• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CA Senate bill mandates gay history in schools

Hicup said:
I'm not sure religion of ANY kind is taught in public schools, is it?

Tim-
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between teaching religion, as in this is what Catholicism teaches, and it is right, and this is what Catholicism is about, and this is it's impact on history. Every student of European history needs to know about how Catholicism impacted European history, it's politics, and how it lead to the make up of the world today.
 
Temporal said:
The right wing are going to just love this.

Do you agree with making this a mandatory part of the curriculum?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. The state doesn't teach real history, why should it start demanding teaching gay history before it teaches real history? All the above bill will do is further politicize the curriculum and subtract even more time from a class that is supposed to teach where this nation came from and encourage the student to think about where it's going.

"Gay" history is an irrelevance. They don't even teach any adequate lessons on Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, or the rest.

I do believe that gays are unnecessarily censored from the history books. In college I took a course about gay and feminist history and I was shocked by the amount of material that nobody has any idea about. For example, some of the world's major inventors, world leaders, CEOs, etc. were gay and had partners, yet we never hear about them. Perhaps it is time for the revisionism to end.
Click to expand...

Then again, it simply isn't important what they did in the bedroom or the barn, since it likely had nothing to do with the technical perfection of the light bulb, the rail road, or the Declaration of Independence or anything else, depending on which rumors were claimed as "fact" in your course.

Seriously, no one cares if Michelangelo was homosexual. He was an artist, it's expected.
 
Redress said:
While I have no problem with gay issues being taught in school to age appropriate kids, I don't really support mandating it. I do however support this part:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So, no text book in California will be able to discuss Jeffrey Dahmer or Janet Reno.

Nor will they be able to teach honestly about Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Barney Frank's role in causing the Crash of 2008 won't be mentioned, either.

Is that kind of censorship productive?
 
Your Star said:
I don't think one needs any special training on how to teach history that involves the LGBT people. In regards to US they should know how LGBT people have been treated, and about the LGBT rights movement, and they should be taught similar things about world history etc. It should not be a section about "LGBT history" specifically, but it should just be apart of history class, and when the teacher gets to that specific point in history, and something of importance happened in regards to LGBT issues, it should be brought up, just like with women's history, black history, native american history etc. Our students have a right to know about this stuff.
Click to expand...
You can't equate the LGBT community to those other groups, because to be quite blunt, history regarding women, blacks, and native Americans is vastly more important to a general understanding history (especially in this country) than history on LGBT issues (and even it gets much less talk-time than many would like).

Pregnancy camps, contraceptives in the mail, or sodomy laws are are not even close to being on the same shelf of importance as things like the slave trade, suffrage, the trail of tears, miscegenation laws, and western expansion and the battle of little bighorn.
 
Last edited:
Temporal said:
The right wing are going to just love this.

Do you agree with making this a mandatory part of the curriculum?

I'm somewhat torn, mostly because I don't think gays should get preferential treatment. If things are going to shape up in this direction, then wouldn't it make sense to include things like black history?

I do believe that gays are unnecessarily censored from the history books. In college I took a course about gay and feminist history and I was shocked by the amount of material that nobody has any idea about. For example, some of the world's major inventors, world leaders, CEOs, etc. were gay and had partners, yet we never hear about them. Perhaps it is time for the revisionism to end.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming they mean that things like the gay rights movement would be covered along with every other rights movement in this country. If so, then I don't see the big deal...
 
Taylor said:
You can't equate the LGBT community to those other groups, because to be quite blunt, history regarding women, blacks, and native Americans is vastly more important to a general understanding history (especially in this country) than history on LGBT issues (and even it gets much less talk-time than many would like).

Pregnancy camps, contraceptives in the mail, or sodomy laws are are not even close to being on the same shelf of importance as things like the slave trade, suffrage, the trail of tears, miscegenation laws, and western expansion and the battle of little bighorn.
Click to expand...

But teaching what I have mentioned won't cause the things you mentioned to not be taught. All those things need to be taught, I learned about all of those things in history class, so it can be done.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
So, no text book in California will be able to discuss Jeffrey Dahmer or Janet Reno.

Nor will they be able to teach honestly about Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Barney Frank's role in causing the Crash of 2008 won't be mentioned, either.

Is that kind of censorship productive?
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel better, Mayor, they probably won't mention Larry Craig either.
 
Temporal said:
The right wing are going to just love this.
Click to expand...

actually i don't mind it.

Do you agree with making this a mandatory part of the curriculum?
Click to expand...

nope. but you know what? it's california. as a state they have the right to do this. States should run their own education programs free from federal interference with the exception of minimum standards.
 
Your Star said:
But the basics are not being compromised by teaching things like this.
Click to expand...

Don't be daft.

The kid spends seven hours in school, that's 420 minutes. 60 minutes out for lunch, etc etc. Say the little darlings are exposed to 225 minutes of "history" a week. Every minute wasted discussing what each historical figure likes to do with his penis or ass subtracts from the time the student could be learning what they did that they should care about.

[/quote]The basics should be learned in elementary school, and they should be expanded on in middle, and high school. They should know about LGBT history, just like they should know about black history, about European history, about asian history, about all of history.[/quote]

Why? Black history month is wasted month, as the students waste time learning about the actions of people on the fringes of society who accomplished little of note. The critical elements of American history influenced by blacks should be covered in the normal chonology of the study, not relegated to a month crowded with irrelevancies. Dred Scot is properly treated in the context of the ante-bellum USA, not as part of some "black history". If some person's actions affected the whole of the United States, then it's relevant to discuss them, if their actions are significant because of their race, as was Dred Scot and Rosa Parks, then it's appropriate to mention it. Otherwise, it's no more important that someone was black and informing everyone that Reagan was descended from Ireland.
 
rocket88 said:
If it makes you feel better, Mayor, they probably won't mention Larry Craig either.
Click to expand...

And...Larry Craig was so far off the Mayor's radar screen of things of import it took the Mayor a full thirty seconds to remember who he was.

Did Larry Craig do anything impressive like "Eating the Most Young Men" or "Barbequeing the Most Religious Fanatics"?
 
Temporal said:
The right wing are going to just love this.

Do you agree with making this a mandatory part of the curriculum?

I'm somewhat torn, mostly because I don't think gays should get preferential treatment. If things are going to shape up in this direction, then wouldn't it make sense to include things like black history?

I do believe that gays are unnecessarily censored from the history books. In college I took a course about gay and feminist history and I was shocked by the amount of material that nobody has any idea about. For example, some of the world's major inventors, world leaders, CEOs, etc. were gay and had partners, yet we never hear about them. Perhaps it is time for the revisionism to end.
Click to expand...

I think people are a little confused about those differnt groups. I kmow I am.

To me, a homosexual is one who is attracted to the same sex, the way a heterosexual is attracted to the oppisite sex. That's all. A homosexual male has no desire to be a woman or imitate one. They are men and like men stuff.

There are people who seem to have been born to the wrong body. They are not really homosexual, they are just in the wrong body.

I don't know about bisexual except that God likes all kinds so he creates all kinds.

Transgenders. Ok, that's the people who have figured out they are in the wrong body. That's a really tough blow life has dealt them

Of course if everybody would just be more "live and let live" " to each his own" "a chair is just a chair" things would be easier for sure.
 
Redress said:
That is a big problem I saw too. What is gay history? The Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk and AIDS terrorizing the gay community? What else?
Click to expand...
Hella I know.

Honestly, I don't see why it can't all be rolled in together. I understand the need for specialized classes where appropriate at higher levels after the general stuff has been outlined. Bu for the most part what should be available to children is the basic outline of major events and themes. I don't see why that can't include events and contributions from all sort of people. Nor do I see how it helps to segment the teaching of civics, history and social study type things into different "histories" instead of integrating it. I mean that's how things actually happen, kind all together in a big inseparable knot.
 
digsbe said:
I'm not exaggerating this, but I think this may be the single most stupid piece of legislation.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't know how you can choose from among all the eligible contenders for this honor. ;)

digsbe said:
We should teach history and leave sexuality out of it.
Click to expand...
I disagree. History has sexuality in it.
 
agreed, but the notion that they should only teach the "good" gays, but not the "bad" ones is rather questionable. it seems to me that's fairly obvious partisanship over scholarship, there.
 
Your Star said:
I would guess anything relating involving the LGBT rights movement. But I don't think we should teach "gay history" per say, we should just teach history competently, and to do that, you have to acknowledge LGBT people.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right!!
 
cpwill said:
agreed, but the notion that they should only teach the "good" gays, but not the "bad" ones is rather questionable. it seems to me that's fairly obvious partisanship over scholarship, there.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that this is the case. I think there is a difference between teaching that some subset of people are bad and saying that this or that person did bad things. I think the law allows for things to reflect adversely upon persons because of their actions instead of their race, sex,
color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
 
What in the hell is going on? Folks, you are all shouting over each other. This issue is REALLY simple. Teaching gay history is absurd. Teaching black history is absurd. Teaching Jewish history is absurd. Each of these things have a component in history. Gay civil rights is an important component to teach in history, as is the issue of gay marriage. Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and Black civil rights are important components to teach in history. The Holocaust is an important component to teach in history, as is the formation of Israel. These things are all important because, historically, they have had significant impacts on where we are today, and what issues we deal with. They are completely unimportant SEPARATE from the context of our history. If we are going to teach history, we need to teach things that are important. You want to understand more about gay history? Take a class on it in college. Gay civil rights will be discussed in high school, as will gay marriage. Other smaller issues, just to pander to a group? Should not happen... nor should it happen to ANY group.

I'm not sure what you all are fighting about with this issue.
 
Your Star said:
But teaching what I have mentioned won't cause the things you mentioned to not be taught. All those things need to be taught, I learned about all of those things in history class, so it can be done.
Click to expand...
It will cause something not to be taught. It's not as if classes now have periods of thumb-twiddling because there's nothing important to learn.

Back to the opening post, this was justified in part because of "bullying and suicide" - do you see education on the issues you identified or perhaps others having an impact on that? Would you agree it's more a discipline problem than an "I don't know enough LGBT history" problem?
 
Taylor said:
It will cause something not to be taught. It's not as if classes now have periods of thumb-twiddling because there's nothing important to learn.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, important historical events should not be left out. And there are historical events that involve the LGBT movement.
 
Your Star said:
You're wrong, important historical events should not be left out. And there are historical events that involve the LGBT movement.
Click to expand...

The gay rights fight is an important battle, and begrudgingly I accept its historical value. Its impact is still unknown to American society so maybe 20, 30 years it might mean more. But without sounding offensive, I really don't see how someone's sexuality matters when discussing accomplishments, or impact on our society as a whole? Could you point out the educational value of it for me?


Tim-
 
Your Star said:
You're wrong, important historical events should not be left out. And there are historical events that involve the LGBT movement.
Click to expand...

Important events should be taught, and in any case where sexuality plays a role then it should be mentioned. And while making people look bad for their sexuality is wrong, saying a bad thing about a gay person where they are clearly to blame for something, well then go ahead and blame them.

For the most part, there's no need to bring sexuality into it. History needs to be taught and taught well. Where that history is "gay" then that's what it is.
 
Hicup said:
The gay rights fight is an important battle, and begrudgingly I accept its historical value. Its impact is still unknown to American society so maybe 20, 30 years it might mean more. But without sounding offensive, I really don't see how someone's sexuality matters when discussing accomplishments, or impact on our society as a whole? Could you point out the educational value of it for me?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I agree with you... unless it does have some value. Discussing Harvey Milk, for example. His sexuality would have value in the discussion. Considering the incident concerned gay rights, gun rights, legal issues, etc..., if discussed in a history class, Milk's sexuality would be needed to be introduced. But notice... his sexuality is an important component to the entire issue. Here's an alternate example. On September 22, 1975, Sara Jane Moore attempted to assassinate President Ford. Marine Oliver Sipple grabbed Moore's arm, just as she fired, causing the shot to miss. Sipple was gay. His sexuality is irrelevant in context to the historical value of discussing the assassination attempt. The thing to look for is this: is it key or is it ancillary?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree with you... unless it does have some value. Discussing Harvey Milk, for example. His sexuality would have value in the discussion. Considering the incident concerned gay rights, gun rights, legal issues, etc..., if discussed in a history class, Milk's sexuality would be needed to be introduced. But notice... his sexuality is an important component to the entire issue. Here's an alternate example. On September 22, 1975, Sara Jane Moore attempted to assassinate President Ford. Marine Oliver Sipple grabbed Moore's arm, just as she fired, causing the shot to miss. Sipple was gay. His sexuality is irrelevant in context to the historical value of discussing the assassination attempt. The thing to look for is this: is it key or is it ancillary?
Click to expand...

I agree, it WAS historically relevant to the modern gay rights debate.. So a discussion on gay rights would need to include Harvey Milk as an early activist. Gay rights is a "current, and past" affair. Current affairs is important, as is history, and they have educational value. How much time I would spend on it I suppose is a valid question as well. Gay rights, I dunno, maybe in college as an elective course, but mandated, as a section of American history having a big impact? As Taylor suggests, the day is only so long. I just don't see why it should displace more important issues, and issues that would deliver the same educational impact (Lesson) as say sufferage, slavery, Native American history? I think these things had more impact on the greater number of people than gay rights ever will.. When time is limited, curriculums should prioritize, and at the K-12 educational level, it just doesn't make the cut for me?


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom