Required to learn gay history?

[Gothitelle.]

Okay okay. We get it.

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

 

[Myles]

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]

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-]

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.

 

[Alinthea]

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]

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-]

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]

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.

 

[Alinthea]

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.]

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]

"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.]

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-]

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]

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-]

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.]

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-]

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.]

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]

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]

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.