• 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.
alostpacket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh no no no. It is not about what kids can handle. It is about raising your kids in your mirror image, learning your ideals, and your ways, and nothing else. They don't want kids exposed to other religions because they want their kids to live and breath their own religion. They don't want their kids open to differences in sexuality, because they may become homo or bisexual themselves.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Why not teach religious ideas? Certainly religion had a far bigger impact than some gay person named Milk or a transgendered person.
Click to expand...

They are taught, are they not? One nation under God? The Crusades, the Holocaust, 9/11, the dark ages, the protestant reformation, the immigration the the US. -- you think they tip toe around religion?

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.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that he wasnt important, but clearly many people thought he was. That's what defines historical significance.

Also, he was the 4th nationally.
 
Vihzel said:
*looks in this thread*

*sees rampant homophobia and bigotry*

*goes back to studying*
Click to expand...

So let me ask you . . . Are you calling me a homophobe and/or bigot? Sad that one cannot discuss this issue without resorting to being called names.
 
Bob Maxey said:
So let me ask you . . . Are you calling me a homophobe and/or bigot? Sad that one cannot discuss this issue without resorting to being called names.
Click to expand...

I have learned not to make direct assumptions on what one or another person seems to state about my character in a thread (unless of course it reads something like "LOTR, you are a homophobe and a bigot". Bob, you should know this by now. If I took everything you said that seemed directly against myself or my character, I would have blocked you by now.
 
But didnt you state earlier that you were afraid of your children learning to act gay? That in itself, with all respect, seems somewhat homophobic.
Its often case of "I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic, but..."

EDIT: It was netlinkz who said that. My bad
 
Tommy78 said:
lotr: Who do you think vhizel is talking about then? Surely not the people that agree with his/her view. The only people left are myself and Bob.
Click to expand...

This is a dircet quote of hers:
*sees rampant homophobia and bigotry*
Click to expand...
She didn't call anyone anything (read: didn't call anyone a homophobe or a bigot). She simply sees those sorts of statements being mentioned here.

I am certain I have said an anti-gay or anti-(insert some race here) thing in my life. That doesn't make ME a homophobe, racist, bigot. It makes what I said, at that time, such a thing.
 
lordofthereef said:
I have learned not to make direct assumptions on what one or another person seems to state about my character in a thread (unless of course it reads something like "LOTR, you are a homophobe and a bigot". Bob, you should know this by now. If I took everything you said that seemed directly against myself or my character, I would have blocked you by now.
Click to expand...

And that is why I asked for clarification. Is that not fair? If you feel slighted, should you not ask for clarification just to avoid hard feelings and complaints from people that cannot read posts? I thought so.
 
Bob Maxey said:
And that is why I asked for clarification. Is that not fair? If you feel slighted, should you not ask for clarification just to avoid hard feelings and complaints from people that cannot read posts? I thought so.
Click to expand...

You thought right! And that is why I politely answered your inquiry. :)
 
Tommy78 said:
In any event, maybe a few examples of homophobic comments can be shown here?
Click to expand...

I'll let vizhel take that one on. I, personally, had no issues with anything that was said.

I suppose I might find offense with part of the original post, but we have come far from that at this point.
 
If it involves anything about history and/or politics, there should be a mention.
In the 50s kids from Civics classes were getting investigated since some requirements were to investigate other forms of Politics. Even buying a copy of "The Daily Worker" would get them in trouble.
We seem to have forgotten about Joe McCarthy
Eugene V Debs - why did he run for president?
Who was "Boss" Tweed, and who brought him down?
We are repeating some of these episodes in one way or another today. No one seems to learn from history.
 
Gay history is dumb. Black history is dumb. White history is dumb. Women's history is dumb.

How about we just have them teach history. No need to break everyone off into groups as if they were all part of separate (but equal) histories. How are people ever going to stop bigotry if we continue to obsess over our differences and lump people into groups. Simply include all aforementioned groups into your traditional history courses as if they weren't anything special or different. For instance, the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King aren't only applicable to "black history," they are part of history at large and shouldn't be singled out for better or worse.
 
hood420 said:
Gay history is dumb. Black history is dumb. White history is dumb. Women's history is dumb.

How about we just have them teach history. No need to break everyone off into groups as if they were all part of separate (but equal) histories. How are people ever going to stop bigotry if we continue to obsess over our differences and lump people into groups. Simply include all aforementioned groups into your traditional history courses as if they weren't anything special or different. For instance, the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King aren't only applicable to "black history," they are part of history at large and shouldn't be singled out for better or worse.
Click to expand...


The problem is that people have agendas. No one is interested in the actual history or what really happened anymore. What they're really concerned about is themselves.
 
hood420 said:
Gay history is dumb. Black history is dumb. White history is dumb. Women's history is dumb.

How about we just have them teach history. No need to break everyone off into groups as if they were all part of separate (but equal) histories. How are people ever going to stop bigotry if we continue to obsess over our differences and lump people into groups. Simply include all aforementioned groups into your traditional history courses as if they weren't anything special or different. For instance, the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King aren't only applicable to "black history," they are part of history at large and shouldn't be singled out for better or worse.
Click to expand...

What you are saying sounds great on paper. But then, once you start deciding what history is significant, you run into trouble.

What if enough people think it's not important to include women's voting rights into the history books? Or enough people think the same about including slave freedom? At some point, I am sure both were true (or close to it). You do need to have some guidelines. This (and the previous) Bill are there to exemplify the fact that we CANNOT make (now) unlawful decisions to omit historyical figures for reasons of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. etc.

Let's use Afican American history for example. There were a lot of people against giving them complete freedom (read: same rights as everyone else) for a VERY long time. So, we put that in the history books. Is that specific to BLACK history? I would say so... but I have never actually seen a book that indexed it specifically as the "Black History" section. Same goes for gays. Currently, many states, including California, states that homosexual marriage is not legally recognized. I would argue that this is taking away people's rights simply because those people are different. Would this be considered a part of GAY history? I suppose so, if we were to call it that, but again, I don't think this would be indexed in a "Gay History" segment of the book. I suspect it would go somewhere along with civil rights.
 
lordofthereef said:
What you are saying sounds great on paper. But then, once you start deciding what history is significant, you run into trouble.
Click to expand...

Include all history. Make one BIG ASS HISTORY BOOK for all the kiddies to carry around. But instead of having one book per grade level, they just use the same one K-12. Cuts down on paper cost, no one is left out, children's back will suffer but......it will make them stronger.

Or of course...Give them all .pdf text books
 
Knewz said:
Include all history. Make one BIG ASS HISTORY BOOK for all the kiddies to carry around. But instead of having one book per grade level, they just use the same one K-12. Cuts down on paper cost, no one is left out, children's back will suffer but......it will make them stronger.

Or of course...Give them all .pdf text books
Click to expand...

Great. The point is, who decides what history is important and what makes it into this "bigass book"? Again, the point and reasoning of this law is to keep those making the decisions from putting unnecessary and unlawful bias against these groups of people. So that WHEN the books get written, they cannot say "this guy fought for homosexual rights/equality. That's not important, let's not include him/her".

Digital books are a phenomenal idea. Truly, they are, but that is for another thread, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom