PDA

View Full Version : Required to learn gay history?


Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 08:51 AM
So I heard that in Califorina, they are making it so that schools are required to learn gay history. Here's the link here:

Sacramento - Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill making California the first state in the nation to add lessons about gays and lesbians to social studies classes in public schools. Brown, a Democrat, signed the landmark bill requiring public schools to include the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies curriculum. The Democratic-majority Legislature had passed the bill last week on a largely party-line vote.
"History should be honest," the governor said in a statement Thursday. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

Read more: http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/education/ca-gov-signs-law-to-teach-gay-history-20110715#ixzz1SC2ztPPr



So if you live there, then you'd have to learn this if still in school. When I first heard this, I couldn't help but chuckle. Gay history? That's new for me.

I don't think it should be required tho because unlike other history, I feel that it doesn't really make a difference as much as say American history. This is more of an elective. Same cataglory as African history.

thoughts (= =)

wcdaily
July 15th, 2011, 09:02 AM
Well if they are teaching African history, they might as well teach gay history too, in fact it might help loosen all the discrimination gay people get, and might stop people from calling everything and everyone gay.

Yes, I am straight and support this. I think it's about time they get realized and treated like normal people.

Oryx
July 15th, 2011, 09:02 AM
It's not "gay history", it's including the achievements of people that happen to be gay. Gay rights are a part of history just like civil rights and women's rights. It shouldn't be ignored just because the thought that someone is gay might offend someone. I mean, we learn about Hitler without parents saying they're offended by it, but gay people? Come on.

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 09:07 AM
But gays already had rights before (except for marriage rights in some states). But there was no history on that. To be honest, lets take African American history. Black people have made contributions to the world. American History, many pioneers that made contributions to the world. Hispanic history etc etc.

Gay history, it's just weird because I dont think that gays have made as many contributions to the world as say African Americans or Hispanics etc. They are just normal citizens like the rest of us.

Livewire
July 15th, 2011, 09:09 AM
What difference does it make? A more accurate and fair depiction of history is the entire point of studying social studies, hurr.

Oryx
July 15th, 2011, 09:14 AM
But gays already had rights before (except for marriage rights in some states). But there was no history on that.

That's why there should be. Gay rights is a part of history as much as any other rights movement is. It deserves the same attention. Do we take out civil rights from the school to help racists not be offended?

To be honest, lets take African American history. Black people have made contributions to the world. American History, many pioneers that made contributions to the world. Hispanic history etc etc. Gay history, it's just weird because I dont think that gays have made as many contributions to the world as say African Americans or Hispanics etc. They are just normal citizens like the rest of us.The fact that you don't think they made many contributions is proof of the fact that this is needed, honestly. You say they're normal citizens, and then that they don't contribute as much as everyone else. Which is it?

The 100 Mega Shock
July 15th, 2011, 09:18 AM
I dont think that gays have made as many contributions to the world as say African Americans or Hispanics etc.

This is a horrible thing to think and kind of ignorant of how many notable people throughout history have been homosexual, sometimes openly so or otherwise not (due to a lot of the prejudice against gays throughout history and that still continues). It's far less obvious thing to know about a person than just looking at them and going "yeah this famous dude is african-american"

Cassino
July 15th, 2011, 09:24 AM
It seems to me that the deliberate and purposeful inclusion of non-heterosexuals is what's really 'discriminatory'. As you may or not know, discrimination can be either positive on negative, and neither way is it fair, despite that fairness is ironically the persuit of this venture. If somebody or some event notable to history happens to be or concern something other than heterosexual(s), then include it, sure, but going out of one's way to specifically 'write in the gay' is rather pretentious. I am assuming that's what is being done though — maybe it's not.

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 09:27 AM
I understand where you are coming from. I do and I apologize for the statement but do you understand where I and others are coming from?

In a way, there are parents who DONT want their kids learning this stuff. And to hear that it's required, it's an insult to the parents and the kids. But that's just my opinion.

That's why I say it should be *voluntarily*

Went
July 15th, 2011, 09:31 AM
So, let me get this straight (no pun intended): before this law, historical achievements from LGTB Americans were ignored because of their sexual preferences? That's kinda discriminative- and most likely illegal.

In fact, any History lessons that only tell the history of White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant (and heterosexual) males are so amazingly biased.

Careful With That Axe, Pichu!
July 15th, 2011, 09:34 AM
So if you live there, then you'd have to learn this if still in school. When I first heard this, I couldn't help but chuckle. Gay history? That's new for me.

I don't think it should be required tho because unlike other history, I feel that it doesn't really make a difference as much as say American history. This is more of an elective. Same cataglory as African history.

thoughts (= =)

You got it all wrong. It's not about lessons on "gay history" or things like that. It's for the usual history lessons to include and not discriminate achievements or contributions of gay/lesbian people.

Imagine, for instance, that Economics textbooks or professors didn't make as much emphasis on John M. Keynes' research because or his sexual orientation. This bill would ensure he gets as much recognition for his discoveries as any straight person would.

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 09:39 AM
Ah so it's not really "gay history" as the news put it. Wait now I don't understand... I heard that it was about contributions they made in the world.

Careful With That Axe, Pichu!
July 15th, 2011, 09:51 AM
Ah so it's not really "gay history" as the news put it. Wait now I don't understand... I heard that it was about contributions they made in the world.

Yes, but it's not like there's gonna be a Gay History class or something like that. They're just gonna take gay/lesbian contributions into account if they didn't before when teaching history lessons at schools. At least that's what the quote you posted implies :P

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 09:52 AM
Yes, but it's not like there's gonna be a Gay History class or something like that. They're just gonna take gay/lesbian contributions into account if they didn't before when teaching history lessons at schools. At least that's what the quote you posted implies :P
Ahh I see. So I overreacted.

G.U.Y.
July 15th, 2011, 10:18 AM
So, let me get this straight (no pun intended): before this law, historical achievements from LGTB Americans were ignored because of their sexual preferences? That's kinda discriminative- and most likely illegal.

In fact, any History lessons that only tell the history of White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant (and heterosexual) males are so amazingly biased.

Yes, this is true. It's completely ignored.

My AP US History class book mention that they were a vital part in the civil rights movement. That's all. If they were so vital, why not say what was vital?

I think this should be included in curriculum. When people think of the American Civil Rights Movement, they think about African Americans. Did you know that Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, Gay Americans, and Native Americans all had movements too?

wcdaily
July 15th, 2011, 10:23 AM
I understand where you are coming from. I do and I apologize for the statement but do you understand where I and others are coming from?

In a way, there are parents who DONT want their kids learning this stuff. And to hear that it's required, it's an insult to the parents and the kids. But that's just my opinion.

That's why I say it should be *voluntarily*I bet it was the same way with African Americans, racists most likely got offended by it, so that doesn't make it any different, people will get offended over everything until that thing is considered normal. Just stop arguing against it, it's going to happen and their is nothing you can do about it, you might as well get used to it.

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 10:42 AM
Just because it's going to happen doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion going against it.

Hybrid Trainer
July 15th, 2011, 10:43 AM
In a way, there are parents who DONT want their kids learning this stuff. And to hear that it's required, it's an insult to the parents and the kids. But that's just my opinion.

That's why I say it should be *voluntarily*
i just wanna throw in my thoughts here, i had an uncle who didn't want me learning about black people because he was and probably still is highly racist my family don't speak to him anymore btw :D. Would you let him have taken me out of that class and let him poison my mind with racism? I doubt it.
By saying that would be the exact same thing.

wcdaily
July 15th, 2011, 11:18 AM
Just because it's going to happen doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion going against it.
No offense, but are you trying to be difficult? I know that everyone has a opinion but why be so stubborn and keep arguing, gay rights and it's history never hurt you. Why hate against it?

Kiyoshi the Polar Bear
July 15th, 2011, 11:37 AM
Well, yay.
Good for California.

I've been seeing a lot of education revolving around homosexuals being intregrated into our schools. My school's sociology class even has special occasions where the GSA come and give a presentation on sexuality and they have a panel where people can ask questions to GSA allies, bisexuals, homosexuals, etc.

It's broadening the way our students think.

So yes indeed yay.

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 02:27 PM
No offense, but are you trying to be difficult? I know that everyone has a opinion but why be so stubborn and keep arguing, gay rights and it's history never hurt you. Why hate against it?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I was just voicing my thoughts. I don't hate gays at all. I'm just not a fan of the lifestyle and such but that's a different story.

Aorio
July 15th, 2011, 02:37 PM
A wise man once told me, if you're not a fan of gay marriage, then don't get one.

But anyways, I think it's important and could be a great addition to the curriculum. It teaches kids something more important than just the facts -- it teaches acceptance and struggle, success and failure, and how we as human beings have become more accepting people in recent years. These are some of the most important concepts you can take away from school learnings.

Esper
July 15th, 2011, 02:49 PM
I hate when we get a thread going and it's one person with an opinion and lots of people arguing with them. It always feels like someone is being ganged up on regardless of how the thread goes and how people act. So I really don't want to join in, but I just had to say something about this:

In a way, there are parents who DONT want their kids learning this stuff. And to hear that it's required, it's an insult to the parents and the kids. But that's just my opinion.

That's why I say it should be *voluntarily*
There's a danger when you let people decide to keep certain aspects of history out of sight. If you didn't learn that gay people have contributed to society you might think they haven't. The wrong people could interpret that as saying that gay people aren't any good to society, that gays are 'deviant' and the 'fact' that they've done nothing for society proves it. It's about getting the facts straight (sorry for the pun) so people can't use ignorance and misinformation to back up discrimination and hatred.

Masqueraine
July 15th, 2011, 03:00 PM
i like it. its not a class of its own, and i cant see why a parent wouldnt want their kid to know about gay people. i think its another step towards making it less and less taboo.

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 03:20 PM
I hate when we get a thread going and it's one person with an opinion and lots of people arguing with them. It always feels like someone is being ganged up on regardless of how the thread goes and how people act. So I really don't want to join in, but I just had to say something about this:

Yeah that's exactly how I feel now. So Im watching what I say so I don't get hated for not having a little miss perfect opinion. that said:


There's a danger when you let people decide to keep certain aspects of history out of sight. If you didn't learn that gay people have contributed to society you might think they haven't. The wrong people could interpret that as saying that gay people aren't any good to society, that gays are 'deviant' and the 'fact' that they've done nothing for society proves it. It's about getting the facts straight (sorry for the pun) so people can't use ignorance and misinformation to back up discrimination and hatred.

I understand what your sayin' and getting the facts straight is a good thing coming out of this.

I was just speaking from a traditional perspective. As you say.

Gold warehouse
July 15th, 2011, 03:23 PM
I don't think it's really necessary to give gay history a topic entirely dedicated to it.

Oh wait, just read the thread.

Well yes of course, I just think it's ridiculous to leave out any part of history. How can they justify excluding gays from history whilst also having a black history month? Everything should be taught. If you think otherwise then you just need to read any generic dystopia novel.

In my last topic of study in history, (social change in Britain) there was a section dedicated to the gay rights movement. I just find it crazy that a developed country like the USA is still so apprehensive about such things.

wcdaily
July 15th, 2011, 04:14 PM
I do find it crazy myself, but I am just one person out of all the other people here, you would have to ask everyone else, but as it turns out the majority of them probably won't have a decent answer besides the fact that it's just different, and that's the key word: different.

Sodom
July 15th, 2011, 10:26 PM
This topic is not really that much of a big deal. It's just putting things in that should never have been excluded.

However, my thoughts on actual lessons about 'gay history' or homosexuality in general are as follows:

They need to happen, really. Homophobia exists because people's minds are poisoned with trickle-down bigotry. When someone is a bigot, to me it say "I don't understand". So the fight against ignorance is education. If people try to block that education by opposing lessons about homosexuality in schools, what that says to me is "We don't want to understand," which is just a sad state for all.

Bluerang1
July 15th, 2011, 11:49 PM
No one should be excluded from history so this is fine.

Gay history would just be enough really. We get it, it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum too.

Brane
July 16th, 2011, 02:30 AM
Alexander the Great was gay.

There's some History for you all!

Went
July 16th, 2011, 03:37 AM
Most people back then were- either that or bisexual. In Ancient Greece, gay sex was considered to be more "pure" than heterosexual sex, that was left for procreation.

And yes, my Ancient History teacher followed this law :P

Guy
July 16th, 2011, 10:03 AM
Ancient Greek armies had their soldiers partner up so that they would strongly fight to protect one another. It was their way of enforcing a stronger bond in their army. Not a lot of people know that because not a lot of educational history books or teachers ever emphasize on the gay connections our history had. So, I think it's a great thing they're doing to place credit to those who aren't recognized for who they were.

