• 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.
That is funny, you can not teach gay. You can not learn it, you can not acquire it, and you can not catch it.

But that is pointless, faith is faith.

Let us look at some famous people in history.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky- Gay
 Michelangelo-gay
 Leonardo Da Vinci-gay
Virginia Woolf-lesbian
Oscar Wilde-gay
 Walt Whitman-gay
France bacon-gay
Eleanor Roosevelt-bisexual
 Richard the Lionhearted-very gay

I will end on
John Maynard Keynes- Father of modern economics and gay.
 
I am not sure the issue is with teaching someone to be gay. The only time aything like this was mentioned was within the OP (and the poster has yet to come back to share his/her thoughts with us further). The issue is about teaching kids right and wrong, and some posters feel that is solely up to the parents to decide.

The list you provided, while wonderful, really hasn't a whole lot of merit, IMO. Let's just take Leonardo, for example. I didn't know he was gay, but I will take your word. What does that have anything to do with his historical significance? We shouldn't go back and make note that he was gay in history books. Why? Because it has literally no relevance. Now if he spoke openly against homosexual discrimination (or something of that nature), that is another story.
 
lordofthereef said:
The list you provided, while wonderful, really hasn't a whole lot of merit, IMO. ...
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing with the exception of Wilde. He definitely is a tragic testament to the intolerance of his times.

FWIW DaVinci was also left-handed, another group that has been considered a social Pariah but had little effect on his contributions to history.
 
RiverOfIce said:
That is funny, you can not teach gay. You can not learn it, you can not acquire it, and you can not catch it.

But that is pointless, faith is faith.

Let us look at some famous people in history.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky- Gay
Michelangelo-gay
Leonardo Da Vinci-gay
Virginia Woolf-lesbian
Oscar Wilde-gay
Walt Whitman-gay
France bacon-gay
Eleanor Roosevelt-bisexual
Richard the Lionhearted-very gay

I will end on
John Maynard Keynes- Father of modern economics and gay.
Click to expand...

So what? You can teach these people without concentrating on their orientation.
 
You could teach about African-Americans without acknowledging that they're African-American, and women without acknowledging that they're women, but that would seem to defeat the purpose...

Granted it doesn't necessarily apply to the list above, but given that we teach about the struggles for other demographics to achieve equal rights I don't see that throwing in the gay rights struggle is so ludicrous...unless one's reasoning is that gays are somehow less deserving of having their struggle be known.
 
Just caught this thread, and am still going through all the posts. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet. If you subscribe to Netflix, there are two documentaries that you can view instantly. They're called Before Stonewall and After Stonewall. As the titles indicate, they talk about the fight for rights and acceptance up until the Stonewall Riots (Stonewall riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and after the historical uprising. I'm assuming it's stuff like this that will be taught in schools. Very, VERY little of this even deals with the sex part of sexual orientation.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I'll keep reading.
 
lordofthereef said:
The issue is about teaching kids right and wrong, and some posters feel that is solely up to the parents to decide.
Click to expand...

In leonardo da vinci's notebook, he wrote that sexual intercourse between a male and female disgusted him; and he never was married, never dated a female, and only had male helpers. Now in my book that kind of means you can't form a long term relationship with females, and therefor probably gay.

There are hundreds of thousands of people born, living, and dying each day that believe what they naturally are and how they where naturally born is wrong. To be honest, this type of repression has been used in the past against women, minorities, and "others." By making this issue "right" or "wrong" you are invalidating another human being. For nothing more then how they were born. It was wrong in the past and it is wrong now.

I refuse to accept that the concept of "my imagnary friend and words written on a book thousands of years go is more important then any thing a human being standing in front of you can say or do." The person in front of you is more important then anything else, because they are real people with real feelings. They are not "wrong"...or at least if they are wrong, then I don't want to be right.
 
RiverOfIce said:
In leonardo da vinci's notebook, he wrote that sexual intercourse between a male and female disgusted him; and he never was married, never dated a female, and only had male helpers. Now in my book that kind of means you can't form a long term relationship with females, and therefor probably gay.
Click to expand...


Or perhaps he was Asexual. That is, someone without an interest in sex.

I am not sure he was gay, but who knows, he was a bit before my time.
 
lunatic59 said:
FWIW DaVinci was also left-handed, another group that has been considered a social Pariah but had little effect on his contributions to history.
Click to expand...

I am left-handed and in my early days, teachers tried to change me into a right handed person. Mom went nut-bar ballistic crazy as hell. I do have issues with fountain pens, however. And playing a guitar was difficult early on.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Someone posted that according to his writings, DaVinci found sex more or less distasteful. I suggested that PERHAPS he was asexual, I did not say he was. Just offering a possible answer.
Click to expand...

I was simply asking if "asexuality" (in humans) was even a documented occurrence is all...

FWIW, the actual terms is coined for creatures born without a sex (many fish are this way), so I am sure the term doesn't really fit in any case, but your own meaning or definition behind it may.
 
lordofthereef said:
I was simply asking if "asexuality" (in humans) was even a documented occurrence is all...

FWIW, the actual terms is coined for creatures born without a sex (many fish are this way), so I am sure the term doesn't really fit in any case, but your own meaning or definition behind it may.
Click to expand...

Like most words, there can be different meanings:

1. sexually inactive: without sexual desire or activity

2. without sex-linked features: lacking any apparent sex or sex organs

3. without sexual fusion: describes reproduction in which there is no fusion of male and female sex cells gametes, e.g. vegetative reproduction or budding

Synonyms: genderless, androgynous, neutral, sexless
 
"Teaching" kids to be gay? That's ridiculous. You can't teach someone to be gay any more than you can teach a white person to be black or a short person to be tall. You're born that way.

However what can be taught is hate and intolerance. I have a gay friend who was bullied just a few days ago by a group of teenagers. They threw soda all over his car and called him hateful names like the f-word slur. He wasn't doing anything to provoke it. He was simply getting into his car to go home after work. He is a bit flamboyant but he wasn't bothering anyone. It really shook him up. How shameful that those kids' rotten parents taught them that hate is acceptable.
 
Bob Maxey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Famous gay people:

Socrates
Alexander the Great
Walt Whitman
Oscar Wilde
Andy Warhol
Michelangelo
Leonardo Da Vinci
Tchaikovsky
Eleanor Roosevelt
Julius Caesar
Peter The Great
Langston Hughes
J.Edgar Hoover
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Janis Joplin
Aristotle

I'd say they made so pretty damned important contributions.:) All the bill does is prohibit for example, an English teacher refusing to let kids read works by Langston Hughes, Walt Whitman, or Emerson because they were gay. Nothing more. It doesn't mean teachers must teach kids about gay sex. That's just ignorant and homophobic thinking.
 
Here is the thing though. Most of those people listed we already did/do learn about. I question if this was an issue. "No teachings of socrates kids. He was gay, therefor unimportant". I mean, I understand the point of the bill, but was it a problem enough beforehand that it needed to be written into law? FWIW teachers don't really even write their own curriculum anymore. They can't just pick and choose what they will and will not include from a textbook. One cannot omit pages 35-65 because they teach of a homosexual historical figure.
 
As a gay man, I can safely say that it would have been nice to know, growing up, that gay people not only had existed throughout history but had contributed immeasurably to our society.

It's not necessary to go into the particulars of their love lives or such, and I don't think anyone's proposing that, but I think while people are being killed -just- for being gay it is essential to try to "normalize" homosexuality by making it clear to children that it has always been a factor in civilization.

Consciously or otherwise, when people aren't given this sort of information about historical figures the tendency is to assume they were a member of the majority (White, Heterosexual, etc.). At best this fosters ignorance, and at worst it leads to prejudice...because how important/normal can something be if you've never heard of it before?
 
And with that, after several pages of reading in here the thread seems have run its course.

All that I can add to it is the "elephant in the room," the thought that is there but not said very often on Gay, minority, women's issues/history: groups of people are respected or not respected depending largely on what is known about their contribution to the world and to society.

We tend to not respect people different than us who we have no clue as to what role they played in the arts, sciences and overall building of human history.


276415832.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom