• 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

Redress said:
YS...what is gay history please?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
Just because some kids do not learn things does not mean they are not being taught. Quite the opposite, since many kids do in fact learn the basics.
Click to expand...

The problem lies with passing the kids that don't learn the basics, not that we aren't teaching them in lieu of other things.
 
Your Star said:
The problem lies with passing the kids that don't learn the basics, not that we aren't teaching them in lieu of other things.
Click to expand...

That is a problem, certainly, but not the only one.
 
Your Star said:
The problem lies with passing the kids that don't learn the basics, not that we aren't teaching them in lieu of other things.
Click to expand...

I think the point he was making and I am making is, what the hell for? ANY time taken away from learning essential things is time wasted, and THIS one seems like a waste of time, with little if any actual educational value.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I think the point he was making and I am making is, what the hell for? ANY time taken away from learning essential things is time wasted, and THIS one seems like a waste of time, with little if any actual educational value.


Tim-
Click to expand...

So your saying history has no educational value?

Also what would you consider essential?
 
I'm not exaggerating this, but I think this may be the single most stupid piece of legislation. We should teach history and leave sexuality out of it. We don't teach that George Washington the straight guy was our first president. I do not think they should teach "gay history" in schools.
 
Redress said:
That is a problem, certainly, but not the only one.
Click to expand...

True, our standards are way too low, I remember taking the Georgia High School graduation test in 11th grade, and me, and most of my friends who were in AP classes finished them in like 10, 15 minutes, and all passed with flying colors. Yet I remember people who didn't graduate because they failed those test. That is just sad.
 
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...

Hmm, ok, then we get bible history in the mandatory curriculum.
 
Your Star said:
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...
Well, no - I would guess that the vast majority of our greatest living historians never received any formal training on LGBT people. It's not a question of competence, it's a question of what you want to cover in the limited amount of time available. If we could do it all, there would be no need for history courses in college or beyond.

On the other hand, if you try to acknowledge everything, treatment of each topic will be so brief that students will have learned nothing.
 
digsbe said:
I'm not exaggerating this, but I think this may be the single most stupid piece of legislation. We should teach history and leave sexuality out of it. We don't teach that George Washington the straight guy was our first president. I do not think they should teach "gay history" in schools.
Click to expand...

But sexuality is apart of history, for example, lets say you want to understand how the Papacy worked during the Renaissance, and how it is different from the Papacy today, and apart of that is knowing that most popes of that era had children, and had sex. Also knowing things like it was illegal to mail contraceptives in the US for many years, that sodomy was illegal, about the camps pregnant girls would go to, so they could avoid the embarrassment. All those things should be taught in history class, like I said, it shouldn't be "gay history" it should be included in history class.
 
Has anybody made history because they were gay?
 
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 we can extrapolate that out, as per Equality, that no text can ever say anything bad about any ethnicity; and since everyone is some ethnicity, no text can ever say anything bad about anyone, however true it may be.
 
Your Star said:
But sexuality is apart of history, for example, lets say you want to understand how the Papacy worked during the Renaissance, and how it is different from the Papacy today, and apart of that is knowing that most popes of that era had children, and had sex. Also knowing things like it was illegal to mail contraceptives in the US for many years, that sodomy was illegal, about the camps pregnant girls would go to, so they could avoid the embarrassment. All those things should be taught in history class, like I said, it shouldn't be "gay history" it should be included in history class.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think things like that aren't very relevant to history and I believe the goal of the CA senate bill is to influence the morality of students. I think sexuality should be left out of history class. I think schools should stay away from sexual ethics.
 
Your Star said:
So your saying history has no educational value?

Also what would you consider essential?
Click to expand...

No. History has great value. History of specifically targeted minority subpopulations has great value to an elective class in college and that's about it.
 
Jerry said:
So we can extrapolate that out, as per Equality, that no text can ever say anything bad about any ethnicity; and since everyone is some ethnicity, no text can ever say anything bad about anyone, however true it may be.
Click to expand...

I believe that is already law in CA, and I agree with that. Textbooks should not criticize due to ethnicity.
 
Taylor said:
Well, no - I would guess that the vast majority of our greatest living historians never received any formal training on LGBT people. It's not a question of competence, it's a question of what you want to cover in the limited amount of time available. If we could do it all, there would be no need for history courses in college or beyond.

On the other hand, if you try to acknowledge everything, treatment of each topic will be so brief that students will have learned nothing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
I believe that is already law in CA, and I agree with that. Textbooks should not criticize due to ethnicity.
Click to expand...

Oh no you don't, don't even try getting away with that, your quote doesn't say "based on", it says "reflect adversely on".

So, we can't talk about WW2, because that would 'reflect adversely on' German Americans.

Can't talk about our 40-year-long war on terror, because that would "reflect adversely on" Muslims.

THe problems with "reflection" is that it's all pure subjective interpretation. All it take is 1 loud-mouth with the ACLU on speed-dial to claim given historical character's bio "reflect adversely on" gays and the school's teachers get to have another union protest over low pay because all the school's money went to another molti-million-dollar lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I disagree. I think things like that aren't very relevant to history and I believe the goal of the CA senate bill is to influence the morality of students. I think sexuality should be left out of history class. I think schools should stay away from sexual ethics.
Click to expand...

But sexuality is apart of history, you can't teach history without acknowledging sexuality. The CA senate bill seems stupid to me, because these things should already be taught, and they shouldn't be apart of some special section of the class, but apart of the class as a whole. I know I was taught about the stonewall riots, and SSM in other countries, how LGBT people were treated throughout history etc. This isn't about sexual ethics, but teaching history, if it happens, and it is significant, it should be taught. Knowing that many popes had sex is significant, knowing how groups of people were treated at different periods of time in history is significant, knowing about the laws of our country, and other countries is significant.
 
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...

For me it all depends on the reasoning. If peoples achivments are being excluded from history because they were gay, thats simply wrong. If on the other hand they are being displayed in history for their achivments because they are gay, thats equally wrong.
 
Your Star said:
So your saying history has no educational value?

Also what would you consider essential?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying gay history (Whatever that is) has no educational value to people who are NOT gay.. Honestly, if you're not gay why would this have any value to you? Maybe they can make it an elective or something?? Either way, I'm not sure, or can't identify any value to teaching kids about it? Oh, and that means a lot of things that are on the curriculum that need to go IMO.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
No, I'm saying gay history (Whatever that is) has no educational value to people who are NOT gay.. Honestly, if you're not gay why would this have any value to you? Maybe they can make it an elective or something?? Either way, I'm not sure, or can't identify any value to teaching kids about it? Oh, and that means a lot of things that are on the curriculum that need to go IMO.


Tim-
Click to expand...

So if your not Catholic you don't need to learn about the Papacy, right?

The fact is, that if it is significant, it needs to be taught, and things like the Stonewall riots, how LGBT people were treated during different periods of time in history is significant. Just like knowing how women have been treated throughout history is significant to know, even if you are a man.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Oh no you don't, don't even try getting away with that, your quote doesn't say "based on", it says "reflect adversely on".

So, we can't talk about WW2, because that would 'reflect adversely on' German Americans.

Can't talk about our 40-year-long war on terror, because that would "reflect adversely on" Muslims.

THe problems with "reflection" is that it's all pure subjective interpretation. All it take is 1 loud-mouth with the ACLU on speed-dial to claim given historical character's bio "reflect adversely on" gays and the school's teachers get to have another union protest over low pay because all the school's money went to another molti-million-dollar lawsuit.
Click to expand...

No Jerry, just no. You are taking a point and stretching way past what is there.
 
Your Star said:
So if your not Catholic you don't need to learn about the Papacy, right?

The fact is, that if it is significant, it needs to be taught, and things like the Stonewall riots, how LGBT people were treated during different periods of time in history is significant. Just like knowing how women have been treated throughout history is significant to know, even if you are a man.
Click to expand...

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

edit: Oh, and equate much? Religion at least I can see as having some educational value in the sense that it has had, and continues to have a great influence on our entire human population. Gayness?? Not so much, eh?

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