Too many people today are homophobes simply because they don't understand. Some are raised around parents who are strictly against such things and force it upon their child's mind. So, for schools to at least acknowledge such things can help students have a better perspective on the gay population. With better understanding comes less ignorance therefore preventing things like suicides or shootings because of one's sexuality.

Gothitelle.
July 16th, 2011, 12:12 PM
Well as long as it's not forced upon then I'll be alright with it, I guess.

Went
July 16th, 2011, 12:38 PM
Well as long as it's not forced upon then I'll be alright with it, I guess.

Maths also are "forced upon" and everyboy sees them as normal XD As long as they just mention those aspects when talking about historical figures, there won't be any need to force upon anything.

Gothitelle.
July 16th, 2011, 01:35 PM
Maths also are "forced upon" and everyboy sees them as normal XD As long as they just mention those aspects when talking about historical figures, there won't be any need to force upon anything.
Ehh you wouldn't understand. Non of you would at that point.

Brane
July 16th, 2011, 05:08 PM
This thread isn't going anywhere, can a mod please come and lock it?

What're you talking about? We're learning!

But I do think the topic was whether or not it will be taught in history xD
I still think the rate of ignorance is too high for anything close to happen.

Gothitelle.
July 16th, 2011, 06:37 PM
Well the topic is about how they are going to pass a bill which school history textbooks MUST incorporate gay/lesb/trans contributions and it's history.

Most people say yay because they think it would stop prejudice. For people like myself, the problem we foresee is that schools are going to be teaching them something that is one very controversial and two; something that goes against alot of people's morals and beliefs.

It's just... I wouldn't want to be forced to believe that the lifestyle was "natural", nor would parents want their kids to believe that it was. I'm pretty old fashined when it comes to the issue itself, and to be honest, if I had kids, I wouldn't want them to think that this was "natural". I'll leave it at that and I hope and pray that I'm not the only one thinking this.

wcdaily
July 16th, 2011, 06:37 PM
What're you talking about? We're learning!

But I do think the topic was whether or not it will be taught in history xD
I still think the rate of ignorance is too high for anything close to happen.I mean the thread has turned into a flame war between the op and everyone else. Also for the above post, if you think we should take things out just because it goes against something in the bible or is considered wrong by a lot of people, their wouldn't be much of a history book, (Just a few sections.) sorry I had to go their but that is how it is. I think their is nothing wrong about gay rights or gay history, but people will still hate against it because that's what people will do.

Now that's over, can we just agree that we are both right and stop fighting?

Oryx
July 16th, 2011, 06:40 PM
Well the topic is about how they are going to pass a bill which school history textbooks MUST incorporate gay/lesb/trans contributions and it's history.

Most people say yay because they think it would stop prejudice. For people like myself, the problem we foresee is that schools are going to be teaching them something that is one very controversial and two; something that goes against alot of people's morals and beliefs.

It's just... I wouldn't want to be forced to believe that the lifestyle was "natural", nor would parents want their kids to believe that it was. I'm pretty old fashined when it comes to the issue itself, and to be honest, if I had kids, I wouldn't want them to think that this was "natural". I'll leave it at that and I hope and pray that I'm not the only one thinking this.

So in your opinion, if someone is gay and contributes to society, should his contribution be taught while hiding the fact that he was gay, or should his contribution be ignored entirely? Or do you think it should be taught as "despite his unnatural tendencies he managed to do X great thing?"

Esper
July 16th, 2011, 07:03 PM
So in your opinion, if someone is gay and contributes to society, should his contribution be taught while hiding the fact that he was gay, or should his contribution be ignored entirely? Or do you think it should be taught as "despite his unnatural tendencies he managed to do X great thing?"
You know, and not to turn the topic around entirely or broaden it too far, that's an interesting point to make. There are lots of things in history which included people accomplishing great things despite their own social standing/perception at the time/perception today. You can look at all the scientists who invented the atom bomb and you could gloss over the fact that lots of innocent people died because of it or you could include that in the book. Which is better? Just the facts, the facts with some commentary in them, or certain facts with some commentary but not others? Because facts can't be against someone's morals or beliefs. (Well, I guess they can if you believe the world is flat or something, but you know what I mean.) Whatever you morals are you can't deny that Harvey Milk became the first openly gay person elected as a government official in the United States. History books would probably say this is a breakthrough for civil rights because history books don't normally talk about things being 'right' or 'wrong' (if they're decent history books anyway) as much as they talk about the impact on society.

Gothitelle.
July 17th, 2011, 09:56 AM
So in your opinion, if someone is gay and contributes to society, should his contribution be taught while hiding the fact that he was gay, or should his contribution be ignored entirely? Or do you think it should be taught as "despite his unnatural tendencies he managed to do X great thing?"
Their contribution should be taught but don't bring up their sexual orientation. It's not really necessary in my opinion.

wcdaily
July 17th, 2011, 10:11 AM
Their contribution should be taught but don't bring up their sexual orientation. It's not really necessary in my opinion.
I understand your opinion but how is it unnecessary?

Oryx
July 17th, 2011, 10:12 AM
Their contribution should be taught but don't bring up their sexual orientation. It's not really necessary in my opinion.

But then, what will be done about the people (like you in fact) who say things like "gay people don't contribute to society as much as other groups"? They don't have to say an inventor was black, you can see their picture. Gay isn't something you can pick out from a picture. I would agree that if there were no issue with gay people being discriminated against, it wouldn't be necessary at all to mention orientation. But because there are plenty of people who are just ignorant of contributions by gay people, it's necessary to make sure that people are aware.

Bluerang1
July 17th, 2011, 10:45 AM
Well the topic is about how they are going to pass a bill which school history textbooks MUST incorporate gay/lesb/trans contributions and it's history.

Most people say yay because they think it would stop prejudice. For people like myself, the problem we foresee is that schools are going to be teaching them something that is one very controversial and two; something that goes against alot of people's morals and beliefs.

It's just... I wouldn't want to be forced to believe that the lifestyle was "natural", nor would parents want their kids to believe that it was. I'm pretty old fashined when it comes to the issue itself, and to be honest, if I had kids, I wouldn't want them to think that this was "natural". I'll leave it at that and I hope and pray that I'm not the only one thinking this.

You're not.But I agree with what you say about sexual orientation not being necessary to mention. It sorts of singles them out even more. Also, about seeing pictures on black people in history etc. It's because race is natural, you can't change it even if you bleach etc so that's why you can tell from seeing. Someone's sexual orientation doesn't need to be announced, straight or not.

Guy
July 17th, 2011, 11:32 AM
Well the topic is about how they are going to pass a bill which school history textbooks MUST incorporate gay/lesb/trans contributions and it's history.
Nothing is wrong with this. It's not forcing anything upon anyone, but simply informing their readers. Just like how they inform us about the contributions of African-Americans, the Native Americans, Pilgrims, and so forth, they're just informing you of the contributions that popular gay historians made. This way people are educated that people, who were in fact gay, bi, or even trans-gender did contribute to our history. Otherwise, we'd assume they were all straight, and that's not true.

Most people say yay because they think it would stop prejudice. For people like myself, the problem we foresee is that schools are going to be teaching them something that is one very controversial and two; something that goes against alot of people's morals and beliefs.

It's just... I wouldn't want to be forced to believe that the lifestyle was "natural", nor would parents want their kids to believe that it was. I'm pretty old fashined when it comes to the issue itself, and to be honest, if I had kids, I wouldn't want them to think that this was "natural". I'll leave it at that and I hope and pray that I'm not the only one thinking this.Their lifestyle is as natural as any other person's choice of lifestyle. Saying it's not natural is like saying a Golden Retriever mating with a Labrador is not natural, for lack of a better comparison. People can't help who they fall in love with or their sexual orientation much less than they can choose what family they were born into. To say you wouldn't want your kids to think it was something "natural," is exactly what creates closed-minded ignorance and misunderstanding between people. This is exactly why I agree with what they're trying to input within textbooks. This will at least enlighten people more on the accomplishments people can make regardless of sexuality.

Oryx
July 17th, 2011, 11:35 AM
You're not.But I agree with what you say about sexual orientation not being necessary to mention. It sorts of singles them out even more. Also, about seeing pictures on black people in history etc. It's because race is natural, you can't change it even if you bleach etc so that's why you can tell from seeing. Someone's sexual orientation doesn't need to be announced, straight or not.

That's the point. It's much easier to see "look, black people contribute!" You don't have to mention their skin color to remove discrimination; all you need is a picture. But to show people that gay people contribute just as much as straight people, you can't just show a picture. The only way is to mention that they're gay. Like I said, if there wasn't any discrimination then there would be no need for this. But because there is, even within this very controlled thread environment, it's obvious that there is a need for something to be done to show that they are contributing members of society as well.

FreakyLocz14
July 17th, 2011, 11:41 AM
There is a fine lin between teaching history, and pressing sociopolitial values on schoolchildren. Great caution needs to be taken so that thes oe lessons are taught from a completely neutral, unbiased point-of-view.

Gothitelle.
July 18th, 2011, 12:19 PM
There is a fine lin between teaching history, and pressing sociopolitial values on schoolchildren. Great caution needs to be taken so that these lessns are taught from a completely neutral, unbiased point-of-view.
This.

I prefer if they didn't mention sexual orientation and just taught history.

Oryx
July 18th, 2011, 12:23 PM
This.

I prefer if they didn't mention sexual orientation and just taught history.

Well, sexual orientation is a part of history. Saying a man was gay isn't biased in any direction whatsoever, it's a fact just as much as saying that man was a famous inventor. In fact the former may be even more unbiased, because the inventor probably wasn't famous everywhere :P Why is this fact more biased than another fact?

Åzurε
July 18th, 2011, 12:31 PM
Well, sexual orientation is a part of history. Saying a man was gay isn't biased in any direction whatsoever, it's a fact just as much as saying that man was a famous inventor. In fact the former may be even more unbiased, because the inventor probably wasn't famous everywhere :P Why is this fact more biased than another fact?

Thing is, why bother mentioning it at all? Homosexuals are people too, but in the same way they'd just be people. Bringing it up in this way is just promoting the lifestyle where it ought not be promoted.

In addition, I've been told gay activists are promoting false facts and baseless speculation regarding the contributions of gay people in history. I'm unsure how true this is personally, and I intend to look into it, but it would not surprise me.

Gothitelle.
July 18th, 2011, 12:32 PM
Well, sexual orientation is a part of history. Saying a man was gay isn't biased in any direction whatsoever, it's a fact just as much as saying that man was a famous inventor. In fact the former may be even more unbiased, because the inventor probably wasn't famous everywhere :P Why is this fact more biased than another fact?
No it isn't actually. Well I wouldn't know but that's me.

My thing is that if they mention that the person was gay, then they are going to go all into the history of gay/lesb/trans and then... yeah you know.

Bringing it up in this way is just promoting the lifestyle where it ought not be promoted.

This.

I don't support promoting the lifestyle in schools. I really don't.

Oryx
July 18th, 2011, 12:50 PM
Thing is, why bother mentioning it at all? Homosexuals are people too, but in the same way they'd just be people. Bringing it up in this way is just promoting the lifestyle where it ought not be promoted.

In addition, I've been told gay activists are promoting false facts and baseless speculation regarding the contributions of gay people in history. I'm unsure how true this is personally, and I intend to look into it, but it would not surprise me.

Well if you think there have been false facts being spread around, wouldn't a history lesson where people actually mention the sexuality help? Then you wouldn't be going off of "I heard from this website who had another source that looks at wikipedia that..." like you are now, and would instead have actual information that was actually researched and true.


No it isn't actually. Well I wouldn't know but that's me.

History is either considered past events, or the past as a whole, according to the definition. If you want to say "being gay isn't an event", then no description of anything belongs in history. Obviously you don't want to take out any description of anything in history, so that leaves you with "history is the past as a whole". If someone was gay in the past, that is history. Unless you're planning on changing the definition of history to be "the past except for sexual orientation", it is history.

My thing is that if they mention that the person was gay, then they are going to go all into the history of gay/lesb/trans and then... yeah you know.

Because, you know, every time they mention a house is white they have to go into the history of how white paint was created. Every time they show a picture of a black person they have to go into the history of race. No. By the time you're in fourth grade or so in this generation, you know what being gay is, and that's a conservative estimate of age. If all you say is "this person invented this and was gay", no one is getting hurt. They're not saying it's bad or good, just that it is. It's just as unimportant as age, but they still mention that in history books.

And I would just like to bring up again the terribly enlightened assumption that gay people contribute less than black people that you said earlier, Gothitelle. Mentioning that inventors are gay would certainly have changed that opinion and you might have grown up as not quite so discriminatory towards people of other orientations. But unfortunately you did, and I would like other people to grow up not filled with such negative emotions.

FreakyLocz14
July 18th, 2011, 12:56 PM
I'm not saying that they can't mention sexual orientation at all.

OK: So and so was gay, and btw, he accomplished this and this.

Not OK: Being gay is a completely normal thing. OR Being gay is unnatural.

Both of those not OK statements present a sociopolitical bias.

Patchisou Yutohru
July 18th, 2011, 01:16 PM
My thing is that if they mention that the person was gay, then they are going to go all into the history of gay/lesb/trans and then... yeah you know.
...So what if they did? I don't see what the big deal is, or how learning about it promoting the lifestyle. It's promoting awareness of social (in)justice between sexual orientation, just as social injustice between race has been such a big(ger) issue in the past. That's like saying learning about a black man is going to promote being black. As if someone who's learning about African American culture is going to suddenly turn black. Rather ridiculous if you ask me. Even if schools did go into the social history of the LGBT community, which I don't see happening until they gain the rights that straight people have, I don't see why it would be that big of a deal. Unless you fear that you can "catch the gay" and become gay yourself from learning about it, in which case you probably have more things to worry about than that.

Åzurε
July 18th, 2011, 01:26 PM
Well if you think there have been false facts being spread around, wouldn't a history lesson where people actually mention the sexuality help?
Mentioning sexuality? Sure, if it's relevant. Trying to promote a social agenda through pushing a state-funded course that says "Hey, our group is credible too"? Nuh-uh.

Then you wouldn't be going off of "I heard from this website who had another source that looks at wikipedia that..." like you are now, and would instead have actual information that was actually researched and true.
Assuming my source is an untrustworthy website. Understandable but presumptuous. Think something more along the lines of a textbook worth credit in the same school system that teaches Gay History.

Real talk: Your post gives the vibe that you're getting emotional about this- passion or frustration or anger- not much, but some. If this is the case, I'd like to encourage you to remain chill, as should we all.

FreakyLocz14
July 18th, 2011, 01:37 PM
...So what if they did? I don't see what the big deal is, or how learning about it promoting the lifestyle. It's promoting awareness of social (in)justice between sexual orientation, just as social injustice between race has been such a big(ger) issue in the past. That's like saying learning about a black man is going to promote being black. As if someone who's learning about African American culture is going to suddenly turn black. Rather ridiculous if you ask me. Even if schools did go into the social history of the LGBT community, which I don't see happening until they gain the rights that straight people have, I don't see why it would be that big of a deal. Unless you fear that you can "catch the gay" and become gay yourself from learning about it, in which case you probably have more things to worry about than that.

When I learned about black history, the courses didn't try and dispell any racism by saying that being black is acceptable. They just taught history. Trying to combat social injusice isn't just teaching history; it's promoting an agenda.

Oryx
July 18th, 2011, 01:38 PM
Mentioning sexuality? Sure, if it's relevant. Trying to promote a social agenda through pushing a state-funded course that says "Hey, our group is credible too"? Nuh-uh.


Assuming my source is an untrustworthy website. Understandable but presumptuous. Think something more along the lines of a textbook worth credit in the same school system that teaches Gay History.

Real talk: Your post gives the vibe that you're getting emotional about this- passion or frustration or anger- not much, but some. If this is the case, I'd like to encourage you to remain chill, as should we all.

Your source isn't even quoted, you can't claim that it's trustworthy under those circumstances. A textbook that's been researched would be preferable. You're misunderstanding the idea again though. The idea isn't to run a course called "Gay History", the idea is to mention sexuality to show that gay people contribute just as much.

FreakyLocz14
July 18th, 2011, 01:47 PM
There's nothing wrong with teaching a "Gay History" course if it's an elective.

Åzurε
July 18th, 2011, 02:00 PM
Your source isn't even quoted, you can't claim that it's trustworthy under those circumstances. A textbook that's been researched would be preferable.
My idea is not to quote the source, it's to put forward the idea that people could be calling lies facts for the sake of the homosexual agenda. Which, when dealing with a nationwide history course especially, is unacceptable (as it would be for promoting any other social group).

You're misunderstanding the idea again though. The idea isn't to run a course called "Gay History", the idea is to mention sexuality to show that gay people contribute just as much.Fact of the matter is, they are running a course called Gay History, which is promoting a lifestyle through the way they interpret data and present it to students. The idea doesn't matter when it's a question of what's happening in reality right now. And, if reality shows that homosexuals haven't contributed just as much, why bother trying to convince others of it?

groteske
July 18th, 2011, 02:01 PM
Dumb and useless idea. A person's sexual orientation matters as much as their lunch meat preference; it's their work or the change that results from their actions that's important. Discrimination IS important for young children to be made aware of, in hopes that knowledge & reasoning will overcome the ignorance to further propagate it. But fixating on one's race or sexuality only exacerbates one's identifying them as different and a potentially undesirable member of society.

Did we forget about Jefferson being removed from textbooks in TX (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/12/86595/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/) already? Slightly more important, and has a malignant reasoning behind it.

Oryx
July 18th, 2011, 02:16 PM
My idea is not to quote the source, it's to put forward the idea that people could be calling lies facts for the sake of the homosexual agenda. Which, when dealing with a nationwide history course especially, is unacceptable (as it would be for promoting any other social group).

So let's get rid of anything teaching black history before photography was invented because no one can prove they were black! There's a point in which you have to just understand that if history books were edited to make sure that they include the orientation of people, it would be historically accurate. When you're reading something on the internet, it's easy to be biased. Especially considering the kind of opposition this bill has, there will certainly be people all over it making sure that they're not lying in the books.

Fact of the matter is, they are running a course called Gay History, which is promoting a lifestyle through the way they interpret data and present it to students. The idea doesn't matter when it's a question of what's happening in reality right now. And, if reality shows that homosexuals haven't contributed just as much, why bother trying to convince others of it?

Wait, who's running a course called gay history? The article is about adding lessons to a class and editing books, not about starting a new class. Exactly where are you getting the information that it's interpreted differently or that reality shows what you claim it to show? I would like some sources, as you just made a lot of claims there.

-ty-
July 18th, 2011, 03:18 PM
Why do some people believe teaching a few lessons about homosexual history is furthering an agenda? I guess it is furthering the belief that GLBT people have endured and continue to endure discrimination. Schools have been teaching students about black history including slavery, civil rights case law, and discrimination. The same should follow suit for all people, whether they are people who are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, gay, bi, straight, transgendered, or have physical/cognitive impairments, low income, or any other factor that deviates from the cultural norm. Education is one of the few buffers between children and parents; parents can either misinform or not inform their children about GLBT people, so there needs to be some type of proper education to steer more children to be tolerant of all people so that they can function in society.

Åzurε
July 18th, 2011, 03:48 PM
So let's get rid of anything teaching black history before photography was invented because no one can prove they were black!
Huh? Too much discrepancy between the quote and the response. Disregarded until expounded upon.

There's a point in which you have to just understand that if history books were edited to make sure that they include the orientation of people, it would be historically accurate.
Under the assumption that the information is true. If, however, it's irrelevant to the subject matter, why bother? Many historical figures have books or other documents or evidence focused on them (which, I'd assume, is how they're adding these facts in the first place). The information there hasn't been altered, and is very much public. If it's important that the students know who was gay or straight, it shouldn't be hard for them to find out themselves.

When you're reading something on the internet, it's easy to be biased. Especially considering the kind of opposition this bill has, there will certainly be people all over it making sure that they're not lying in the books.
Was there enough opposition to keep the bill from passing? History belongs to the victors, as it were, and that's something to watch out for. If those against the additions cannot reasonably deny the information being added, then there's no problem calling it fact.

Wait, who's running a course called gay history? The article is about adding lessons to a class and editing books, not about starting a new class.
Ack, pardon. That was a mistake on my part, my phraseology getting away from me. I'd retract the sentence, but I hate inconsistency in quotes. Instead, I shall kick myself.

Exactly where are you getting the information that it's interpreted differently or that reality shows what you claim it to show? I would like some sources, as you just made a lot of claims there.
Perhaps not quite as many as you think. I did state and highlight "If" when referring to the contributions of gays. It's not hard fact, but something I rather deeply suspect.

I tried to come up with some specific sources I could link you to regarding the ways homosexuality is treated in school system, but I haven't located any actual sources through Google-fu. Only reports by bloggers and other sources I think won't be seriously regarded. So I won't be able to back it up this time. Maybe I'll return to this particular subject, but the chances are I won't. It's all I can do to apologize for the lack of supplemental material for my arguments and to continue to be resolute in my opinion.

Livewire
July 18th, 2011, 03:53 PM
Did we forget about Jefferson being removed from textbooks in TX (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/12/86595/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/) already? Slightly more important, and has a malignant reasoning behind it.

You should make a thread about that, hint hint.




On another note,

Education kills ignorance and promotes understanding. So many pointless arguments and hateful acts can be stopped if we understood things about each other - from every walk of life and from every aspect.
Huh? Too much discrepancy between the quote and the response. Disregarded until expounded upon.


Under the assumption that the information is true. If, however, it's irrelevant to the subject matter, why bother? Many historical figures have books or other documents or evidence focused on them (which, I'd assume, is how they're adding these facts in the first place). The information there hasn't been altered, and is very much public. If it's important that the students know who was gay or straight, it shouldn't be hard for them to find out themselves.


Was there enough opposition to keep the bill from passing? History belongs to the victors, as it were, and that's something to watch out for. If those against the additions cannot reasonably deny the information being added, then there's no problem calling it fact.


Ack, pardon. That was a mistake on my part, my phraseology getting away from me. I'd retract the sentence, but I hate inconsistency in quotes. Instead, I shall kick myself.


Perhaps not quite as many as you think. I did state and highlight "If" when referring to the contributions of gays. It's not hard fact, but something I rather deeply suspect.

I tried to come up with some specific sources I could link you to regarding the ways homosexuality is treated in school system, but I haven't located any actual sources through Google-fu. Only reports by bloggers and other sources I think won't be seriously regarded. So I won't be able to back it up this time. Maybe I'll return to this particular subject, but the chances are I won't. It's all I can do to apologize for the lack of supplemental material for my arguments and to continue to be resolute in my opinion.

If you want people to maybe consider your opinion, some sort of logic that backs it up would be preferential, or some sort of statistic. Otherwise, it just seems like the typical "la la I'm right your not because that's what I believe blah blah" garbage.

Gothitelle.
July 18th, 2011, 05:04 PM
Because, you know, every time they mention a house is white they have to go into the history of how white paint was created. Every time they show a picture of a black person they have to go into the history of race. No. By the time you're in fourth grade or so in this generation, you know what being gay is, and that's a conservative estimate of age. If all you say is "this person invented this and was gay", no one is getting hurt. They're not saying it's bad or good, just that it is. It's just as unimportant as age, but they still mention that in history books.

That's all I wanted them to say. Say: Blah Blah Blah, was gay, invented the traffic light. That's all they have to do and if they do that, then I'm cool with it.

And I would just like to bring up again the terribly enlightened assumption that gay people contribute less than black people that you said earlier, Gothitelle. Mentioning that inventors are gay would certainly have changed that opinion and you might have grown up as not quite so discriminatory towards people of other orientations. But unfortunately you did, and I would like other people to grow up not filled with such negative emotions.

Are you saying that I'm homopobic? Because I'm not. I may not be all for the lifestyle choice, but it doesn't mean I hate the people living it.

What I do hate is that they and other groups are doing what they can to push their agenda on the public so that they can come off as they are better than us normal people. A certain other group does that as well but I might be a thread on those guys. For the topic, I saw it as that. I didn't understand. But now I kinda do.

Ursula
July 18th, 2011, 05:34 PM
That's all I wanted them to say. Say: Blah Blah Blah, was gay, invented the traffic light. That's all they have to do and if they do that, then I'm cool with it.That's what they're saying. They're just mentioning that they're gay to further promote the fact that it's not unnatural..because every day gay teens are told that they are unnatural abominations.

This can lead to abhorrent consequences - most often, it's suicide.

By teaching this, they're dispelling the misconception that homosexuals are unnatural, and have been around forever. It's just a step further to saying to some - you aren't unnatural. There are famous people who have done great things who have been gay, and they most certainly weren't abominations.

Likewise, it's also allowing other people to realize that homosexuality is perfectly natural and has been occurring for a long time. Hopefully, it'll prevent some sort of bullying, which might prevent another death.

Believe it or not, people actually think that homosexuality is a choice! And, as a homosexual, I can safely say it isn't a choice!

I don't know if you know that.
I mean, did you know that?

Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and incorporation of it into educational curriculum will further dispel hetero-normality. Hopefully one day a person's sexual orientation / race / creed / religious affiliation will not matter. :)

Sodom
July 18th, 2011, 05:48 PM
Are you saying that I'm homopobic? Because I'm not. I may not be all for the lifestyle choice, but it doesn't mean I hate the people living it.

What I do hate is that they and other groups are doing what they can to push their agenda on the public so that they can come off as they are better than us normal people. A certain other group does that as well but I might be a thread on those guys. For the topic, I saw it as that. I didn't understand. But now I kinda do.


I won't even go into the whole "GAY IS NOT A CHOICE" rage because honestly, people should know better than that and if they don't they aren't worth my time.

I just wanted to say that for someone who is "not homopobic" you make a very interesting distinction between gays and "normal people". Very interesting indeed. But maybe my dictionary has a different definition of "homopobia" than yours.

インフェルノの津波
July 18th, 2011, 05:52 PM
I don't care honestly, since we learn all about things we don't need to know in school/college, so sure why not, there are things about Gay people I don't know that they might teach me. Of course, that's assuming they teach it correctly, many a time I've had teachers have biased classes and they just failed.

Gothitelle.
July 18th, 2011, 06:08 PM
Homophobia is a hatred of homosexuals. As much as everyone wants to think that I'm this horrible person who hates gays, I don't.

I was taught in an old fashioned way, so maybe that's why my views are different than yours?

Åzurε
July 18th, 2011, 06:08 PM
If you want people to maybe consider your opinion, some sort of logic that backs it up would be preferential, or some sort of statistic. Otherwise, it just seems like the typical "la la I'm right your not because that's what I believe blah blah" garbage.

Do you perhaps think I don't realize that? I'm having trouble presenting evidence at the moment, and logic doesn't work because it comes down to different values. What's reasonable to one seems unreasonable to the other, and vice versa. This discussion isn't about the moral validity of homosexuality, and I don't want to derail it.
I'm simply admitting that I've failed to support my stance in this instance. It frustrates me that this is the case, and if it bothers me too much I'll dive in again, see what I can pull up. I have a knack for late breakthroughs.

Ursula
July 18th, 2011, 06:48 PM
Homophobia is a hatred of homosexuals. As much as everyone wants to think that I'm this horrible person who hates gays, I don't.

I was taught in an old fashioned way, so maybe that's why my views are different than yours?
I was taught in a very old fashioned way, as well. Very, very old fashioned.
I, however, educated myself in more modern thoughts and philosophies when I was younger.

FreakyLocz14
July 18th, 2011, 10:32 PM
That's what they're saying. They're just mentioning that they're gay to further promote the fact that it's not unnatural..because every day gay teens are told that they are unnatural abominations.

This can lead to abhorrent consequences - most often, it's suicide.

By teaching this, they're dispelling the misconception that homosexuals are unnatural, and have been around forever. It's just a step further to saying to some - you aren't unnatural. There are famous people who have done great things who have been gay, and they most certainly weren't abominations.

Likewise, it's also allowing other people to realize that homosexuality is perfectly natural and has been occurring for a long time. Hopefully, it'll prevent some sort of bullying, which might prevent another death.

Believe it or not, people actually think that homosexuality is a choice! And, as a homosexual, I can safely say it isn't a choice!

I don't know if you know that.
I mean, did you know that?

Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and incorporation of it into educational curriculum will further dispel hetero-normality. Hopefully one day a person's sexual orientation / race / creed / religious affiliation will not matter. :)

They don't need to say that being homosexual is natural or unnatural. That's a sociopolitical value, and tha doesn't need to be in our schools.

Livewire
July 18th, 2011, 11:06 PM
They don't need to say that being homosexual is natural or unnatural. That's a sociopolitical value, and tha doesn't need to be in our schools.

And yet certain sociopolitical values do end up making it into our schools. Either all or none, no exclusion. There's the problem with that argument.

FreakyLocz14
July 18th, 2011, 11:22 PM
And yet certain sociopolitical values do end up making it into our schools. Either all or none, no exclusion. There's the problem with that argument.

It's no secret that rogue teachers do sneak their biases into the classroom. It shouldn't be state-mandated, though.

You could teach all theories on the causes of homosexuality, but just teaching one is unacceptable.

Livewire
July 18th, 2011, 11:27 PM
It's no secret that rogue teachers do sneak their biases into the classroom. It shouldn't be state-mandated, though.

You could teach all theories on the causes of homosexuality, but just teaching one is unacceptable.

Or because, all human beings are inherently prone to some level of bias. You make it seem like teachers are purposely spreading agendas and that there's this underground, ulterior motive to sway kids's opinions. Let's step back and examine just how incredibly stupid that sounds.

FreakyLocz14
July 18th, 2011, 11:31 PM
Or because, all human beings are inherently prone to some level of bias. You make it seem like teachers are purposely spreading agendas and that there's this underground, ulterior motive to sway kids's opinions. Let's step back and examine just how incredibly stupid that sounds.

Of course all teachers can slip every now and then, but they should make an honest effort to keep their lessons as soically and politically unbiased as possible.

Gymnotide
July 18th, 2011, 11:31 PM
Or because, all human beings are inherently prone to some level of bias. You make it seem like teachers are purposely spreading agendas and that there's this underground, ulterior motive to sway kids's opinions. Let's step back and examine just how incredibly stupid that sounds.

Inch a bit further back and we'll be intruding on the debate over whether or not someone is qualified to teach if they aren't open-minded.

FreakyLocz14
July 18th, 2011, 11:38 PM
Inch a bit further back and we'll be intruding on the debate over whether or not someone is qualified to teach if they aren't open-minded freethinkers.

Teaching kids to be "freethinkers" means we present them with all possible explanations for homosexuality, or none at all. We can't just say "Homosexuality is natural and those other guys are stupid." That's closed-minded.

Gymnotide
July 18th, 2011, 11:45 PM
Teaching kids to be "freethinkers" mean we present them with all possible explanations for homosexuality, or none at all. We can't just say "Homosexuality is natural and those other guys are stupid." That's closed-minded.

Let that one slip there. I didn't mean to say "freethinkers."

However, I didn't mention anything about teaching the kids at all. I was just pointing out that the discussion about bias (whether it's exerted willfully or passively) kind of falls out of the jurisdiction of the topic, running into the quality of our education systems.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 02:32 AM
Teaching kids to be "freethinkers" mean we present them with all possible explanations for homosexuality, or none at all. We can't just say "Homosexuality is natural and those other guys are stupid." That's closed-minded.
Yeah. I mean at the end of the day, people are free to think what they want.

So far, there isn't one person who entirely agrees with me. Am I'm the horrible one? Nah. :p

Sodom
July 19th, 2011, 02:53 AM
They don't need to say that being homosexual is natural or unnatural. That's a sociopolitical value, and that doesn't need to be in our schools.

I don't think it's a sociopolitical value at all, it's a biological fact that homosexuality is indeed natural. Just like the argument over whether or not homosexuality is a choice; it is not. That much is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

Schools teach facts, and at some point people need to stop pretending that these aren't just that.

Alinthea
July 19th, 2011, 04:52 AM
Christ, what did I just walk into?

Personally, I don't see why 'gay history' has to be given its own section. Yes, the discrimination and resolves are important to be made aware of, but a whole lesson? This could be simply involved in the current History curriculum.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 09:32 AM
I don't think it's a sociopolitical value at all, it's a biological fact that homosexuality is indeed natural. Just like the argument over whether or not homosexuality is a choice; it is not. That much is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

Schools teach facts, and at some point people need to stop pretending that these aren't just that.

That is disputable. We need to stick to historical facts, and not make judgment calls for kids on controversial topics.

Myles
July 19th, 2011, 09:34 AM
The article that this topic is about seems to be about adding the gay rights movement into the history curriculum. That makes perfect sense since it's a part of sociological history, just like the feminist and civil rights movements.

As for schools not being biased. Schools are about teaching facts, science and the humanities. Homosexuality has no evidence pointing towards it being unnatural (e.g. a mental disorder). Science suggests it isn't. Thus this can be taught in schools without it being considered biased. There are quite a few people that are against evolution, but that hasn't stopped evolution from finding its place in the biology curriculum.

And school is a place for learning, not ignorance. Skirting an issue because it's controversial makes no sense in a school. If you're worried that teaching proven facts will corrupt people, maybe you're worried that you're wrong. If you're right, why would ignorance be required in order for people to see your point of view?

Blue Nocturne
July 19th, 2011, 09:51 AM
I've managed to stay well out of this topic so far, and all I will say for now is that some of the things I've read are actually depressing. I hoped that most of us had moved on from this view that Homosexuals are different from everyone else, unnatural and (possibly as a result) immoral.

I personally don't give a damn if a significant figure in history was gay or not. It has no bearing on my opinion on them or the significance of their contributions. However, it is something that is relevant to the study of history. In the same way you would, for example, study the attitudes against colored people in America up until (and since, really) about 50 years ago, or being a woman until just as recently, it would have to be at least noted that these people were gay/bi/whatever, and may or may not have faced persecution.

As for the matter of "Gay History", I'm opposed to this concept in much the same way I'm opposed to Black History Month. All it does is encourage beliefs that Gay people are different and should be treated as such. While it a part of the history of LGBT, it is not "LGBT history"... It's just "History". I'm all for teaching about Gay historical figures, but based on their actual historical contribution; rather that just being taught about them because the gay quota needed to be met.

Guy
July 19th, 2011, 10:30 AM
That is disputable. We need to stick to historical facts, and not make judgment calls for kids on controversial topics.
Stating ______ was a famous gay inventor known for designing the ______ is sticking with historical facts. There's no biased views coming from that, no controversy, just facts.

At the very least, it acknowledges the fact that gay, lesbian, and bi people did contribute to our known history. It's not something that just recently came about, but has been present for centuries now.

Gold warehouse
July 19th, 2011, 11:19 AM
Maybe if homosexuality was talked about more often without being stigmatised then it wouldn't be a controversial subject at all. Pretending sexuality doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.

That said I can see where people are coming from when they say it's not necessary to specifically point out the sexuality of historical figures. I do think gay rights movements and other things related to sexuality should be included in history, but maybe that's enough. Will stating that some famous historical figures are gay really reduce prejudice? I don't think the majority of people are really inspired by history. especially by those who are ignorantly prejudiced. If anything is going to make people more open-minded, it's modern media.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 11:44 AM
I think we talk about race and sexual orientaion too much. The more it is talked about, the more atention is drawn to it. LGBT people want to seen as the same as everyone else, so why should we draw special attention to them?

Livewire
July 19th, 2011, 11:58 AM
I think we talk about race and sexual orientaion too much. The more it is talked about, the more atention is drawn to it. LGBT people want to seen as the same as everyone else, so why should we draw special attention to them?

Maybe so, but rectifiing historical inaccuracies and misconceptions should be a priority. Why would, or should, we willing teach lies to our children? (Then again we already do, but that's another story) Public education is designed to make the populace learned, not to propagate ignorance.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 12:03 PM
... at the end of the day, yes they contribute to society and I can respect that. Don't get me wrong.

If all they said was Tom Sample was a gay man who created the cell phone in 1995 then that's okay as long as they don't try to secretly try to push the preference on us, then it's okay (I want to say lifestyle because that's how I was taught to say it but...)

Livewire
July 19th, 2011, 12:18 PM
... at the end of the day, yes they contribute to society and I can respect that. Don't get me wrong.

If all they said was Tom Sample was a gay man who created the cell phone in 1995 then that's okay as long as they don't try to secretly try to push the preference on us, then it's okay (I want to say lifestyle because that's how I was taught to say it but...)

Whoever said anything about there even being an agenda to begin with? There is no "agenda" and there never was one. You're trying to justify your bigotry by saying there's a sinsiter motive at work here, trying to get this included. If it's a fact, it belongs in the history book, regardless of any other particular. End of discussion.

Kyoko
July 19th, 2011, 12:26 PM
I think we talk about race and sexual orientaion too much. The more it is talked about, the more atention is drawn to it. LGBT people want to seen as the same as everyone else, so why should we draw special attention to them?
Seriously? So you would much rather live in a society where ignorance and intolerance is taught? In order to make any progress with acceptance amoung racial and sexual orientation differences it DOES need to have attention drawn to it. By shoving it under the rug, it only makes the ignorance and intolerance okay. The only way people are going to get equality is to first make them realize it's not a bad thing and to achieve that you have to draw attention to the problem.

... at the end of the day, yes they contribute to society and I can respect that. Don't get me wrong.

If all they said was Tom Sample was a gay man who created the cell phone in 1995 then that's okay as long as they don't try to secretly try to push the preference on us, then it's okay (I want to say lifestyle because that's how I was taught to say it but...)

You could say that about anything in history though. "Don't push the fact that America was once imperialistic" is said by people who don't want to have America taught in a bad light (a history teacher in my district faught this). But at the end of the day it IS a part of our history just like the lgbt movement is, and you can't simply ignore it or "don't push it" because it is something that should be learned and not ignored.

Esper
July 19th, 2011, 01:24 PM
I think we talk about race and sexual orientaion too much. The more it is talked about, the more atention is drawn to it. LGBT people want to seen as the same as everyone else, so why should we draw special attention to them?
I see a lack of LGBT people in history books as a kind of 'negative special attention' like being in the closet that inclusion would help fix, help make more equal.

JimJams
July 19th, 2011, 01:41 PM
Ehh you wouldn't understand. Non of you would at that point.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say there's probably not much to understand.

And no one is going to try to make you gay, chill the fuzz out.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 02:04 PM
I see a lack of LGBT people in history books as a kind of 'negative special attention' like being in the closet that inclusion would help fix, help make more equal.

You have a valid point. I just feel that drawing too much attention to a historical figure's sexual orientation will have negative unintended effects. Kids might remember the figure as "that gay guy" rather than "that guy who invented something important, and just so happened to be gay".

Also, not teaching "tolerance" =/= teaching intolerance. There is no basis to prove the not doing something equals the actively doing the opposite thing.

LGBT people should have equal rights, not special rights. That means that we treat them like individuals and pay no mind to their sexual orientation so that it is irrelevant as they will be treated the same as everyone else.

As the great Ron Paul said, "We don't get our rights because we're gay, or black, or women. We get our rights because we're individuals."

Ryoutarou
July 19th, 2011, 02:04 PM
Seriously? So you would much rather live in a society where ignorance and intolerance is taught? In order to make any progress with acceptance amoung racial and sexual orientation differences it DOES need to have attention drawn to it. By shoving it under the rug, it only makes the ignorance and intolerance okay. The only way people are going to get equality is to first make them realize it's not a bad thing and to achieve that you have to draw attention to the problem.
You're already advocating some form of intolerance in this post, so apparently it is okay? (I think people really need to realize the differences between intolerance and pure hostility because everyone is intolerant) There is a difference between highlighting a problem to tackle it and then simply not letting it die. It's a very slippery slope because at some point one could reasonably determine that a person can be defined by their lifestyle and race and not their character. Personally speaking, I often don't like hearing superfluous details about a person's background when they aren't relevant to the subject at hand. When you speak about racial differences especially, it's the sort of thing that's always made me feel uncomfortable and like the odd duck out in a crowd of white or black people. People look at it differently, but I think that highlighting those differences brings that undertone of irregularity about the person in question.

Freedom Fighter N
July 19th, 2011, 02:06 PM
I do not see any reason to not include achievements made by extraordinary people.

However, does mentioning that they are gay, black, or anything out of the ordinary might label them inferior?
"That guy made that achievement. And kids, did you know? The best of all, he was black/gay! Isn't that truly amazing?"

Really, there is no reason to hide that person X was Y, but find a way that doesn't make them sound inferior.

Ursula
July 19th, 2011, 02:18 PM
You're already advocating some form of intolerance in this post, so apparently it is okay? (I think people really need to realize the differences between intolerance and pure hostility because everyone is intolerant) There is a difference between highlighting a problem to tackle it and then simply not letting it die. It's a very slippery slope because at some point one could reasonably determine that a person can be defined by their lifestyle and race and not their character. Personally speaking, I often don't like hearing superfluous details about a person's background when they aren't relevant to the subject at hand. When you speak about racial differences especially, it's the sort of thing that's always made me feel uncomfortable and like the odd duck out in a crowd of white or black people. People look at it differently, but I think that highlighting those differences brings that undertone of irregularity about the person in question.
I must respectfully disagree for reasons I have already stated.

By teaching this, they're dispelling the misconception that homosexuals are unnatural, and have been around forever. It's just a step further to saying to some - you aren't unnatural. There are famous people who have done great things who have been gay, and they most certainly weren't abominations.

Likewise, it's also allowing other people to realize that homosexuality is perfectly natural and has been occurring for a long time. Hopefully, it'll prevent some sort of bullying, which might prevent another death.

...


Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and incorporation of it into educational curriculum will further dispel hetero-normality. Hopefully one day a person's sexual orientation / race / creed / religious affiliation will not matter.

That is the whole point of incorporating the subject into curriculum - to dispel ignorance.

It's not about attributing sexual orientation / race to a person, it's about showing that anyone can do great things. :)

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 02:35 PM
It is not the governmnet (which is what public schools are)'s place to "dispell ignorance". That is government advancenement of sociopolitical values. That is th job of parents. Parents choose what values, morals, and political beliefs they want to instill in our children, not the government. Is the school's place to educate children in academic, not politically biased, subjects. Favoring one viewpoint over others by dimissing them as "ignorant" compromises the academic integtity of our schools.

Kyoko
July 19th, 2011, 02:37 PM
You have a valid point. I just feel that drawing too much attention to a historical figure's sexual orientation will have negative unintended effects. Kids might remember the figure as "that gay guy" rather than "that guy who invented something important, and just so happened to be gay".

Also, not teaching "tolerance" =/= teaching intolerance. There is no basis to prove the not doing something equals the actively doing the opposite thing.

LGBT people should have equal rights, not special rights. That means that we treat them like individuals and pay no mind to their sexual orientation so that it is irrelevant as they will be treated the same as everyone else.

As the great Ron Paul said, "We don't get our rights because we're gay, or black, or women. We get our rights because we're individuals."
Except it does. When you actively ignore a subject and don't bring it up, it shows that it isn't being brought up for some reason. For example, most people are well aware that gay history isn't taught because of the problems people who are against gay-rights would have with it. I'm not saying it will directly cause intolerance, but rather fuel it because there's nothing combating it.


You're already advocating some form of intolerance in this post, so apparently it is okay? (I think people really need to realize the differences between intolerance and pure hostility because everyone is intolerant) There is a difference between highlighting a problem to tackle it and then simply not letting it die. It's a very slippery slope because at some point one could reasonably determine that a person can be defined by their lifestyle and race and not their character. Personally speaking, I often don't like hearing superfluous details about a person's background when they aren't relevant to the subject at hand. When you speak about racial differences especially, it's the sort of thing that's always made me feel uncomfortable and like the odd duck out in a crowd of white or black people. People look at it differently, but I think that highlighting those differences brings that undertone of irregularity about the person in question.

I'm sorry, but can you tell me exactly what I was being intolerant of? Because I wasn't being intolerant to my knowledge and I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not advocating that we should highlight race and sexual orientation specifically to single people out, but to let it be known that there have been obstacles needed to be overcome. "Not letting it die" isn't the same as showing where we've been in a historical context. I think it's super important to show how people have been denied rights because they're gay or of a different race because then we can build upon it and learn from it. Obviously there is still need for education like this because there are still plenty of groups being denied rights.

and intolerance in a heavy dose can lead to hostility.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 02:47 PM
Except it does. When you actively ignore a subject and don't bring it up, it shows that it isn't being brought up for some reason. For example, most people are well aware that gay history isn't taught because of the problems people who are against gay-rights would have with it. I'm not saying it will directly cause intolerance, but rather fuel it because there's nothing combating it.




I'm sorry, but can you tell me exactly what I was being intolerant of? Because I wasn't being intolerant to my knowledge and I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not advocating that we should highlight race and sexual orientation specifically to single people out, but to let it be known that there have been obstacles needed to be overcome. "Not letting it die" isn't the same as showing where we've been in a historical context. I think it's super important to show how people have been denied rights because they're gay or of a different race because then we can build upon it and learn from it. Obviously there is still need for education like this because there are still plenty of groups being denied rights.

and intolerance in a heavy dose can lead to hostility.

The government has no business "combatting intolerance". Who are we to claim that our beliefs are the only correct ones, and anybody who disagrees with us is "ignorant" or "intolerant"? Surely your view would change if the tables were turned and your children ere being taught that the values that you've instilled in them were being dismissed as "ignorant" and "intolerant" by their school.

I'm all for expanding the civil liberties of LGBT people to the point that they are treated like indivuals rather than LGBT people under the law, but we need to protect liberty across the board. That includes the right of people who disagree with LGBT rights to raise their children as they wish without government interference.

Livewire
July 19th, 2011, 02:51 PM
It is not the governmnet (which is what public schools are)'s place to "dispell ignorance". That is government advancenement of sociopolitical values. That is th job of parents. Parents choose what values, morals, and political beliefs they want to instill in our children, not the government. Is the school's place to educate children in academic, not politically biased, subjects. Favoring one viewpoint over others by dimissing them as "ignorant" compromises the academic integtity of our schools.

You have it entirely wrong. Children grow up and learn based on what they see. Ignorance runs in families, it's why there's still neo nazis running around.

Kyoko
July 19th, 2011, 02:55 PM
The government has no business "combatting intolerance". Who are we to claim that our beliefs are the only correct ones, and anybody who disagrees with us is "ignorant" or "intolerant"? Surely your view would change if the tables were turned and your children ere being taught that the values that you've instilled in them were being dismissed as "ignorant" and "intolerant" by their school.

I'm all for expanding the civil liberties of LGBT people to the point that they are treated like indivuals rather than LGBT people under the law, but we need to protect liberty across the board. That includes the right of people who disagree with LGBT rights to raise their children as they wish without government interference.

If the government had no business to combat intolerance, then you tell me why we have the equal protection clause. If there was no need to expand the rights of people of different sexuality, religions, and race then why did we? Because intolerant, hateful people denied people these rights. The government stepped in to help keep people equal as best as possible and I don't see why that can't apply to schools as well.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 02:56 PM
You have it entirely wrong. Children grow up and learn based on what they see. Ignorance runs in families, it's why there's still neo nazis running around.

This may come as a shock to you, but being a neo Nazi is constitutionally protected. It falls under the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association clauses. This is the way it should be. The governmet has no business regulating or banning ideologies. That includes pro-LGBT as well as anti-LGBT ideologies.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 03:15 PM
Whoever said anything about there even being an agenda to begin with? There is no "agenda" and there never was one. You're trying to justify your bigotry by saying there's a sinsiter motive at work here, trying to get this included. If it's a fact, it belongs in the history book, regardless of any other particular. End of discussion.
Bigotry? What exactly does that mean?

I can admit if I am wrong. This is just my feelings on this. And it's not just me thinking this. Other people wiser then me are also thinking this, others in my ideology and out are thinking this as well.

Religion also plays a factor in me thinking this.

JimJams
July 19th, 2011, 03:17 PM
Bigotry? What exactly does that mean?

I can admit if I am wrong. This is just my feelings on this. And it's not just me thinking this. Other people wiser then me are also thinking this, others in my ideology and out are thinking this as well.

Religion also plays a factor in me thinking this.

Then it's all about superstition and personal anxiety, nothing real or reasonable.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 03:20 PM
I've also been raised this way. Everyone I've been around is conservative.

JimJams
July 19th, 2011, 03:29 PM
Being raised a certain way doesn't justify anything. Take some time to think about things with your own mind.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 03:48 PM
If the government had no business to combat intolerance, then you tell me why we have the equal protection clause. If there was no need to expand the rights of people of different sexuality, religions, and race then why did we? Because intolerant, hateful people denied people these rights. The government stepped in to help keep people equal as best as possible and I don't see why that can't apply to schools as well.

I'd be glad to explain the Equal Protection clause to you.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination by the government. It does not prohibit discrimination by private individuals and entities. In fact, private seech that expesses inoleranceis rightfully protected by the first Amendment, as the recent Snyder v. Phelps ruling tells us.

The Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal legal rights. It does not mandate the governmet to go on a social justice crusade to convert the hearts and minds of the people.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 04:19 PM
I'd be glad to explain the Equal Protection clause to you.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination by the government. It does not prohibit discrimination by private individuals and entities. In fact, private seech that expesses inoleranceis rightfully protected by the first Amendment, as the recent Snyder v. Phelps ruling tells us.

The Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal legal rights. It does not mandate the governmet to go on a social justice crusade to convert the hearts and minds of the people.
Meaning everyone is treated equal but we are still allowed to have an opinion without the government making us feel bad?

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 04:19 PM
Gothitelle,
That is more of a reason to be open to other people's perspectives; if you are raised a certain way and you don't make any ideologies up for yourself you cannot say that you are right or wrong. If you were raised in the 1700's, and you were part of a plantation family, you would believe slavery is perfectly acceptable. They also used religion as a way to make it acceptable. Because the bible states that slaves shall obey masters whether they be gentle or cruel. So does that make it alright to enslave a person?

I just wish that people like you could be in the shoes of a GLBT person. You take your white, straight, and normative life for granted. Then you would like your country to become more knowledgeable about the truths about gay people. Oh by the way, several religious establishments have skewed the meaning of the bible. It is meant as a guide to ensure a successful society 2000 years ago. They didn't want men sleeping with men because it hindered procreation. Procreation was VITAL in society, but now it has become the downfall of India and china whom have more than 4 billion people, or 2/3 of the world population. Like slavery, it was acceptable and successful in stimulating the economy. But we have been able to do that without the usage of slaves. It's for our society's better good to include black people as equal citizens.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Yes, I do understand that there are many interpretations of the bible. Some still to this day believe in slavery, some don't. I'm not one of those people.

There's somethings I want to clear up about what you said. For one, even though you didn't directly say it, I don't hate gays. You were kinda implying that I did so I wanted to clear that up. I like all people, even gay people. There's an expression I live by: hate the sin, love the sinner. Or in a non religious way: hate the way of life, love the person living it.

Now that I cleared that up, I want to move on to your "I take my white, straight, normative life for granted". I'm kinda offended by that to be honest. Because for one, I'm not 100% white, I'm half black as well as I am half white. That's a stereotype down. Also, I know what it's like to be hated for being different. I've been teased and hated through out my whole school life because of my skin color and my looks. The race thing eventually died down when I was in middle school but the size thing still went on.

So I know what it's like to be teased. So I never take my life for granted. Why would you think I'd do that?

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Meaning everyone is treated equal but we are still allowed to have an opinion without the government making us feel bad?

That is exactly the way it is, and the way it should be.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 05:04 PM
Yes, I do understand that there are many interpretations of the bible. Some still to this day believe in slavery, some don't. I'm not one of those people.

There's somethings I want to clear up about what you said. For one, even though you didn't directly say it, I don't hate gays. You were kinda implying that I did so I wanted to clear that up. I like all people, even gay people. There's an expression I live by: hate the sin, love the sinner. Or in a non religious way: hate the way of life, love the person living it.

Now that I cleared that up, I want to move on to your "I take my white, straight, normative life for granted". I'm kinda offended by that to be honest. Because for one, I'm not 100% white, I'm half black as well as I am half white. That's a stereotype down. Also, I know what it's like to be hated for being different. I've been teased and hated through out my whole school life because of my skin color and my looks. The race thing eventually died down when I was in middle school but the size thing still went on.

So I know what it's like to be teased. So I never take my life for granted. Why would you think I'd do that?


Really? So you believe there should be tolerance to black people but not gay people? Don't you believe that children should be educated about discrimination about black people how religion was used against them to be enslaved? If so, you should feel the same about gay people. Don't ask for pity about being teased if you are against educating children about gay people it makes you just as bad as those who teased you. People have come up to me and punched me in the face b/c people like you believe that it is a sin to educate children to be accepting of all people. Excuse me for adding race, although you should be more accepting of other minorities. But yes you do take your straight normative life for granted.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 05:29 PM
That is exactly the way it is, and the way it should be.
I agree.

I discussed this on another forum and my opinion is respected there. But here it's not.

So I will say this for the 1000th time, I'm no gay hater >:[

Maybe I should learn about you know , how they live. I'm not gay, I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know anything on it other than what I hear. That's all I can say.

Kyoko
July 19th, 2011, 05:34 PM
I'd be glad to explain the Equal Protection clause to you.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination by the government. It does not prohibit discrimination by private individuals and entities. In fact, private seech that expesses inoleranceis rightfully protected by the first Amendment, as the recent Snyder v. Phelps ruling tells us.

The Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal legal rights. It does not mandate the governmet to go on a social justice crusade to convert the hearts and minds of the people.

Exactly. Why the need to make things equal? Because at one point they weren't. And while you're right that it is strictly for legal purposes and can't tell people what to believe, it does prove my point that the government did intervene at one point to stop discrimination at any point. I do think they can make the same change for schools because schools are supposed to foster safe environments for the students attending them, including being discriminated against if you're gay.

Now to your point about "social justice crusades", in relation to this topic about gay history, shouldn't schools allow it then? If they're not supposed to fuel either side of the debate, then why not allow it in schools? It is apart of our history and a lot of important social movements have happened with gay rights. By not allowing schools to teach gay history, they are in fact siding with anti-gay ideals of other people.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 05:37 PM
I agree.

I discussed this on another forum and my opinion is respected there. But here it's not.

So I will say this for the 1000th time, I'm no gay hater >:[

Maybe I should learn about you know , how they live. I'm not gay, I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know anything on it other than what I hear. That's all I can say.

Your opinion should not be respected if it promotes discrimination and violence!

Can you image how many more black hate crimes would be committed without the presence of acceptance education over the last few decades!!!

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 06:07 PM
I never promoted discrimination and violence. I'm no hater.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 06:19 PM
Your opinion should not be respected if it promotes discrimination and violence!

Can you image how many more black hate crimes would be committed without the presence of acceptance education over the last few decades!!!

Now that's a dangerous and extreme line of thinking. If we are to censor opinions who disagree with, who is to stop your opinions from being censored when the people you disagree with gain power?

I've also never see black acceptance education. I've seen black history, but not an acceptance course.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 06:19 PM
I never promoted discrimination and violence. I'm no hater.

You are against educating children to stop violence to gay people, so you are for not educating children so they are violent to gay people.

So...you are promoting violence and discrimination.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 06:27 PM
Exactly. Why the need to make things equal? Because at one point they weren't. And while you're right that it is strictly for legal purposes and can't tell people what to believe, it does prove my point that the government did intervene at one point to stop discrimination at any point. I do think they can make the same change for schools because schools are supposed to foster safe environments for the students attending them, including being discriminated against if you're gay.

Now to your point about "social justice crusades", in relation to this topic about gay history, shouldn't schools allow it then? If they're not supposed to fuel either side of the debate, then why not allow it in schools? It is apart of our history and a lot of important social movements have happened with gay rights. By not allowing schools to teach gay history, they are in fact siding with anti-gay ideals of other people.

You are against educating children to stop violence to gay people, so you are for not educating children so they are violent to gay people.

So...you are promoting violence and discrimination.

These posts are examples of the typical, fallacious "you're either with us or against us" line of thinking. That type of rhetoric is what pushes people in the middle of supporting LGBT rights away.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 06:32 PM
Now that's a dangerous and extreme line of thinking. If we are to censor opinions who disagree with, who is to stop your opinions from being censored when the people you disagree with gain power?

I've also never see black acceptance education. I've seen black history, but not an acceptance course.

Who said I censored her opinion. I won't give her any credit in advocating against the prevention of GBLT hate crimes! I was required to take cultural diversity class in high school. We were only taught to accept people based on race, religion, socioeconomic status, gender, impairments, but not sexual orientation. So this is my experience and many other high school do the same, although its not called black acceptance it does explain how bigotry and misinformed people have created negative feelings towards black people. So yes, more schools are apt to teach children about tolerance of the diversity groups I have listed, than GBLT. All schools should teach their students about cultural and diversity misconception so that children like Gothitelle understand that there should be equality for all.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 06:33 PM
These posts are examples of the typical, fallacious "you're either with us or against us" line of thinking. That type of rhetoric is what pushes people in the middle of support LGBT right away.
Someone else understands!

I understand trying to shed light, but to put it to a point where you are forcing your views on me, not right.

Oryx
July 19th, 2011, 06:35 PM
These posts are examples of the typical, fallacious "you're either with us or against us" line of thinking. That type of rhetoric is what pushes people in the middle of support LGBT right away.

Well, there are two options: they can mention LGBT people or not mention them. People on the supporting side want them to mention it, people on the attacking side want them not to. While it's easy for the schools to just go with what was already happening before, as in not mentioning it, that's still taking a side. In a situation like this there really isn't a middle ground.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 06:40 PM
Interesting. I never was required to take a "diversity and acceptance" course in high school. While a Wrld Cultures course was a 9th grade elective, it was not required. I have nothing wrong with teaching diversity in an unbiased fashion. It's when schools force acceptance on children against their parent's wishes is when I'm up in arms.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 06:40 PM
These posts are examples of the typical, fallacious "you're either with us or against us" line of thinking. That type of rhetoric is what pushes people in the middle of support LGBT right away.

I am not addressing the middle. Gothitelle has expressed that she is not centrist, she is very much on the right side. She is against me. She does not want to protect LGBT community. IF she stated I have no opinion rather than advocate to prevent discrimination and subsequently, violence toward GLTB people, than I would not have a problem with her. So, yes there is a middle ground how may not support gay people, yet not hinder gay people. She along with others like her hinder efforts to live equal lives.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 06:44 PM
I am not addressing the middle. Gothitelle has expressed that she is not centrist, she is very much on the right side. She is against me. She does not want to protect LGBT community. IF she stated I have no opinion rather than advocate to prevent discrimination and subsequently, violence toward GLTB people, than I would not have a problem with her. So, yes there is a middle ground how may not support gay people, yet not hinder gay people. She along with others like her hinder efforts to live equal lives.

Your last post that I was adressing was a good example. You were stating that because she doesn't agree with you on this issue, she must be an advocate for violence against gays. This is what we in college call a logical fallacy. It's a personal attack rather than an attack on her argument.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 06:46 PM
Someone else understands!

I understand trying to shed light, but to put it to a point where you are forcing your views on me, not right.

Really? I want people who are half black like you to not be persecuted. Why can't you do the same for me? I am for preventing crimes against black people yet you seem opposed to prevent crimes against gay people! I shouldn't have to force you to believe that I should be protected like you.

Same with marriage. I believe that you should have the wedding of your dreams. And I think that you should be able to wish me the same. Without calling it a sin.

Therefore you and your opinions are against me and my opinions are promoting you happiness in life. That is the injustice. If I advocated against biracial marriages and it was illegal for you to get married would you say that I am against you? Would you respect my opinion? An opinion of hate and prejudice?


Someone else understands!

I understand trying to shed light, but to put it to a point where you are forcing your views on me, not right.

Your last post that I was adressing was a good example. You were stating that because she doesn't agree with you on this issue, she must be an advocate for violence against gays. This is what we in college call a logical fallacy. It's a personal attack rather than an attack on her argument.

NOt really. She advocates that children should not be educated to have tolerance for gay people. Many children who are not educated about gay people and acceptance are violence toward gay people. Therefore she advocates that some children should not be prevented from committing violence towards Gay people. Although it may not be her intended result, she needs to be educated.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 06:58 PM
NOt really. She advocates that children should not be educated to have tolerance for gay people. Many children who are not educated about gay people and acceptance are violence toward gay people. Therefore she advocates that some children should not be prevented from committing violence towards Gay people. Although it may not be her intended result, she needs to be educated.

Now you are playing the Chain Reaction fallacy? Every political decision is bound to have unintended negative consequences. This is why invoking a chain reaction is a fallacious argument.

Oryx
July 19th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Now you are playing the Chain Reaction fallacy? Every political decision is bound to have unintended negative consequences. This is why invoking a chain reaction is a fallacious argument.

Well now that she is educated of the negative consequences, if she chooses to keep her point of view, then she is intentionally choosing those consequences over the other option.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 07:06 PM
Really? I want people who are half black like you to not be persecuted. Why can't you do the same for me? I am for preventing crimes against black people yet you seem opposed to prevent crimes against gay people! I shouldn't have to force you to believe that I should be protected like you.

Same with marriage. I believe that you should have the wedding of your dreams. And I think that you should be able to wish me the same. Without calling it a sin.

Therefore you and your opinions are against me and my opinions are promoting you happiness in life. That is the injustice. If I advocated against biracial marriages and it was illegal for you to get married would you say that I am against you? Would you respect my opinion? An opinion of hate and prejudice?



If I offended you, I sincerely apologize. I do belive that you should have the same rights as us and you kinda do maybe except for the marriage thing (but they are passing a bill on that so yeah). I don't want you to want better treatment than us.

I would like all to be treated the same. Whether they are gay, asexual, green whatever they are, they should be treated the same.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 07:07 PM
Now you are playing the Chain Reaction fallacy? Every political decision is bound to have unintended negative consequences. This is why invoking a chain reaction is a fallacious argument.

It is not a very long "chain reaction". I was just saying she was being ignorant to see the blatant consequences. Her actions would directly invoke the consequence of having uneducated children that have prejudice against gay people. So they will continue to bully other GBLT children. It is quite direct, just to ignorant for some to see.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Now, I did apologize for what I said. But, I want you guys to not act like your better than me. I'm still the same as you guys.

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 07:13 PM
If I offended you, I sincerely apologize. I do belive that you should have the same rights as us and you kinda do maybe except for the marriage thing (but they are passing a bill on that so yeah). I don't want you to want better treatment than us.

I would like all to be treated the same. Whether they are gay, asexual, green whatever they are, they should be treated the same.

Not even close. Gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. There are MANY missing components and benefits. Also, gay people are being killed every day around the world, simply b/c of their orientation. I have already JUST MET people who wanted to fight me b/c of my sexual orientation I have been punched in the face several times. I guess you may not have realized that most gay people face animosity several times in their lives, not because we did this to any one or we are in a fight with this person, but b/c of our sexual orientation. This will continue to happen without educating children and punishing those who commit hate crimes against gay people. Sorry if I offended you, It makes me upset when I see people who act like I am trying to get more rights, when I am treated inequally.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 07:15 PM
It is not a very long "chain reaction". I was just saying she was being ignorant to see the blatant consequences. Her actions would directly invoke the consequence of having uneducated children that have prejudice against gay people. So they will continue to bully other GBLT children. It is quite direct, just to ignorant for some to see.

You make it sound like these pograms will prevent all violence against LGBT people. I find it funny that the same crowd that claims this is also advocating against LGBT people's Second Amendment right to self-defense. That's a solution.

It's also fallacious to call anyone who disagrees with you ignorant. She has stressed numerous times that she has no personal bigotry against LGBT people, yet you keep trying to make it seem that way. Who is being ignorant here, again?

-ty-
July 19th, 2011, 07:21 PM
She is ignorant to what gay people go through, so that is not a fallacy. I am also ignorant to what the life of a mulatto person is. We need to understand each others needs and treat each other equally. That is why we need these classes in k-12 schools.

Myles
July 19th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Keep in mind that if you're Christian and you're objecting to homosexuality based on religious beliefs: homosexuality is only mentioned in Leviticus, which is an Old Testament book that Christians don't usually follow because of Corinthians.

Trying to lay low and pretend everyone thinks of one as just like everyone else is not a way for social change. Feminists didn't just fade into the background during the 60s and suddenly the world thought they were equals. Some of the comments in this topic seem to think that LGBT has already gotten equality. If you're in Canada, that would be true. For other places take a look at this: LGBT rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights). That includes most US (where the thing that started this topic takes place) states not having anti-discrimination laws.

But ultimately this isn't about teaching social or morality issues in school. If it were, it would have to be said in a neutral way. But they have to state facts. It's similar to how Wikipedia is suppose to stay neutral, but the creation-evolution controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation–evolution_controversy) article shows a bias towards evolution. It's because the evidence dictates that. Not every issue we face is a matter of opinion. It won't be trying to encourage homosexual behaviour, just teaching the facts.

Mr. X
July 19th, 2011, 08:03 PM
Personally, I dislike the fact that 'gay history' is being taught. Not because I dislike gays, but because they are like everyone else human. What I really hate is people giving groups to much or to little credit for their accomplishments.

All for history including people who have done important things for humanity not taking into account race, gender, religious views, sexuality, or any other catagorization that people force upon each other?

Also, Myles... Nice computer. X likes.

Ursula
July 19th, 2011, 08:10 PM
Keep in mind that if you're Christian and you're objecting to homosexuality based on religious beliefs: homosexuality is only mentioned in Leviticus, which is an Old Testament book that Christians don't usually follow because of Corinthians.
It's also in Romans~
However, I also believe that those were mistranslations, and they were also talking about promiscuity in those verses :3

She is ignorant to what gay people go through, so that is not a fallacy. I am also ignorant to what the life of a mulatto person is. We need to understand each others needs and treat each other equally. That is why we need these classes in k-12 schools.
There are not classes for this. It's just gay rights history being integrated into a curriculum. :P

Not even close. Gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage.
Theoretically, it is? Lol. I think you mean civil unions/etc.
There should be no gay marriage; there should be no straight marriage, either. It should be simply marriage and people regardless of orientation should be able to marry (:

Also, gay people are being killed every day around the world, simply b/c of their orientation. I have already JUST MET people who wanted to fight me b/c of my sexual orientation I have been punched in the face several times. I guess you may not have realized that most gay people face animosity several times in their lives, not because we did this to any one or we are in a fight with this person, but b/c of our sexual orientation. This will continue to happen without educating children and punishing those who commit hate crimes against gay people. Sorry if I offended you, It makes me upset when I see people who act like I am trying to get more rights, when I am treated inequally.
Now, this is true, but it's not necessarily going to happen just like that. Yes, it will help our cause, but it won't ultimately cause us to dispel all forms of ignorance :P

Favoring one viewpoint over others by dimissing them as "ignorant" compromises the academic integtity of our schools.
But the fact of the matter is that people are ignorant. If the parents won't educate their children, who will?

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 09:07 PM
If you don't like the way someone raises their kids tough luck. You raise your own kids the way you wish, and let other enjoy their freedom to do the same. I find it funny how to same crowd that protests how they want the government out of their personal decisions advocates the government interfering with the decisions of others.

Oryx
July 19th, 2011, 09:22 PM
If you don't like the way someone raises their kids tough luck. You raise your own kids the way you wish, and let other enjoy their freedom to do the same. I find it funny how to same crowd that protests how they want the government out of their personal decisions advocates the government interfering with the decisions of others.

That's a slippery slope though. Erik didn't say parents should be disallowed to say whatever they want in private, but that schools should have the right to teach the right thing. I don't understand how teaching tolerance of gay people is any different from teaching tolerance of black people. I too had tolerance lessons in high school, as well as in college, although in college it was just two days where we did a workshop pretty much. That's what I imagine this lesson to be - a one or two day workshop-style lesson teaching that even if you're not gay, that doesn't give you the right to be violent or hateful towards someone who is LGBT.

If the government shouldn't interfere in anything, why don't we just pass out a curriculum to the parents and let them decide what's important to be taught? I mean, obviously all parents know what's best for their children, based on that wonderful Parent Test that they administer to make sure you're fit to raise a child. So they can be trusted to teach what's important, right? Why have schools at all? They're obviously a waste of space.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 09:40 PM
That's a slippery slope though. Erik didn't say parents should be disallowed to say whatever they want in private, but that schools should have the right to teach the right thing. I don't understand how teaching tolerance of gay people is any different from teaching tolerance of black people. I too had tolerance lessons in high school, as well as in college, although in college it was just two days where we did a workshop pretty much. That's what I imagine this lesson to be - a one or two day workshop-style lesson teaching that even if you're not gay, that doesn't give you the right to be violent or hateful towards someone who is LGBT.

If the government shouldn't interfere in anything, why don't we just pass out a curriculum to the parents and let them decide what's important to be taught? I mean, obviously all parents know what's best for their children, based on that wonderful Parent Test that they administer to make sure you're fit to raise a child. So they can be trusted to teach what's important, right? Why have schools at all? They're obviously a waste of space.

You say that schools should teach th "right thing". The problem is, there are no rights and wrongs in politics. There are only opinions.

What may be right to you may not be right to some.

Kyoko
July 19th, 2011, 09:48 PM
You say that schools should teach th "right thing". The problem is, there are no rights and wrongs in politics. There are only opinions.

What may be right to you may not be right to some.

Having opinions is one thing, but for a history class we're dealing with facts. And the fact of the matter is that gay history is indeed part of our history and should be taught as well as other social movements that make it into our history books. That is the right thing to do. The wrong thing to do is to overlook certain events in history because certain people don't agree with them.

FreakyLocz14
July 19th, 2011, 09:54 PM
Having opinions is one thing, but for a history class we're dealing with facts. And the fact of the matter is that gay history is indeed part of our history and should be taught as well as other social movements that make it into our history books. That is the right thing to do. The wrong thing to do is to overlook certain events in history because certain people don't agree with them.

From the beginning I've said that it's fine to teach historical facts about the LGBT community. What some posters here are advocating goes beyond that.

JimJams
July 20th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Yes, I do understand that there are many interpretations of the bible. Some still to this day believe in slavery, some don't. I'm not one of those people.

There's somethings I want to clear up about what you said. For one, even though you didn't directly say it, I don't hate gays. You were kinda implying that I did so I wanted to clear that up. I like all people, even gay people. There's an expression I live by: hate the sin, love the sinner. Or in a non religious way: hate the way of life, love the person living it.

Now that I cleared that up, I want to move on to your "I take my white, straight, normative life for granted". I'm kinda offended by that to be honest. Because for one, I'm not 100% white, I'm half black as well as I am half white. That's a stereotype down. Also, I know what it's like to be hated for being different. I've been teased and hated through out my whole school life because of my skin color and my looks. The race thing eventually died down when I was in middle school but the size thing still went on.

So I know what it's like to be teased. So I never take my life for granted. Why would you think I'd do that?

Love the 'sinner' but hate who they are. Yeah, that's not a complete freaking contradiction at all.
You honestly might as well say 'Love the person, hate the race/religion/class/disability'. Seriously.

Sodom
July 20th, 2011, 03:18 AM
Bigotry? What exactly does that mean?

I can admit if I am wrong. This is just my feelings on this. And it's not just me thinking this. Other people wiser then me are also thinking this, others in my ideology and out are thinking this as well.

Thinking what? That there is a secret gay agenda trying to force the gay lifestyle on the public? I would be very careful about calling those people wiser than anybody.

Religion also plays a factor in me thinking this.

Clearly.

Gothitelle.
July 20th, 2011, 05:03 AM
Okay okay. We get it.

Why won't you realize that I'm not perfect like you people. D:<

Myles
July 20th, 2011, 05:16 AM
Now you are playing the Chain Reaction fallacy? Every political decision is bound to have unintended negative consequences. This is why invoking a chain reaction is a fallacious argument.

I've never heard of this 'chain reaction' fallacy (the closest being the slippery slope fallacy, but this certainly isn't that). It doesn't sound like a fallacy. It actually sounds like sound logic. If X causes Y, then while considering X, also consider Y. We can't just ignore side effects because everything has side effects. I don't know where you get your logical fallacies from, but that doesn't make logical sense.

Guy
July 20th, 2011, 05:38 AM
Okay okay. We get it.

Why won't you realize that I'm not perfect like you people. D:<
No one is more perfect than the other.

The only difference here is that we have those who are in favor of acknowledging the sexual orientation of those famous for accomplishing something in our history and those who are against the idea of doing so. Why are we in favor of it? This way students will become more aware that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans-gender isn't something new. It's also a way to acknowledge that just because someone's sexual orientation is different than yours, doesn't mean they can't do the same things as you ─ or in this case, create history. It's a way to help decrease the amount of intolerance and arrogance people display against those who may be gay and hopefully decreasing the number of deaths because of being rejected and bullied for being so.

There is no class that's going to go into full detail about the history of gays alone or teach you their lifestyle. Just like there's no one class for Black History. I agree, it wouldn't be fair to force that upon anyone who's not willing to learn. I actually find the title of this thread to be misleading and causing confusion about what the main purpose of the article was. However, it's just a plan so people can learn to accept people for who they are and learn that they've made contributions in our past.

If anything, that's what some schools have the GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) Club for. Here, it's educating students that regardless of our sexual orientation we should learn to accept each other, work together, and regard each other as equals.

Just know, just because they choose to be with someone of the same gender, doesn't mean their lifestyle is unnatural. It's just as natural as any other relationship. They can't help who they feel affection for much less than you can. You may have been raised to believe that their way of life is unnatural, but it doesn't mean you have to follow in that belief if you don't want to. It's not hard to open your mind to the possibilities of today's world. It's just a matter of accepting people for who they are and the choices they make. You may not agree with it, but you can accept it. If you can do that, then we're one small step towards tolerating people for who they are and lowering the rate of bullying and deaths just because of someone's sexual orientation.

-ty-
July 20th, 2011, 07:04 AM
You say that schools should teach th "right thing". The problem is, there are no rights and wrongs in politics. There are only opinions.

What may be right to you may not be right to some.

Right and Wrong derives from authorities that have changed over time. Legal authority is what the government follows, not divine authority. Legal authority prohibits violent behaviors like assault, battery, homicide, etc. It also includes anti-gay hate crime laws, that prohibit violence motivated purely by the victim's sexual orientation. So it is right to prohibit prejudice that transform into violence, not because of emotion nor religion, but legal authority. I mean we teach children that it's a gerneral fact that murder is wrong, although Christianity says thou shalt not kill, there is also legal authority that states murder is breaking the law and is punishable by prison time. So yes, these are not made up right or wrongs, they are legal authorities. And all people are FORCED by civil contracts to obey laws!



Having opinions is one thing, but for a history class we're dealing with facts. And the fact of the matter is that gay history is indeed part of our history and should be taught as well as other social movements that make it into our history books. That is the right thing to do. The wrong thing to do is to overlook certain events in history because certain people don't agree with them.

Good Point. I find that the course gives students the facts to formulate better opinions, and it's the students discussions that bring to light most of the prejudices and share their anecdotal experiences. I was in a cultural diversity class, and it basically goes over the data of how people view the world, and then explains how people come to their conclusions about people who are different than them. Many of the thought processes are from misinformed people. Then you go over a few of the misconceptions. But class discussion is a major part of the process.

Captain Fabio
July 20th, 2011, 07:35 AM
Guys and girls, I think some of you need to take a step back and read the article. They are on about the inclusion of "people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies curriculum", not a whole hour class dedicated to the teachings of said people.

You say that schools should teach th "right thing". The problem is, there are no rights and wrongs in politics. There are only opinions.

Actually, that isn't completely true. Yes, politics is heavily surrounded by a persons, personal opinion, but it isn't all opinion. There are so many times where facts and figures are needed, regardless of if someone believes it will work, there has to be evidence for something to go through; regardless of if x politician believes it is imperative to have.

Let me just say, it isn't exactly a thread that new users can just jump into because some people really seem like they will bite someones head off because of their opinion. Some of you are taking it way to personally and seem like you are looking for a flaming war. But hey, that is just my opinion.

Mr. X
July 20th, 2011, 08:02 AM
Actually, that isn't completely true. Yes, politics is heavily surrounded by a persons, personal opinion, but it isn't all opinion. There are so many times where facts and figures are needed, regardless of if someone believes it will work, there has to be evidence for something to go through; regardless of if x politician believes it is imperative to have.


And even IF something is the right thing to do then the the politicians will STILL argue agenst it because it goes agenst there partie's values and/or beliefs and/or ideal's.

-ty-
July 20th, 2011, 08:02 AM
Guys and girls, I think some of you need to take a step back and read the article. They are on about the inclusion of "people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies curriculum", not a whole hour class dedicated to the teachings of said people.


Actually, that isn't completely true. Yes, politics is heavily surrounded by a persons, personal opinion, but it isn't all opinion. There are so many times where facts and figures are needed, regardless of if someone believes it will work, there has to be evidence for something to go through; regardless of if x politician believes it is imperative to have.

Let me just say, it isn't exactly a thread that new users can just jump into because some people really seem like they will bite someones head off because of their opinion. Some of you are taking it way to personally and seem like you are looking for a flaming war. But hey, that is just my opinion.

I think that it is important that people understand that their opinion can adversely affect other people's lives. If you strongly advocate something that may adversely affect my life or any other person's life, then yes, I think that they should be challenged on what their opinion is, rather than allowing them to live ignorantly. That is why so many people are ignorant of what black, gay, bisexual, transgendered, hispanic, poor, cognitively impaired, or physically impaired people. These are the kids who misinform their own children, harrass, assault, and kill other people based off their differences. It is not meant to be a flaming war, although it has kinda turned into that. I just wish that people did not take their beliefs for granted, and think about how their beliefs are what are causing injustice and inequality for others.

I mean, if you state " I think people should be treated equally." Why on earth do you would you not want to prevent violence to all people? Simply stating, " well I was raised that way" is not a respectable answer.

Mr. X
July 20th, 2011, 08:11 AM
Simply stating, " well I was raised that way" is not a respectable answer.

I want to protect gays because I was raised that way.

Not a respectable answer? In that case, I won't try to protect gays.

Captain Fabio
July 20th, 2011, 08:28 AM
And even IF something is the right thing to do then the the politicians will STILL argue agenst it because it goes agenst there partie's values and/or beliefs and/or ideal's.

I know, I guess some people just like to argue.

I think that it is important that people understand that their opinion can adversely affect other people's lives. If you strongly advocate something that may adversely affect my life or any other person's life, then yes, I think that they should be challenged on what their opinion is, rather than allowing them to live ignorantly. That is why so many people are ignorant of what black, gay, bisexual, transgendered, hispanic, poor, cognitively impaired, or physically impaired people. These are the kids who misinform their own children, harrass, assault, and kill other people based off their differences. It is not meant to be a flaming war, although it has kinda turned into that. I just wish that people did not take their beliefs for granted, and think about how their beliefs are what are causing injustice and inequality for others.

I mean, if you state " I think people should be treated equally." Why on earth do you would you not want to prevent violence to all people? Simply stating, " well I was raised that way" is not a respectable answer.

I understand that. But there are different ways of defending a personal point of view without resorting to personal insults. I am not saying you have done this, however.

Simply stating, " well I was raised that way" is not a respectable answer.

I disagree with this. Although it does seem like a 'cop out' reply, you can't argue against someones upbringing. It is like saying someone is wrong about their religious belief, because that was the way they were brought up.

Gothitelle.
July 20th, 2011, 08:39 AM
Well try to say why I am wrong. The way you putting it, to me, it seems like you are FORCING me to go your way.

I HATE it when people force me to think like them just because they hate what I think. It's wrong and that's why I was upset.

Myles
July 20th, 2011, 08:42 AM
"Well I was raised that way." is sort of circular logic in that it's like saying "I think that just 'cos." If you want people to understand your point of view, it's not a good way to get your message across.

Gothitelle.
July 20th, 2011, 08:58 AM
I disagree with this. Although it does seem like a 'cop out' reply, you can't argue against someones upbringing. It is like saying someone is wrong about their religious belief, because that was the way they were brought up.

Yeah. Everyone has their own beliefs and morals. I'm not self righteous about it, I'm not going to say "yeah I'm right!!" because I may or may not be right.

That said, I will think hard on where I stand on the subject of adding contributions of homosexuals in school textbooks (k-12 meaning that I think really young kids are going to be learning this). I do think that they could only mention that they are gay and that's it. Maybe I'll think that they should expand. But for now, I would like to think for myself.

I was upset because while I gave everyone else the most utmost respect for their opinions and beliefs, I felt that I was being knocked down for mine. And them ganging on me was actually okay. That's why I was mad.

-ty-
July 20th, 2011, 09:05 AM
I want to protect gays because I was raised that way.

Not a respectable answer? In that case, I won't try to protect gays.

Exactly. It is not respectable to simply say you were raised to protect gay people. Or raised to be against gay people. You need to obtain information about gay people and clear up misconceptions in order to learn tolerance.

Ryoutarou
July 20th, 2011, 09:24 AM
I'm sorry, but can you tell me exactly what I was being intolerant of? Because I wasn't being intolerant to my knowledge and I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not advocating that we should highlight race and sexual orientation specifically to single people out, but to let it be known that there have been obstacles needed to be overcome. "Not letting it die" isn't the same as showing where we've been in a historical context. I think it's super important to show how people have been denied rights because they're gay or of a different race because then we can build upon it and learn from it. Obviously there is still need for education like this because there are still plenty of groups being denied rights.
You're intolerant of people who don't fall in line with your train of thought. Intolerance is a present factor in the minds of every human being. Noble as many causes may be, they are driven by intolerance of what other people think. You want to present schools with certain facts despite what others think, everyone's intolerant at some level. Those obstacles were already overcome (or will be in some cases) though, so after a certain point you don't need to continue to drive home these superfluous facts about the personal life of historical figures if you're not studying some biographical aspect and stick purely to the historical line of cause and reaction. I think it's fine, and probably should be encouraged to teach the history of the movements that lead to great change for a suppressed minority, but you need to keep that in historical context. To go beyond that almost feels like there are insecurities between parties that need to be covered up by highlighting the differences of people that is perhaps even driven by a fear of being anything but politically correct.

and intolerance in a heavy dose can lead to hostility.And in this day and age, people are punished for this sort of thing. We're not living in the 50s where people could kidnap blacks, torture them, bury them alive, and then be cool because the police were on their side. There is a lot to be said for preventative teaching of civil rights, but that's not going to be the end of hostility.

Exactly. It is not respectable to simply say you were raised to protect gay people. Or raised to be against gay people. You need to obtain information about gay people and clear up misconceptions in order to learn tolerance.This is purely circumstantial. Many people greatly respect their families and their parents and take a lot of their customs to heart because they see their elders as people of great character. Now, yeah, people shouldn't be sheep, but to say it's not respectable to mention your upbringing has played a part in who you are as a person today is a little weird.

-ty-
July 20th, 2011, 09:38 AM
You're intolerant of people who don't fall in line with your train of thought. Intolerance is a present factor in the minds of every human being. Noble as many causes may be, they are driven by intolerance of what other people think. You want to present schools with certain facts despite what others think, everyone's intolerant at some level. Those obstacles were already overcome (or will be in some cases) though, so after a certain point you don't need to continue to drive home these superfluous facts about the personal life of historical figures if you're not studying some biographical aspect and stick purely to the historical line of cause and reaction. I think it's fine, and probably should be encouraged to teach the history of the movements that lead to great change for a suppressed minority, but you need to keep that in historical context. To go beyond that almost feels like there are insecurities between parties that need to be covered up by highlighting the differences of people that is perhaps even driven by a fear of being anything but politically correc

And in this day and age, people are punished for this sort of thing. We're not living in the 50s where people could kidnap blacks, torture them, bury them alive, and then be cool because the police were on their side. There is a lot to be said for preventative teaching of civil rights, but that's not going to be the end of hostility.

This is purely circumstantial. Many people greatly respect their families and their parents and take a lot of their customs to heart because they see their elders as people of great character. Now, yeah, people shouldn't be sheep, but to say it's not respectable to mention your upbringing has played a part in who you are as a person today is a little weird.


I understand that it may depend on the circumstances. I know people who are gay and have been raised by parents who have estranged them. And there are people out there who have been raised to hate gay,black and other people who are different. If they say, well, I was raised like that. It is a cope out. I think the same for those who say well "I dont think gay people have contributed very much to our history and tolerance should not be forced onto anyone." Simply because they were raised that way, doesn't mean your opinion is right. You need to SOMETIMES do some thinking and research for yourself, or you might have skewed views. Like my grandfather and grandmother believe that gays are an abomination. My brothers and father could have followed suit and just believed like he did. But they didn't, and they believe that I am not an abomination. If they were to believe him and have the opinion that I am an abomination (purely based off their upbrining), I would not respect that opinion. You need to sometimes break a chain of beliefs to achieve change in the world.

Gothitelle.
July 20th, 2011, 09:47 AM
Tolerance shouldn't be forced on someone, it should only be taught.

BTW, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I am intolerant.

-ty-
July 20th, 2011, 09:50 AM
Tolerance shouldn't be forced on someone, it should only be taught.

BTW, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I am intolerant.

Exactly I do agree, tolerance should be taught! It should be required to be taught. So now we both agree.

Same with speech impediments and cognitive impairments, now by law schools cannot ignore students with these learning disabilities; they are required to be given speech therapy and specialized education courses.

These are tools given to children so that they can be given the same opportunity in society, if we just let some parents raise the way that they want, and not help them get speech therapy or help for cognitive impairments, then the children will not be able to function in society. If we allow children to be raised in a way that prevents them from functioning in society at their best, then we are FORCING them to live a less fulfilling life.

Gothitelle.
July 20th, 2011, 11:06 AM
And I can agree on that.

I do want to say that I feel sorry for you meaning for people punching you in the face :[

Mr. X
July 20th, 2011, 11:52 AM
Exactly I do agree, tolerance should be taught! It should be required to be taught. So now we both agree.

Same with speech impediments and cognitive impairments, now by law schools cannot ignore students with these learning disabilities; they are required to be given speech therapy and specialized education courses.



So your comparing homosexuality to mental disorders and disablities?

Teaching tolerance while a good idea is impractical. Before I explain this, tell me... What age/grade would be begin to teach tolerance?

FreakyLocz14
July 20th, 2011, 12:35 PM
Right and Wrong derives from authorities that have changed over time. Legal authority is what the government follows, not divine authority. Legal authority prohibits violent behaviors like assault, battery, homicide, etc. It also includes anti-gay hate crime laws, that prohibit violence motivated purely by the victim's sexual orientation. So it is right to prohibit prejudice that transform into violence, not because of emotion nor religion, but legal authority. I mean we teach children that it's a gerneral fact that murder is wrong, although Christianity says thou shalt not kill, there is also legal authority that states murder is breaking the law and is punishable by prison time. So yes, these are not made up right or wrongs, they are legal authorities. And all people are FORCED by civil contracts to obey laws!



Good Point. I find that the course gives students the facts to formulate better opinions, and it's the students discussions that bring to light most of the prejudices and share their anecdotal experiences. I was in a cultural diversity class, and it basically goes over the data of how people view the world, and then explains how people come to their conclusions about people who are different than them. Many of the thought processes are from misinformed people. Then you go over a few of the misconceptions. But class discussion is a major part of the process.

The only things that can be right or wrong are things that be proven or disproven with evidence. This isn't the case with political, social, and moral beliefs. No matter how unorthodox a view many sound to you, and even if it may be illegal, it is only an opionion. There is always going to be someone who disagrees with you. The purpose of education is to present students with all viewpoints so that they can analyze them and come to their own conclusions. They schools isn't supposed to draw conclusions for them.

Gothitelle.
July 20th, 2011, 12:48 PM
The other things that can be right or wrong are things that be proven or disproven with evidence. This isn't the case with political, social, and moral beliefs. No matter how unorthodox a view many sound to you, and even if it may be illegal, it is only an opionion. There is always going to be someone who disagrees with you. The purpose of education is to present students with all viewpoints so that they can analyze them and come to their own conclusions. They schools isn't supposed to draw conclusions for them.

This as well. That's what I've been sayin' all along.

Livewire
July 20th, 2011, 03:56 PM
I'm about done with this flamefest. There's no more point to this ridiculous discussion.

*Locked*