Required to learn gay history?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Scarf said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Alexander the Great was gay.

There's some History for you all!
 
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
 
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. said:
Well as long as it's not forced upon then I'll be alright with it, I guess.
Click to expand...

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.
 
wcdaily said:
This thread isn't going anywhere, can a mod please come and lock it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Gothitelle. said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?"
 
Toujours said:


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?"
Click to expand...
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.
 
Toujours said:


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?"
Click to expand...
Their contribution should be taught but don't bring up their sexual orientation. It's not really necessary in my opinion.
 
Gothitelle. said:

Their contribution should be taught but don't bring up their sexual orientation. It's not really necessary in my opinion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gothitelle. said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gothitelle. said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bluerang1 said:


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top