Required to learn gay history?

[Shining Raichu]

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]

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.]

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]

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.

 

[professor plum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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

 

[Shining Raichu]

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.

 

[Captain Fabio]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.