• 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.
Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities that promote a discriminatory bias because of race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions by referring to race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Click to expand...

The key, take-home point, of the bill, IMO.
 
This is about certain people feeling that they are being left out of history and that they want to be included. That's fine (I guess) up to the point where you force people to go out of their way to mention that someone was gay only for the purpose of mentioning it. What difference does it really make? I'm sure there are many other aspects of these people's lives that were also not mentioned because it really doesn't matter. Do I need to know that George Washington's favorite color was green and that he enjoyed eating mashed potatoes in his spare time? You would be forced to know that if the green mashed potatoe eaters had a problem with it and had power to change it.
 
Tommy78 said:
This is about certain people feeling that they are being left out of history and that they want to be included. That's fine (I guess) up to the point where you force people to go out of their way to mention that someone was gay only for the purpose of mentioning it. What difference does it really make? I'm sure there are many other aspects of these people's lives that were also not mentioned because it really doesn't matter. Do I need to know that George Washington's favorite color was green and that he enjoyed eating mashed potatoes in his spare time? You would be forced to know that if the green mashed potatoe eaters had a problem with it and had power to change it.
Click to expand...

Again, this is not the point of the Bill. Read the actual Bill.
 
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...

I think you have a fair point but I think it shows how historical significance is subjective. It could even be considered subjective that you consider being gay as a prefence, or that it can be taught at all. (But that's a whole other conversation, I find history much more interesting so let's please stick to that :) ).

What is historical to me about these things, is that these people overcame challenges posed by the fact that many in society were against them for some attribute/quality/prefence/state of being/whatever.

You wouldn't avoid teaching the fact that much of the immigration to the US from england was to escape religious persecution. You dont avoid teaching that Israel was founded with partially religious goals. Or that the hijackers that took down the towers on 9/11 were partially motivated by extreme fundamentalist Islamic ideas.

You wouldn't avoid teaching that the Roman Catholic church threatened Galileo. Or that the Crusades or Holocaust never happened because they involve religion.

Certainly there is an argument to be made for age appropriate learning, but any highschool, maybe even jr highschooler should be able to comprehend the meanings if correctly presented. And I'd agree presentation is key here.

Really, the biggest problem our schools face is inspiring kids to want to learn in an age of Xbox and internet and always-on (always-awesome) Android phones ;). Fostering that intellectual curiosity that is so valuble. And you can't foster that by leaving the controversial bits out.

Anyways, that's my take on it. You need to teach it all, the good the bad and the ugly, and provide the most neutral point of view possible. But history is important, even if it's right or wrong or somewhere in the middle.

I think we all agree that no one should be teaching kids to be a certain way, but rather teaching kids what has happened in the world. Hopefully we can see common ground there.
 
alostpacket said:
...teach it all, the good the bad and the ugly,...
Click to expand...

When you have to teach, teach. Don't talk.

avatar302823_8.gif
 
I don't know what to tell you guys. I'm cool with everyone being equal and that your sexuality and religion is your choice and no one has a right to tell you what you should be doing at any time. What I do have an issue with is someone else making a choice that affects my kids and leaves me with no voice or opinion in the matter and being forced to just go along with it. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned? Kids should go to school to learn the basics with no extra opinions or agendas involved.
 
Your'e not old-fashioned. You're right. The only issue is, you seem to think this bill would force your kid to be taught "gay is okay". That's not at all what this bill aims to achieve, nor will it.

Example: You may not like women, but that doesn't mean you can pull your kid out of history class when he is being taught about the history behind women's rights and how they came to be. California law says that is one and the same regarding gays.
 
lordofthereef said:
alostpacket,
where have you been all my life!?
Click to expand...


Haha, I dunno, desperately promoting my apps I guess. :o


And @ Tommy, I think you have some very good points but just wanted to also say that I appreciate the respect shown in this thread by you and everyone. It is very nice to have a civil debate once in awhile :)

Anyways, I think some of this speaks to a larger issue as to the role of government in schools. However, ciriculum has to be decided upon at some level, be it parent/local/state/national, with pros and cons to each level.

And I think some of this also speaks to a larger question of the government role in society. But I think that's where I sneak out of the conversation lest I go all raving mad about politics. :)

Anyways thanks again all
 
Glad you dropped by with your opinion as well. lordofthereef is also a good guy to have around. I've basically said all I can say in this thread, I'll look in from time to time but my opinion is already well known.
 
netlinkz said:
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?
Click to expand...

Wow there are so many things wrong with this post, especially with the misinformation... but it's too messy.

I'll just say this... you can't teach someone to become gay. lol If that was possible... I now seriously wonder who taught me. Must've been my 6th grade science teacher! Damn him! :p
 
We are just seeing peoples ignorance on the subject. This is no different than what African-American went through. People usually fears what they don't understand. Its sad that someone thinks you can be taught to be gay. Oh well there was and probably still is whites that think if you get a blood transfusion from an African-American. That they would crave watermelon, fried chicken and so on.

The whole point of teaching about gay history is to show kids that are gay not to be ashamed of who they are. That you can achieve great things and not hide who you are. Plus it shows that gay people are normal people just like any straight person around. Its time we accept people for who tthey are. Judge people on their actions and not which sex they would rather sleep with or the color of their skin.
 
