The nerve of some Californians....

[Bob Maxey]

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.

Since this is mandated and because the current cirriculem lacks much of what the bill requires, most certainly, text books must reflect what is/will be a law.

As for Mr. Milk, he did not do all that much. Certainly, very little that would be considered world beating.

The Bill was created by special interest groups to enforce an agenda. It is certainly not important or as important as teaching the basics. I say teach the basics and forget the orientation.

"SB 48 allows a tiny minority of people who refuse to keep their private lives private, to impose their private lifestyles on all school children, starting in Kindergarten. This will create a major expense for schools without improving education at all. It reduces the teaching of core academics in favor of political and sexual indoctrination."

It is a bad law all around.

 

[lordofthereef]

I still fail to see how teaching kids about gay rights activists and how they have helped to form public policy is imposing private lifestyles on children.

Happily, enough Californians also seem to disagree with the notion that this is somehow imposing homosexual lifestyles on their students.

I seriously am doubting that this is going to cause huge changes in curriculum. I'll believe it when I see it (it won't happen).

As for Milk, he fought for Civil Rights for homosexuals. Being glossed over is a sad thing indeed.

 

[Vihzel]

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.

Very nice post, DJ.

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.

I personally am not familiar with LGBT accomplishments in history other than Harvey Milk. I personally am not familiar with the accomplishments of a lot of minority groups in this country. I never really liked history.

You do realize that you would be pulling your kids out of every school in the nation. Right? I don't know how long you've been out of school... but from what I can remember, I learned a LOT of "unneeded and wasteful and pastel" subjects in school. It could be argued that ANY accomplishments taught in schools is unnecessary. For example, the cotton gin. I'm sure every student needed to know what the cotton gin did for the US. Essentially, homeschooling is your ONLY option. If you want to prepare your child for real life and not have the base requirements for university life, that is your prerogative.

I wonder how many white people were repulsed by the idea that African American history be taught in schools as part of the US history curriculum. I'm genuinely curious at that statistic.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I still fail to see how teaching kids about gay rights activists and how they have helped to form public policy is imposing private lifestyles on children.

Happily, enough Californians also seem to disagree with the notion that this is somehow imposing homosexual lifestyles on their students.

I seriously am doubting that this is going to cause huge changes in curriculum. I'll believe it when I see it (it won't happen).

As for Milk, he fought for Civil Rights for homosexuals. Being glossed over is a sad thing indeed.

So teach kids to be decent people and let it go at that. Sorry, but this is part of the gay agenda many here dismiss as BS driven fear mongering and scare tactics created by right wingers.

Lets teach kids to be decent, regardless, and let it go at that.

Apparently, it came as quite a shock when Californians voted down gay marriage, so perhaps the bill will fail.

 

[lordofthereef]

So teach kids to be decent people and let it go at that.

That could have been said about slavery, African-American rights, women's rights, the list goes on and on.

May as well not teach them what it took to get where they are with that sentiment. After all, women can now vote, african-americans can now go in the same bathroom as a white man, and even sit in the front of the bus. Who cares that it wasn't that way for a while?

And yes, it was quite a shock that CA voted down gay marriage. I say that the wording was misleading and some people were voting for the opposite of what they thought they were voting for - but that is for another thread.

 

[Vihzel]

So teach kids to be decent people and let it go at that. Sorry, but this is part of the gay agenda many here dismiss as BS driven fear mongering and scare tactics created by right wingers.

Lets teach kids to be decent, regardless, and let it go at that.

Apparently, it came as quite a shock when Californians voted down gay marriage, so perhaps the bill will fail.

You do realize that it's already passed, right? Gay agenda, African American agenda, women agenda, Native American agenda, homophobic agenda, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Tommy78]

I'll just go on thanking good old Bob for his posts since he echoes my sentiments perfectly.

 

[Tommy78]

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?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Very nice post, DJ.

I personally am not familiar with LGBT accomplishments in history other than Harvey Milk. I personally am not familiar with the accomplishments of a lot of minority groups in this country. I never really liked history.

You do realize that you would be pulling your kids out of every school in the nation. Right? I don't know how long you've been out of school... but from what I can remember, I learned a LOT of "unneeded and wasteful and pastel" subjects in school. It could be argued that ANY accomplishments taught in schools is unnecessary. For example, the cotton gin. I'm sure every student needed to know what the cotton gin did for the US. Essentially, homeschooling is your ONLY option. If you want to prepare your child for real life and not have the base requirements for university life, that is your prerogative.

I wonder how many white people were repulsed by the idea that African American history be taught in schools as part of the US history curriculum. I'm genuinely curious at that statistic.

Judge Memorial High and Brigham Young University here in Utah come to mind. Other private schools abound where one can find a school to meet the needs of the parents that want their little ones taught morality and kept away from gangs and school violence.

Certainly, home schooling is one option. But we need to make sure the parents actually teach the important stuff and not let their kids slide. I think I am against HS unless the child is carefully monitored.

There are probably options besides public "schools" in your neck of the woods, too.

One could write a science course that provides a well rounded view of science and how important it is without delving into sexual orientation. However one needs to briefly discuss sexual orientation when talking about Alan Turing, I suppose. And general biology, too.

Interesting that you mentioned the Cotton Gin. Since you do not like history, perhaps you might look it up and see what it did for manufacturing. Or are you saying you already know this; your point was hard to see, so forgive me if I missed the point. Smiley.

It removed a considerable amount of hand work and it was a very big deal at the time. Most definitely a part of history and an important one at that.

 

[lordofthereef]

It removed a considerable amount of hand work and it was a very big deal at the time. Most definitely a part of history and an important one at that.

Why? I don't NEED to know what the cotton gin did to know that I can go to the mall to buy myself clothes, video games, and a cheesburger. I don't need to know that the cotton gin is what made it possible for me to get all this stuff, right?

 

[Tommy78]

lotr: Knowing about the Cotton Gin is one thing, knowing that the guy was Gay and liked to hang from the ceiling at night is another thing. You don't make a point to say a guy was straight, why mention he's gay?

 

[lordofthereef]

lotr: Knowing about the Cotton Gin is one thing, knowing that the guy was Gay and liked to hang from the ceiling at night is another thing. You don't make a point to say a guy was straight, why mention he's gay?

For the fifth (or so) time, this isn't what this Bill is about.

 

[Tommy78]

You think not, but when this gets into the hands of someone who has something invested, it will be about that.

 

[lordofthereef]

You think not, but when this gets into the hands of someone who has something invested, it will be about that.

Again, I say read the Bill. It is not about what I think. It is there, black and white. There is no way to think here. It is what it is, not what "someone who has something invested" wants to make it.

 

[alostpacket]

Since this is mandated and because the current cirriculem lacks much of what the bill requires, most certainly, text books must reflect what is/will be a law.

As for Mr. Milk, he did not do all that much. Certainly, very little that would be considered world beating.

The Bill was created by special interest groups to enforce an agenda. It is certainly not important or as important as teaching the basics. I say teach the basics and forget the orientation.

"SB 48 allows a tiny minority of people who refuse to keep their private lives private, to impose their private lifestyles on all school children, starting in Kindergarten. This will create a major expense for schools without improving education at all. It reduces the teaching of core academics in favor of political and sexual indoctrination."

It is a bad law all around.

This post upsets me.

My appologies if my reply is less than cordial.

There is so much inflamtory language you use in there that it's impossible to debate.

"refuse to keep private lives private" has nothing to do with anything and is just a sensationalist slur.

"sexual indoctrination" Give me a break. Indoctranation? Are they forcing them to recite the gay pledge of allegiance? Is the communist China from the 60s?

Kindergarten? You really think they are teaching Harvey Milk to kindergarteners? More hyperbole.

If you are going to try and make a point here I have to say using that kind of inflamatory and derogatory language will get you nowhere other than to rile up people already on your side to be angry at conjured imagery of "evil gay people surrounding children."

This is truly the opposite of honest, intellectual debate.

I do like your point about teaching the basics. If you could expand on what those are, and what differentiates basic from something else, or what qualifies something as basic.... then perhaps we could have a reasonable debate. And I absolutely think your clearly intellegent enough to have that debate. Both you and Tommy78.

But that quote sounds like something off of a pundit's talk show, meant to incite anger -- not for honest debate.

Also, this agrument that any gay history is teaching sexuality by the mere mention that a historical figure is gay is completely paranoid.

Would you say they shouldn't mention the Martin Luther King Jr. was black?

You have to teach it all. You cant hide the things you dont like by pretending some things are "basics" and others are "agendas"

There is no free thinking when a student isnt given the complete picture.

This is the very concept that free speech was born under. If we don't allow the hateful, unpleasant things we disagree with, we've limited ourselves to forming our own honest opinions. We've limited our ability to cricitally analyze because we dont have all the information, and thus our conclusions are bound to be invalid at least some of the time.

Anways, it seemed we were having a reasonable debate before, but the comments are bordering on insulting.

Still, I do appologize if that was a bit of a rant. I'd like to keep the conversation here as civil as possible.


I do suggest this as a good place to learn a bit about Harvey Milk, but I'm sure there are more we can discuss:
Harvey Milk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 highlights:
- He was the 1st ever gay person to be elected to public office in California
- He was the 4th gay person to be elected to any public office nationally
- He was assasinated after just 10 months of being in office


I personally don't know much about the history of gay people or gay rights, but maybe this is a chance to see what there is and see what's historically significant.

Maybe it's a good chance to review the proposed curriculm too. Surely we can reach common ground somewhere there.

 

[Tommy78]

Again, I say read the Bill. It is not about what I think. It is there, black and white. There is no way to think here. It is what it is, not what "someone who has something invested" wants to make it.

I can kill that argument really easy: Do you know what the Stimulus bill said and what it was supposed to do? Do you know what it actually did? That bill didn't do anything. What do we do now? Do you not think that a Gay teacher is not going to use this to his or her advantage?

 

[alostpacket]

lotr: Knowing about the Cotton Gin is one thing, knowing that the guy was Gay and liked to hang from the ceiling at night is another thing. You don't make a point to say a guy was straight, why mention he's gay?

Harevey Milk wasn't assasinated for being straight -- you clearly understand why it's a fact that needs metioning. But you dont want it mentioned regardless. If you cant get past this idea, there is nowhere for you to go. Your logic will be (and has been) circular.

 

[lordofthereef]

I can kill that argument really easy: Do you know what the Stimulus bill said and what it was supposed to do? Do you know what it actually did? That bill didn't do anything. What do we do now? Do you not think that a Gay teacher is not going to use this to his or her advantage?

But this actually says what it is supposed to do. It is not left up for interpretation. It is literally written in that we cannot discriminate historical figures of importance based on sexual orientation. Nowhere does it say or imply there will be a gay history class.

Perhaps the stimulus bill was poorly written. I am honestly not terribly familiar with it. This isn't open ended at all. It is is pretty black and white, short and to the point, etc. etc.

Also, teacher's don't make up the curriculum that they teach. They literally stick to guidelines/lesson plans/etc. They can add their own flavor, but they don't even decide what order they are going to present their curriculum in. How do I know? My fiance was one (until she found abetter paying job doing management in retail - the sad truth of teacher's salaries). A gay teacher, by this bill (or any) does not have the right to go on tangential lesson plans. Let's turn this around. Do you feel black teachers teach african-american rights differently somehow to toot their own horn or push their own agenda?

 

[Tommy78]

But this actually says what it is supposed to do. It is not left up for interpretation. It is literally written in that we cannot discriminate historical figures of importance based on sexual orientation. Nowhere does it say or imply there will be a gay history class.

Perhaps the stimulus bill was poorly written. I am honestly not terribly familiar with it. This isn't open ended at all. It is is pretty black and white, short and to the point, etc. etc.

I really don't want to go around and around anymore, but it is open-ended and it is open to interpretation. It's open to the guy or gal that is in the room and decides to talk about it with the kids. The only difference now is that there is a new bill that says it's okay to talk about sexuality and makes it even more okay to go into detail. It's almost expected that it'd be the case.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Harevey Milk wasn't assasinated for being straight -- you clearly understand why it's a fact that needs metioning. But you dont want it mentioned regardless. If you cant get past this idea, there is nowhere for you to go. Your logic will be (and has been) circular.

Milk was killed by a completely insane person along with the Mayor. Those that studied the case are still arguing the reasons. White turned himself in, he served two of five years, he was released, and later, he took his own life.

One might ask why a crazy man killed a mayor . . . because he was crazy. why did he kill Mr. Milk? Because he was crazy.

Sad indeed. Nobody should be killed because of his or her orientation. Nor should they be glorified because of it. Just discuss what they did and get over it.

 

[lordofthereef]

I really don't want to go around and around anymore, but it is open-ended and it is open to interpretation. It's open to the guy or gal that is in the room and decides to talk about it with the kids. The only difference now is that there is a new bill that says it's okay to talk about sexuality and makes it even more okay to go into detail. It's almost expected that it'd be the case.

We aren't arguing around and around. You are stating it's open to interpretation. How is it open to interpretation, exactly? Please show me where this bill gives "the guy or gal in the room the ability to talk about it [homosexuality] with the kids".

 

[lordofthereef]

Sad indeed. Nobody should be killed because of his or her orientation. Nor should they be glorified because of it. Just discuss what they did and get over it.

