and mention that he was gay or straight, Christian or Catholic, that's one thing. I'm not telling you to leave these things out altogether, but I personally do not want my kids (if I had any) being personally informed about sexuality and religion unless it's from me.
Click to expand...

Ok. Perhaps the name isn't the greatest. Outside of that are you able to provide us with a reason that this is a poor idea?
 
lordofthereef said:
I read it as "it will no longer be excluded". I certainly didn't read about important figures such as Harvey Milk in school. I am a product of the CA USD, and am certainly young enough that it could/should have been in the curriculum.
Click to expand...

I was 9 when Dr. King made his famous speech. I grew up through the height of the women's equal rights movement. I don't recall ever seeing a specific curriculum for the people and events surrounding those issues. Yet, we still learned major names in history and their significance. My point being that if they are deliberately excluded from history class because of their sexual orientation, then teach it, but is it necessary to legislate curriculum? By mandating resources on this specific subject it handcuffs the education system into satisfying one requirement regardless of whether or not it should be a priority in these times of dwindling resources.

FWIW, homosexuals being elected and fighting for their cause hold the same relevance, IMO, as a black man fighting for his rights. It's ok to point out the MLK fought for the rights of blacks, is it not?
Click to expand...

In this context. I agree with you entirely.
 
lunatic59 said:
I was 9 when Dr. King made his famous speech. I grew up through the height of the women's equal rights movement. I don't recall ever seeing a specific curriculum for the people and events surrounding those issues. Yet, we still learned major names in history and their significance. My point being that if they are deliberately excluded from history class because of their sexual orientation, then teach it, but is it necessary to legislate curriculum? By mandating resources on this specific subject it handcuffs the education system into satisfying one requirement regardless of whether or not it should be a priority in these times of dwindling resources.
Click to expand...

Please do read the bill. It is not proposing newfound curriculum. It is proposing to stop the exclusion of curriculum based on the fact that these historical figures had "questionable" sexualities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom