California Gay history
 

http://news.yahoo.com/california-law...012938470.html

I prefer brunette women. I also have a favorite kama sutra position. Perhaps they need to teach history from the perspective of every one who's preference is brunette women performing everything on page 122 of the book.

I feel so discriminated against

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!

They are organized and powerful but a small minority. Just like the greenies that are taking away your rights to boat and kill tasty fish, make you wear a life jacket and buy carbon credits.
You wanted change. you got it.
When the freaks outshout normal, what then is normal?

Oh and remember: A feather is Kinky. The whole chicken is perverted.

Cliff did you read the article that you posted? They aren't teaching about sexual preference or history from a gay persons perspective, they are including the contributions of gays in society as part of a history lesson. Basically they are including gays as a minority group, just like baitkiller said.

Please tell me how reducing discrimination makes you feel discriminated against?

Stephan - once again complicating the issue with facts.

Why does it matter who or what you like to do for relationships matter in anything? Do we need to point out that someone contributed something to history despite a inability have kids? They were left handed? California is the most ignorant state I have ever heard of. Always trying to make special provisions for every tom, dick and harry out there and going bankrupt in the process.

Why wouldnt you just teach about the accomplishments of people regardless of sexual preference? Are they saying the history books currently omit significant historical data because the person accomplishing the task was gay? Or are they just adding modern political victories?

stephan
I guess I'm surprised that anyone had to ask that question.
Like others have said, I don't think that a person's sexual preference should be relevant. If it is, so should mine. I should also belong to a minority group based on my sexual preference. Perhaps I could organize my group and get a parade, some wasted valuable congressional time discussing it, and maybe even a special box to fill in on the census or a marriage certificate.

oooo, how about my group's own tv show! .....there's probably already one of those

Honestly, I don't know if this law makes any sense or not. I mean, I don't think that a group, ANY group should have their particular agenda pushed in our schools. Unfortunately, that ship has, for the most part, sailed. All kinds of groups have infiltrated the curriculum of schools all over this country... mostly through much more insidious means than a law that tries to ensure that everyone has a voice.

The one thing I know for sure is that when I was in school, I was probably taught about the significant historical contributions of dozens of gay or lesbian people... BUT, it was certainly never mentioned to us that those people were gay. Looking back I see now that, that was intentionally avoided. According to some of your comments, that's as it should be. But I gotta say, I disagree. I think there are lots of kids who may or may not be struggling with their own identity and would benefit from knowing the whole story.
I also think that it does matter historically that some people were gay... It actually teaches us a lot about the societies they lived in and how they fit into them (or didn't). These things are especially true when you're talking about, say, the King of England. Or even reading a great literary work by a famous author.

Cliff, if you are treated as a second class citizen and withheld basic rights, based solely on your like for brunettes and Page 122, then I think you should organize a parade. When basic civil rights are withheld that should not be considered a waste of congressional time. So can I ask one more question? Did you make a conscious decision regarding your sexual preference or is that just how its always been?

Rich, this law does not push an agenda. All it does is add the line "he was also gay". For example, "Tchaikovsky was a Russian composer from the Romantic era. After finding success as a composer he had a period of reclusive depression, contributing factors were his suppressed homosexuality and fear of exposure, his disastrous marriage..." (much thanks to Wikipedia on that)

I fail to see how a historical fact is such a horrible thing? Where is the agenda? How does that statement do anything but tell the truth?

I'm with you Stephan. And yes, I think that your example perfectly illustrates what I was trying to say above.
Like anything else, though, making it a legal issue creates a situation where... for example, a teach could possibly be in breach of the law if they were to teach a lesson on Tchaikovsky but didn't mention he was gay. And there are likely several special interest groups out there who would be ready and willing to attack said teacher, just to create a stir and push their own agenda.
Again, let me be clear... I absolutely think that a persons sexual preference CAN be a relevant part of a lesson plan and should not be repressed in any way. However, I think we're in trouble as soon as you tell a teacher, "you may only talk about this subject so long as you say... X or don't say... X".

Stephan
the question that you have asked me leads to the discussion as to what makes a person gay. Were they born that way, choose to, or is it societal pressures. I don't really want to get into that debate. I do have a family member who is gay. I love her and her spouse very much.

that being said

Your example is a good one. If that's the way that it will work, I don't really have an issue with it. I do have a problem with it being legislated. I also don't think that things will go that simply. I would imagine that teachers might in fact have a curriculum that is more like: ok, now lets talk about gays through out history. I think that is wrong

also, what about other groups or types that have a difficult time adjusting to society. I was so thin as a kid that I got made fun of. I was called bird legs and told that I was to small to play sports. Other people are fat, or red headed. Where does the special treatment stop? Do we make laws and concessions for all of these groups?
Isn't a hate crime law and civil recourse enough? I do believe that the closet approach is wrong. It is better to have differences accepted than to have a kid commit suicide or live in fear and shame.
but
I believe that when we make special concessions for certain groups: black, brown, gay, etc...we are fueling the fires of bias. I just don't think that is the answer....

There is ZERO historical value in the contributors sexual preference, gay or otherwise.

Agenda!

So... since you don't seem to be interested in actually debating this and obviously feel like simply spouting an opinion without explanation is a worthwhile contribution, I'll play along.

You're wrong.

Fair enough. Please provide me with a historical accomplishment example that does not exclude everyone other than gays and how being gay was significant to their contribution.

Barry, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. It's assumed that people are not gay because that's the norm. Just like you would not mention in a history book that someone is physically unimpaired. But you might mention if they had a disease or were handicapped as a nod to them being notable despite something holding them back.

I'm guessing that Gays want to promote the idea that they are capable productive people in a society that they feel views them as abnormal. If they felt that people didn't see them as having something wrong with them, then mentioning it in a history book probably wouldn't be an issue. At least that's my take.

I see quite clearly, John.
Either homosexuality is abnormal and a handicap, or it's normal and insignificant.

You can't have it both ways.

Cliff, I can respect that. Honestly I was going to delete that sentence as to not get personal. From where I sit the only reason I can come up with for liking female brunettes is...uh, I'm a straight guy and always have been. Other than that, I got nothing.

barry, way to make an empty statement and then demand proof to the contrary. Read my example, historical fact doesn't have to be an accomplishment. The truth stands on its own.

Your own words.

Please provide me with a historical accomplishment example that does not exclude everyone other than gays and how being gay was significant to their contribution.Otherwise, their sexual preference is completely irrelevant.

I just read through this whole thread and Barry by far makes the most sense. If I went out and found the cure for cancer, I would want to be known for finding the cure for cancer, what possible significance would it make if they added, oh by the way he liked to take it up the pooper? Thats like saying and his favorite position was this or that! It makes absolutely no sense and has no relevance.

I appologise for the way I worded my coment but I have a real problem with labeling this action as gay or lesbian. In my oppinion it is a sexual act and labeling it only gives it crediblity. Just as I feel sex before marriage is wrong, I also feel sex with the same gender is wrong so before anyone goes calling me a homeaphobe it is not the case. If you want to have sex with someone who is the same gender I would not stop you nor would I say a thing, but when you start pushing your practices on me and others as something I need to accept as normal human behavior that is where i draw the line, their has to be boundaries that we set for our children, boundaries of right and wrong and normalcy in a sosiety, especially a society routed in biblical History, that has to be preseverved or the pillars that were layed long ago by our forefathers will rot and decay into a melting pot of secularism. God help us!!

Apparently you don't see clearly. Homosexuality is viewed as abnormal and Gays are trying to show that they aren't abnormal by demonstrating they are capable people.

Obviously you can pick that statement apart some more and attempt to make an argument. But then it's just furthers the view that you can't see the obvious. It didn't take any great mental feats to figure out what their motives are.

Apparently the opposing point is... don't expose our children to the mental image of people being gay. Because it really shouldn't matter that they mention such a thing in school unless you are concerned about what your children are hearing in class. So people should just be honest and argue it on that basis.

Look... pretending someone in history wasn't gay doesn't make that the truth. Pretending that gay people don't exist now doesn't make that the truth, either.

Sorry Flight, dehumanizing someone because they aren't heterosexual is the very definition of Homophobia. I don't mean that as a personal attack. I'm betting any of us in this forum could hang out and ride together... it just sounds a little strange to me to read that you don't consider yourself prejudiced, but you also don't accept gays as exhibiting "normal human behavior".

Barry -- Let me be clear on my stance here... If something is being taught in a classroom setting, I believe that all of aspects of that lesson should be available and open for inspection and interpretation. (f course, only if it is an aspect of the lesson that is age appropriate for the students) If that means that we're talking about somebody like Alexander the Great, I do think it's an important part of the conversation to discuss the fact that in Greece, at that time, it was totally acceptable for men to have wives, mistresses and lovers of the same sex. In the case of Alexander, it's particularly interesting because when he was young he refused to marry and went off to conquer the world without first marrying and leaving an heir. This could have changed the course of the history of the Greek empire! The marriages he did have (yes, there were a few) were all political, and certainly did change the course of the empire, if only in small ways.

The fact is though, it's only one aspect of who he was. (Or may have been, some scholars refuse to say he had male lovers, but the fact that it is open for debate is part of my argument.) Anyway, that was just one aspect of a very complex person... and guess what? That's true for every gay person out there.
While I don't think that including that aspect of the person should be required, I do think that intentionally avoiding it tantamount to censorship.

Rich, if I told you my favorite position was 69, what relevance would it have on anything I accomplish? Absolutely none. My X boss was and is gay, to this very day we remain good friends and I think he is an awesome guy. Never once has he ever tried to talk about his sexual preferences with me nor have I felt the need to know. Those things should be kept behind closed doors.

The only thing that would be accomplished by mentioning somebody's sexual preference would be to further a homosexual agenda as being normal and there by slowly indoctrinating kids and adults alike to slowly accept that life style as a normal viable life style. In every sit com most movies you will find the proverbial gay guy or couple. It is every where you look now. 30 years ago they called it sin, today they call it normal, and if you don't tolerate it then you are the bad guy. If you don't see the sickness in that I guess we just have opposing views. Every where you look you see people saying we celebrate diversity and for the most part that is great. The problem comes when that diversity blurs the lines of what your country once stood for. America has been blessed for it's Godly heritage, but every day we see that heritage being chipped away by humanism, liberalism, secularism and everything that is contrary to what this country was meant to be.

By viewing the posts here I can see I am in the minority for my views, but truth is a funny thing, just because the majority say something is right, doesn't make it the truth.

Of course, as I just mentioned... 2500 years ago, it was called normal. So there you go. Societal "norms" are ever changing. One upon a time it was "normal" to own a guy and make him work your land. It was "normal" to perceive women as inferior and unworthy of an opinion. It was "normal" to sell your daughter into slavery or consider it an abomination before God to touch the skin of a pig on Sunday.

Also Flight. I don't consider you a bad guy. Didn't mean to suggest that I did. Not at all. I assume you're a totally decent who's trying to live a good life... just like me. We just have some different opinions, that's all.

The legislation is being proposed as a tool to suggest that the gay community is normal by using historical contributions of gays in comparison to the rest of population. The sexual interests of the rest of the population is irrelevant, but the sexual interest of gays is not irrelevant. Why?

Historical accomplishment/contribution sets the bar. The sexual orientation is 100% irrelevant UNLESS the accomplishment does not exclude everyone other than gays and being gay was significant to their contribution.

Anyone with a sense of logic can see through the smoke and mirrors, however.

Barry, you are the smoke and mirrors. Poser figured it out. Why can't you?

You are right in saying the sexual orientation is 100% irrelevant to the accomplishment. That's the point. To show that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the ability of gays to participate normally in society. Therefore promoting the idea that there is no reason to discriminate or feel uncomfortable around them.

The legislation is being proposed as a tool to suggest that the gay community is normal by using historical contributions of gays in comparison to the rest of population. The sexual interests of the rest of the population is irrelevant, but the sexual interest of gays is not irrelevant. Why?

Please provide me with a historical accomplishment example that does not exclude everyone other than gays and how being gay was significant to their contribution.Otherwise, their sexual preference is completely irrelevant.


[loop]

1.

won

jwun

just....
one.

Somehow I missed this little gem of wisdom.

Soooo, we notate sexual orientation because it's irrelevant.... got it! Good thinking!


It's like a circus act I tells ya'z!

Because people assume "normal".

We already agree that sexual preference is irrelevant to the complishment.

Are we just going to keep going around in circles? Look at the quote I made from Poser. It states the point accurately and completely.

Man are you slow. The basic thinking is that society doesn't view sexual orientation as irrelevant. The point is to show that it is.

Ziiiiiiiiiing! Do you hear that ... sound...overhead...?



Funny how quickly proponents disappear when the basis of their argument is unsupportable.


Enjoy your weekend! :)

Your argument is unsupportable and you're still here.

I love how you have people like Flight and others wanting to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" especially in the country we live in described so eloquently: "their has to be boundaries that we set for our children, boundaries of right and wrong and normalcy in a sosiety, especially a society routed in biblical History".


Yet, never has it been easier in the US to get a divorce from your spouse.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._enrolled.html

It's funny, once you actually read the Bill, it certainly seems a lot more tame. For one, it's not just about gay folks, it moves to include many other minorities in the context of CA and US historical accuracy (ie. eliminating discrimination based on race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and sexual orientation).

barry, please give it a read and point out your objections. I am curious to hear them.

Bottom line is that gay people are no different than straight people. are no different than black people. are no different than jewish people... etc. That's just the truth, no matter how much anyone wants to differentiate any of these groups. We're all just people. Each of us with our own unique set of individual characteristics. Some good, some bad. most neither.
Some gay people have made significant contributions in history, some haven't... same as any other group of folks. History (and therefore society) has been shaped by these events and contributions. Sometimes the fact that someone was black or christian or gay or whatever, is relevant to the conversation... many times it isn't. If we're going to teach our children, we have to be willing to be willing to look at the lessons from ALL sides and really try to understand things. That means not leaving out details because they make some of us uncomfortable.
If a teacher wants to talk about Leonardo Da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Tchaikovsky or whomever and NOT mention their sexual preferences, that's totally fine. But for any REAL understanding of those folks, how they lived and interacted with their peers, how they were perceived by their contemporary societies, or how their thoughts, actions and ideas were shaped... it's certainly a valuable part of the discussion.

Again, I'm not 100% sure about the legislation. But I'll say this... If a teacher or school chooses to ignore historical lessons simply because the people or the issues at hand were gay... i.e. Harvey Milk, Matthew Shepard... then they're doing our kids a disservice. It's called revisionist history... it happens all the time. And it says a helluva lot more about what's wrong with our society than who a person chooses to sleep or fall in love with.

The only thing they want to do is provide lessons that the rest of the world does not give a crap about but would be considered only significant in the gay community. You can take that to the bank. That is the reason this law has been passed. We have already been taught a majority of the earth shattering history and who made it and obviously the fact that people in history had homosexual encounters has been discussed or you and I would not have known about Greek and other societies (that have failed by the way) took part in this activity. So, the mere mention of homosexuality in history and said contributions is already being discussed so why now pass a law that says it must be taught? The reason it must be taught is the agenda is to push significant accomplishes of the gay community within the gay community but would not have been significant enough be remembered by society at a whole. It is the affirmative action for history which is dangerous.

On the financial side, schools are already struggling. They now have to change text books and now take away from actual teaching time to study this crap when the kids obviously are not learning the skill needed for life. Either that or people are lying about the shape the educational system. Mark my word, this kind of stuff is pushing more and more people into home schooling. It is a huge trend already in California and it is going to get bigger.

The issue of divorce is not significant to the discussion considering most religions are already against the laws that most progressive states passed making divorce easy. You only re-enforce the argument that the ability to get divorced so easily has helped destroy society.

Let me ask, what does Harvey Milk and Mathew Sheppard have to do with earth shattering history that the world must know about? Tragic figures on the micro scale, but why are they significant to anyone other than they were tragic figures in their own world. What did they do that really changed society? They did nothing. If they were not gay, the world would have brushed them off as another murder for what ever reason. There are hundreds of murders a year in our so called progressive and tolerant bay area but we never hear a peep about that. Most are murdered for having the wrong colors on. Did the hundreds murdered a year shape history? Many of the murders is black on black crime. Does that make it any different to the world? Why is this not significant? It is not significant because it really has not shaped history one way or another except it is a continuation of history. What would be significant is if someone came up with the solution to the change the history of all the murder. Then I think it would be historical to at least California history. I don't see how the two figures having done anything to change anything except for the fact they were only significant in the gay community.

^I have to laugh at this.

When the Navy named a ship after Cesar Chavez, a worker rights activist who impacted many lives, Faux News and the right were making a big stink wanting to give it to a "more deserving" soldier who performed a heroic deed that only impacted a small number of lives.

So Delta, the fact that Milk only was significant to gays makes him insignificant? Maybe that's the whole reason why gays would like to be included in the history lessons. I can imagine that Cesar Chavez was also insignificant to you and me for that matter. In fact everyone in history is pretty much insignicant to any of us unless we learn the history.

"You only re-enforce the argument that the ability to get divorced so easily has helped destroy society."

So not gay marriage? Many want a constitutional amendment that marriage should be between a man and a woman, to preserve the sanctity of marriage. What would those same people say if they added to the "sanctity" amendment that said man and woman can never divorce?

John,

What did Milk do for man kind. Because he was openly gay in a openly gay city makes him significant to anyone? No one would give a crap if he was not murdered. He was not the only person killed that day. Why do we only remember him? I say yes, he was pretty insignificant to me and about 95% of the population. You would have never have heard of him either if someone did not do a movie about him. That is a fact. Why is it that none of the leaders that speak up about what is happening in the black community are ever known? They are gunned down all the time and you don't give a crap and neither does anyone else. It is just like Bush all over again. You only talk about what your leaders want you to talk about. Never mind the real truth on the side. Besides the gay community (which is sounds like nearly 70% of Californians don't care about when it came to the gay marriage issue), the rest of the country is not impacted either so why teach it. Just because a segment of society wants to tell their story does not mean it is relevant enough to change history books, add history books and burden a already stressed education system with a special interest groups so called accomplishments.

As far as Cesar Chavez goes, another California special interest case. He only changed the life for some migrant workers in California and he was also a communist which plays nicely into California's Teachers Association. I picked fruits and vegetables in Indiana growing up. I certainly was not impacted by him. What is the level needed to impact history? There is a crap load of big, big issues to learn about and many of these issues only get brought up as special amendments to history. Not big enough to change many peoples lives, but because a vocal minority gets it through, it is not significant. Sounds like Hollywood stuff to me. People who are only significant because they film them and tell you that they are significant. As soon as they are gone, they don't matter anymore. Just like all the people who die every day in the city. Who is around to tell you that they are significant?

At the end of the day, how much money and class room time is it worth to teach kids about this crap when they can not even do math and english at functional level to compete with 3rd world countries. It would be nice to teach everyone everything about people. That is not realistic. The education system is bankrupt in this state and they want to add more crap to it.

Jeremy,

Marriage in the religious sense is an institution for a man and a woman to come together to have and raise kids. Society has place many new strains that stress the marriage such as both parents out of the house, keeping up with the Jones's and so on. Now marriage has turned more into, let's get married so we can afford stuff. Back in the day, it was really hard to get a divorce but it was deemed that it was unfair to women so they changed the law so it was easy to get a divorce. It has been a pox on society.

Delta, what's your obsession with putting Bush in every conversation? You're accusation makes no sense. Just like the rest of your post.

Delta, so society and women are to blame for the sack on the sanctity marriage, but why do many blame homosexuals?

A little off subject, but what's wrong with divorce anyway? It should be easy. If a couple doesn't get a long any longer after being married, let them split up and move on. Who cares? how does that hurt society?

The reason our kids our struggling is because the pacing is absurd. The number of concepts we push down the throats of kids who aren't developmentally ready to learn it, is the biggest problem. The social issues you guys are speaking of wouldn't even be touched upon until much later in the educational career. In San Diego, there is 3 hour literacy blocks and hour long math blocks, which after throwing in recess and lunch, there is little time for science/social studies.

Great, now we can have a gay history month or some other BS. This type of shenanigannery fuels discrimination and hatred. There is absolutely no reason to mention "gay achievements" or "gay inventions" or any other gay whatever, unless the fact that the dude who invented it was queer is somehow relevant. Unless he made a better butt plug I fail to see the relevance. Can any of the folks defending this nonsense provide one noteworthy invention or achievement in which the queerness of the person was relevant to the accomplishment? I'd love to hear what some of these are. That aside, the sooner these "minorities" and other special interests start treating everyone as an individual, the sooner racism and prejudice can be put to bed for good.

On a side note, I've always thought gays were great. Think about it. Every gay dude is one less man looking for a girlfriend or wife. As a single man, every gay dude makes my life easier in the form of less competition. Now lesbians, I don't particularly care for.

Cory, after reading your post I can see why you are single.

".... the sooner these "minorities" and other special interests start treating everyone as an individual, the sooner racism and prejudice can be put to bed for good."

I couldn't agree more

Five days and not a single person can come up with an example? Just one?

The legislation sure sounds like a good thing!








Until you spend time thinking about it.

Barry, Rich answered your question two hours after you asked it. Besides, if as you say, gays have no contributions to society, what is the problem? Clearly there will be nothing to teach.

Speaking of days gone past, its been 4 days since I asked what your issue with the legislation is, I have yet to see any response.

This thread makes me sit here and shake my head. Nobody is saying that a homosexual shouldn't get notoriety for his or her accomplishments. What we are saying is their sexual preference has absolutely no relevance to the achievement. Barry is simply wanting to know why adding they were a homosexual would add any credibility to what they have accomplished.

Thats like saying oh and he was an avid diver in his spare time, who cares? it doesn't make sense. The only thing that does make sense is it is another push to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle there by pushing it further and further into the main stream. Other then that, it isn't just stupid legislation, it's ignorance in the highest degree.