I am fairly sure this is entirely what this is about though.

 

[Bob Maxey]

But this actually says what it is supposed to do. It is not left up for interpretation. It is literally written in that we cannot discriminate historical figures of importance based on sexual orientation. Nowhere does it say or imply there will be a gay history class.

Perhaps the stimulus bill was poorly written. I am honestly not terribly familiar with it. This isn't open ended at all. It is is pretty black and white, short and to the point, etc. etc.

Also, teacher's don't make up the curriculum that they teach. They literally stick to guidelines/lesson plans/etc. They can add their own flavor, but they don't even decide what order they are going to present their curriculum in. How do I know? My fiance was one (until she found abetter paying job doing management in retail - the sad truth of teacher's salaries). A gay teacher, by this bill (or any) does not have the right to go on tangential lesson plans. Let's turn this around. Do you feel black teachers teach african-american rights differently somehow to toot their own horn or push their own agenda?

I actually bothered to DL it, open the file, and read the bill. I did not know it had passed; I found several different dates. I bothered to read it as well as a few side trips that discussed it pro and con. Seems reasonable that people should at least read something before commenting on it. Shrug.

Those that pushed it, knew there would be backlash and their stance is argumentative. Many parents do not want it, but it is being written into law and it was made mandatory. Not so sure it will last if the lawsuits are won.

As for what teachers are or are not allowed to teach, do not be a fluffy bunny. It goes without saying, some teachers will go beyond the curriculum.

Why not teach religious ideas? Certainly religion had a far bigger impact than some gay person named Milk or a transgendered person. Mr. Milk simply was not that important or did much. He was the first openly gay incumbent to win, but that would only have happened in California.

Finally, and to be fair, I want to see the curriculum. Perhaps there is much ado bout nuttin.

 

[lordofthereef]

As for what teachers are or are not allowed to teach, do not be a fluffy bunny. It goes without saying, some teachers will go beyond the curriculum.

Why not teach religious ideas? Certainly religion had a far bigger impact than some gay person named Milk or a transgendered person. Mr. Milk simply was not that important or did much. He was the first openly gay incumbent to win, but that would only have happened in California.

Finally, and to be fair, I want to see the curriculum. Perhaps there is much ado bout nuttin.

Certainly some teachers will go beyond curriculum. I don;t disagree here. But be mad at the teachers that go beyond curriculum, not at the curriculum itself. It seems that the argument here (not necessarily yours) is that teachers may overstep their boundaries regarding homosexual historical figures, so we shouldn't even go into this realm. Instead, as I said, let's be upset at those that DO overstep their boundaries.

As far as religion, we studied the bible, as a literary text in school and it is still a part of the curriculum, if I am not mistaken. The ideas are not being taught as gospel, or the truth (or lies), but just that. Ideas that have made much historical impact on our history as a nation.

I would compare Milk to Rosa parks in many ways. I mean really, what did Rosa Parks do? Sat at the front of the bus when she wasn't allowed to. Before that, she didn't do a damn thing to bring her on anyone's radar. Milk proved that an openly gay man can be elected a government official in California. That is a lesson in how we must legally be accepting of every member of our nation. He was then assassinated, likely for being a homosexual and lobbying gay rights. That is a valuable lesson on how taking the law into your own hands gets you nowhere. He may not have actually done much, like Rosa Parks didn't do much, but he represents a person that stood in the face of adversity no matter the odds.

 

[alostpacket]

Milk was killed by a completely insane person along with the Mayor. Those that studied the case are still arguing the reasons. White turned himself in, he served two of five years, he was released, and later, he took his own life.

One might ask why a crazy man killed a mayor . . . because he was crazy. why did he kill Mr. Milk? Because he was crazy.

Sad indeed. Nobody should be killed because of his or her orientation. Nor should they be glorified because of it. Just discuss what they did and get over it.

His significance was for overcoming the prevalent view of gays at the time. This was a major defining point of his political career. I think you're right though for the reasons of his assasination. Mea Culpa.

Still, he might have a minor significance when compared to say, World War II, or Martin Luther King Jr. But he is clearly a historically important figure on some level. And has more of a significance to California than your or my state. I do believe some of the laws he helped pass are still on the books.

But he's just used as an example of why there is some stuff here worth learning.

He also wasnt perfect, there are clearly some blemishes and skeletons in his history. But why hide this? This is what needs teaching.

In some ways I find it strange too that people dont think kids can handle learning about the history of religion or sexual orientation. It's really short-changing the ability of kids to form their own opinions on controversial subjects.