Required to learn gay history?

[FreakyLocz14]

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.]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Nick]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

There's nothing wrong with teaching a "Gay History" course if it's an elective.

 

[Åzurε]

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]

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 already? Slightly more important, and has a malignant reasoning behind it.

 

[Oryx]

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-]

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]

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]

Did we forget about Jefferson being removed from textbooks in TX 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.]

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.

 

[professor plum]

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. :)