Required to learn gay history?

[Rogue planet]

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]

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]

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.]

... 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]

... 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.

 

[Margot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[professor plum]

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]

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.

 

[Margot]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Margot]

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]

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.]

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]

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.