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...

I agree about teaching some components of religion in school. Those that think it is not an integral part of who we are and how we started has never read much history.

As for cakes sans flour:

How to Make a No Flour Chocolate Cake - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
 
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.



In this context. I agree with you entirely.
Click to expand...

I do agree with what you say about legislating a curriculum. It's hardly necessary. Now perhaps too many of the people who design the curriculum where against it, but I would be surprised.
Imagine if the entire curriculum was legislated. Imagine trying to update it.
 
shadowninty said:
I do agree with what you say about legislating a curriculum. It's hardly necessary. Now perhaps too many of the people who design the curriculum where against it, but I would be surprised.
Imagine if the entire curriculum was legislated. Imagine trying to update it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. Anything and everything that makes it into a California schoolbook (it's probably not restricted to CA, to be fair) is scrutinized to the nth degree. As I mentioned, I am a product of the California unified school district and don't remember ONCE being taught about a single influential character who's sexual orientation wasn't straight. Hell, my fiance has a BA in US History and even she says it was glossed over. Much like around the time women's rights we being fought for (and other issues in American history), things didn't make it into history books until the law said they could. The "wounds" were just too new for some people I think.
 
here's the way I see it:

I'm all for letting homosexuals get married and have just the same rights as other married couples, etc., etc.

I only have a couple issues with this. For one, is it necessary? Do we really need a gay history class? Why not make it an extra curricular class, but not a required one. Is there enough gay history to justify having an entire class dedicated to it? Sure, maybe throw some important homosexual historic figures into a history class, but why make one for the sole purpose of gay history when the information it contains isn't necessarily important for most people's everyday lives as much as the history of the constitution, major wars, etc. are.

Personally, I agree with Tommy on one of his points, and that's that this issuekind of falls under the same category as teaching religion in schools. It's up to the parents to decide if their kid should be involved. If you want your kid to be taught the history of religion, send them to religious school. If you want them to be taught gay history, enroll them in a gay history class.
 
LOL, they arent making a class, just adding it to the history curriculum! :D

LotR, I guess you have a fair point, I just wonder if this will start to make editing the curriculum (more) difficult
 
tommy_ed said:
I only have a couple issues with this. For one, is it necessary? Do we really need a gay history class? Why not make it an extra curricular class, but not a required one. Is there enough gay history to justify having an entire class dedicated to it? Sure, maybe throw some important homosexual historic figures into a history class, but why make one for the sole purpose of gay history when the information it contains isn't necessarily important for most people's everyday lives as much as the history of the constitution, major wars, etc. are.
Click to expand...

First, this isn't actually "gay history". That is a term that he media coined to get people talking (as we are, so they've succeeded). I also see no evidence that anyone, anywhere is even discussing making an entire class out of it. They are simply ADDING to current laws so that there are no exclusions regarding homosexuals influential to history.

I so wish when people start a thread like this that they would actually link the BILL in question, and not ONLY an article snippet. I mean look at CNN. I, personally, find them to be great, but even they are spinning this out of context a bit, what with the "gay history" badge.
 
shadowninty said:
LotR, I guess you have a fair point, I just wonder if this will start to make editing the curriculum (more) difficult
Click to expand...

Well, so long as the curriculum is factual, not slanted in one way (yeah right, that will never happen, we make it seem like we did the right thing killing the natives of this country so that the land could be ours), it should be fine. I doubt this will make the curriculum harder to edit. Perhaps harder to edit for unjust reasons, but I suppose that is the point, right?
 
So, to all you gay Android Forum members . . . what major accomplishments have transgendered people made to this country? We hear/are hearing about the amazing contributions gay and bi and TG folks have made, not sure there have been too many. Clarify and educate, please.

I would pull my kids out of any school that teaches something unneeded and wasteful and pastel. Text books must be rewritten and it will not start with a few curriculum changes; it will morph into a full blown class, required by one and all, and does nothing to prepare kids for real life.

Like I said earlier, perhaps CA should be the PVT and let the rest of the country learn what not to do and how not to run a state. California could once again be a great place to live once the crazy is eliminated.
 
shadowninty said:
Wasn't Abe Lincoln gay? Top 3 president right there.

Some schools teach creationism Bob. Move? :p
Click to expand...

Yes, I would move. Down south, where everything is fine and the Bubbas will teach god, guns, the bible, and that God's way is the right way.

Abe Lincoln Gay? Please say it isn't so, Batman. I know, I know . . . the stovepipe hat sends a message and perhaps it was wrapped with a pink ribbon, but Abe was not gay, just festive.

I hope you do not tell me that Frank Sinatra was festive. Perhaps Sammy, yes, but not Frank.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Text books must be rewritten and it will not start with a few curriculum changes; it will morph into a full blown class, required by one and all, and does nothing to prepare kids for real life.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this statement. We didn't make a women's rights class. We didn't make an African American rights class. I see no reason we would morph this into a "gay history" class.

Give a read about Harvey Milk. He is probably the most influential person I can think of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom