California Governor Signs Landmark Bill Requiring Teaching of Gay History

[Slathar]

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?s...tics&id=8249564

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a landmark bill adding lessons about gay history to social studies classes in California's public schools.

Brown, a Democrat, signed the bill Thursday, making California the first state in the nation to require public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

...

Democratic state Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, the bill's author, has said that teaching gay history in public schools will teach students to be more accepting of gays and lesbians.



finally

[Hasbinbad]

The bill has drawn criticism from some churches and conservative groups that argue such instruction would expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

^WHY AREN'T THESE PEOPLE BEING HEARD?^

[Slathar]

The bill has drawn criticism from some churches and conservative groups that argue such instruction would expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

^WHY AREN'T THESE PEOPLE BEING HEARD?^

these kind of people should be round up and shipped to texas where they can eat themselves to death with the rest of the religious shitbags who contribute to national debt by poor dietary choices.

[nalkin]

Yiblaan is the being who opened my eyes to gays, homesexuals, and other misanthropes. The first and only encounter I had to gay culture before Flaming Gaze was watching nude women wrastling in the mud neked and slippery. But he has shown me that gay people can be normal people with decent qualities. He has cleared any prejudice I once had and has shown me that gays can be successful in life.

[Ektar]

I've got nothing against gay anything and everything, but to force gay history means throwing out something more important to the grand scheme of history. It's not like current history curricula purposely leave out gay contributions. If a gay person contributes something to history, he goes in; if a straight person contributes something to history, he goes in.



idk to what extent this whole thread is trolling or whatever the fuck you people like to do, but this also recently came up elsewhere in my life recently about forcing women studies into the curriculum and it's the same exact thing.

[Zereh]

Which just just goes to show that what they teach isn't really history at all. It's propaganda crammed down our throats in the name of education. They just edit out all of the bits that are unflattering to whomever they consider the golden child of any conflict. Or better yet just ignore contributions if you're not of the correct persuasion (be that race, gender or sexual).

I think our schools should switch history books with those they use in ohhh, let's say China, or from one of the former USSR states or Pakistan for a couple years to shake things up a bit.

[naez]

I cant even name any important gays. Richard Simmons? Elton John?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBS-fGJUVNY

[Zereh]

Probably because most of them never admitted that they were; or if people did know, it wasn't something that was discussed.

[Harrison]

I've got nothing against gay anything and everything, but to force gay history means throwing out something more important to the grand scheme of history. It's not like current history curricula purposely leave out gay contributions. If a gay person contributes something to history, he goes in; if a straight person contributes something to history, he goes in.



idk to what extent this whole thread is trolling or whatever the fuck you people like to do, but this also recently came up elsewhere in my life recently about forcing women studies into the curriculum and it's the same exact thing.

Slathar is trolling. He doesn't contribute to the community and is a piece of shit. You knew this Ektar :)

[Zereh]

^^ So says the paragon of virtue

[KilyenaMage]

Well blacks used to be slaves and we have black history month...

I read an article about a gay man who was a slave too, just other day. So I guess it all makes sense now.

[naez]

Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom. He accepted treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison.

[Slathar]

several high-level GOP politicians are gay. just because they're closeted doesn't mean they're not gay. also, michelle bachmann's husband is gay, that isn't even debatable at this point

[deakolt]

Alan Turing

Money. If ya'll don't know who this guy is... get educated. Read a motherfuckin' book-

[naez]

michelle bachmann is a hotty, goddamn shes a playboy bunny next to pelosi


also alan turing overrated (< comp sci grad)


overatted meaning there has to be someone better to historically represent the gay community than some gay nerd

[Yiblaan]

Yiblaan is the being who opened my eyes to gays, homesexuals, and other misanthropes. The first and only encounter I had to gay culture before Flaming Gaze was watching nude women wrastling in the mud neked and slippery. But he has shown me that gay people can be normal people with decent qualities. He has cleared any prejudice I once had and has shown me that gays can be successful in life.

^

Aww I am so honored

[mgellan]

Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom. He accepted treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison.

You forgot to mention he killed himself 2 years later.

It'd probably amaze most people how many gay people made real history. As long as California's law means teachers can say "Turing was a gay man who was ..." and not "Now children we will begin a 6 week long Gays in History unit!" I support the law remotely.

Regards,
Mg

[Shrubwise]

"This declaration of Independence is going to do *fabulous* things for this country, haaay!"
-John Adams, 1776

[Hoggen]

Mentioning that someone famous is gay as a part of their bio is fine. Cherry-picking people out of history because they are gay is asinine. What's next? Bestialist history month? Pedophile history month? Quadruple amputee history month? Left handed vegetarian history month? Fill in the blank: not many people that fought or died during his regime cared whether Hitler was gay or not. Historical figures aren't important because of their sexual preference.

[Harrison]

Y'all bein' trolled in a troll thread

[Ektar]

fuck it. we stole it from the troll and turned it into an actual engaging, intellectual discussion.

[Ektar]

troll - go back to rnf. off-topic forum is for REAL BA TALKERS! and we commandeered that shit.

[Harrison]

In the spirit of that, I'll respond.

It's disgusting to force equality. It accomplishes the opposite of its intention and breeds distaste at an absolute minimum.

This is another waste of government time and resources that is worsening the joke that is public education.

[Shrubwise]

I think the troll just got reverse trolled into participating in a meaningless troll thread.

Heads exploding? Yes

[Feachie]

In the spirit of that, I'll respond.

It's disgusting to force equality. It accomplishes the opposite of its intention and breeds distaste at an absolute minimum.

This is another waste of government time and resources that is worsening the joke that is public education.

never mind the fact that California is forced to educate our youth on women, native americans, mexican americans, and several other minority groups... but this, at this point and at this point only, is a waste of government time and money? yeah, all the rest of that is good money spent, but screw the gays amirite?

how about we as a society move the fuck on from 1950's and prior mentality, leave others the hell alone and let them live, and we wouldn't have to force equality, and thus waste government resources.

[Comapavik]

I've got nothing against gay anything and everything, but to force gay history means throwing out something more important to the grand scheme of history. It's not like current history curricula purposely leave out gay contributions. If a gay person contributes something to history, he goes in; if a straight person contributes something to history, he goes in.



idk to what extent this whole thread is trolling or whatever the fuck you people like to do, but this also recently came up elsewhere in my life recently about forcing women studies into the curriculum and it's the same exact thing.

This is a bullshit argument. History, by definition, is always expanding as time passes. As we go from decade to decade, should we ignore the most recent events in history, because if we taught them, we would have to throw out something more important?

You sound like that racist dad from American History X. I'm pretty sure anything they decide to teach will be of historical significance.

[Polixenes]

Richard the Lionheart was gay and he went and beat up the Muslims in the Crusades.
Muslims have hated us ever since, therefore 9/11 is the fault of gays.

Let's get this troll thread back on track.

[Ektar]

This is a bullshit argument. History, by definition, is always expanding as time passes. As we go from decade to decade, should we ignore the most recent events in history, because if we taught them, we would have to throw out something more important?

You sound like that racist dad from American History X. I'm pretty sure anything they decide to teach will be of historical significance.

they aren't proposing teaching the legalization of gay marriage, or anything recent. they are proposing that they pick and choose specific events from the past that have a special little flag in the bio that it involves a gay person. so, if we assume that a history curriculum is at 100% efficiency, it teaches the most important parts of history in the time allotted. By forcing in, by our definition, less important parts of history, you must force out more important parts.

Learn to read the issue before arguing on it, and respect your fellow arguer from the get-go. Insulting me just makes you look even more ridiculous when you argue the wrong point.

[Messianic]

never mind the fact that California is forced to educate our youth on women, native americans, mexican americans, and several other minority groups... but this, at this point and at this point only, is a waste of government time and money? yeah, all the rest of that is good money spent, but screw the gays amirite?

As a preface, this bill is fairly broad and leaves wiggle room so it doesn't affect curriculum decisions or what students will actually learn that much at all. But the principle is still wrong.

If it's wrong to highlight native americans, mexican americans, etc only, it's also wrong to merely add homosexuals to that list and stop there. We don't need an "in-list" of groups that deserve mandates - that's cronyish.

Should the legislation include mandates on exactly how much mexican, african, hispanic, japanese, chinese, korean, russian, white, gay, straight, transgender, monogamous, polyandrous, polygamous history we should include? Doesn't that get redundant after a while and come full circle to just trying to teach a balanced view of history? And that's accomplished by better curriculum - not legislative mandates.

I don't know how Cali's curriculum is set - maybe it is set by their state house/senate, although I don't think so based on the states I am familiar with. It's usually set by the bureaucracy as led by the governor/Ed department director, which is probably more fair than the changing winds of electoral politics.

Again, this bill is relatively benign, but the principle is that this kind of a decision should be handled at the level of those who are setting curriculum, not necessarily whichever hacks are in the state house at the time and want to brush up their GLBT credentials. It just seems out of order from a policy perspective, especially if there is no actual discrimination (i.e. public schools intentionally excluding people from history because they are gay, etc) occurring.

John Maynard Keynes was gay, and didn't really try that hard to keep it a secret - but it's not commonly taught that he was specifically because he was an economist, and it's more apropos for an economics class to just talk about his economics and the fact that he's really the father of modern macro rather than who he chose to have sex with.

leave others the hell alone and let them live

I agree with the sentiment, but freedom is a broad concept - and most people only believe in certain segments of it - i.e. economic, religious, sexual, etc etc. Taxing rich individuals at a much higher % level than someone else isn't really an example of leaving others the hell alone and letting them live, but there's a lot of overlap between that and people who support more GLBT legislation.

But I don't think this particular bill has anything to do with letting people live - it's just a backwards and, quite honestly, a stupid way of setting curriculum or changing what kids are learning in public schools. But i don't know california's system, so maybe I'm applying a different policy/administrative model to california.

we wouldn't have to force equality

I don't really think this can be forced. What's actually happening is government is shuffling around policy to make things look more equal by trying to highlight certain aspects of what is being taught (since GLBT's weren't excluded from history before), when in reality you're no closer to equality by that legislation.

You can prevent and penalize certain kinds of discrimination, and that's relatively effective and lawful - but equality isn't the result of legislation like this - it's equal application of the law which allows equality, and things like civil rights legislation which try to prevent the deprivation of certain rights (not try to set quotas on those rights) do that. I don't think elected officials know how much GLBT history should be included - hopefully, those who have been placed in those positions do.

I don't think this legislation *at all* supports or increases the equal application of the law. It just smacks of pandering to the GLBT community :/

[Polixenes]

They are adding a review of homosexuality to sociology classes, not to history classes. So they might not be pushing aside anything important from history.

My dim 30 year old recollection of sociology was learning about Netsilik eskimos and women's suffrage. (It's nice to know those eskimos finally got the vote). Learing about gays in society would fit ok in there without necessarily displacing much of importance.

[Messianic]

They are adding a review of homosexuality to sociology classes, not to history classes. So they might not be pushing aside anything important from history.

You're right, they did specifically mention social sciences (and history is only a subdivision of that, not the whole thing). I appreciate the correction, even though it was for the whole thread as opposed to me specifically (i think) :)

Edit: b4 someone tries to "gotcha" me, history is a subdivision of social sciences at the high school level, although most colleges place their history major under Arts and Sciences rather than social sciences.

[Taryth]

I laughed when I read the article. Should make for some nice, salty tears.

[Polixenes]

You're right, they did specifically mention social sciences (and history is only a subdivision of that, not the whole thing). I appreciate the correction, even though it was for the whole thread as opposed to me specifically (i think) :)

You're right Messianic, it was for the whole thread. Myself included, several of us were commenting from the perspective that this was impacting history lessons.

[Ektar]

I didn't read the article - because I don't read. I just read the synopsis given by our friendly troll slathar. the term was "gay history" so I suppose I just assumed history class? Probably also has to do with the fact I'm a product of the nyc public school system and our only social science was history :P

but ya either way, I guarantee they'll mandate it in history classes as well (wtf do I have to guarantee with, I'm just pretty sure). The main thing I did originally was draw the parallel to an issue brought up in a class I had about integrating "women's history month" into the curriculum on the whole. Seeing as how women's history month didn't actually exist and was more of an idea, my above points about a presumably 100% efficient curriculum (regardless of race gender or sexual orientation) being dulled by forcing the, by definition, less important facts of history which include the two letters "fe" before the word "male" still hold, under the assumption it'll invade history classes merely because someone who did something notable was gay.

[Harrison]

never mind the fact that California is forced to educate our youth on women, native americans, mexican americans, and several other minority groups... but this, at this point and at this point only, is a waste of government time and money? yeah, all the rest of that is good money spent, but screw the gays amirite?

how about we as a society move the fuck on from 1950's and prior mentality, leave others the hell alone and let them live, and we wouldn't have to force equality, and thus waste government resources.

You missed the point, entirely. You should probably calm down before you fly into a rage over nothing :p

[Ektar]

^ well the issue being here is we as individuals can't make society do anything; but the government forcing it isn't the right way.

honestly? let's go hitler on their asses and eliminate people of subpar cultural values and inferior intellect.

[Slathar]

I'm happy Cali is trolling the fuck out of the heartland and south (the places where people go when they've given up in life)

[aaronjames666]

well to say that my community needs its own curriculum is just absurd..im bi , but i would like to make the point that the most annoying kind of homosexual is the sort who will not shut up about being so.. kind of like black history month.. its all a liberal motion to say that these groups are "special".. sure youre special just like everyone else! if you think this calls for
"special" recognition then you should ride the short bus to work/school.. just my opinion ,and im sorry if anyone is offended :D

[Ihealyou]

I'm just worried about all the little boys and girls that are going to catch the gay from this :(

[Slathar]

well to say that my community needs its own curriculum is just absurd..im bi , but i would like to make the point that the most annoying kind of homosexual is the sort who will not shut up about being so.. kind of like black history month.. its all a liberal motion to say that these groups are "special".. sure youre special just like everyone else! if you think this calls for
"special" recognition then you should ride the short bus to work/school.. just my opinion ,and im sorry if anyone is offended :D

You're completely missing the point. I agree that events such as Black History Month are nothing but tokenism within the white-male supremacy.

[Ektar]

you can only catch the gay from blood to blood contact. As long as they wear gloves when flipping through their textbooks if they have cuts then they should be ok.

[Ektar]

TROLL GO AWAY

[Slathar]

How am I trolling? You believe American culture and society isn't dominated by white males?

[Barkingturtle]

White males do kinda rule. Just sayin'.

[Ektar]

http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/Postorofpictures/sign-board-wood-thumb1460983.gif

[aaronjames666]

i hear water torture and sermons are the cure for this airborne bug.. dont use whips! this does not work ! ;)

[aaronjames666]

How am I trolling? You believe American culture and society isn't dominated by white males?

i dont really think it is..why is our most popular genre rap ? its certainly american culture , but no invention of the white man!

[Slathar]

i dont really think it is..why is our most popular genre rap ? its certainly american culture , but no invention of the white man!

I have to disagree with you there.

Now testify.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0&feature=related

[Feachie]

You missed the point, entirely. You should probably calm down before you fly into a rage over nothing :p

I ignore statements that contain the word "rage" because it's an internet term.

Tell me... Why do you even care? I live here. You're in, what, MA? Yeah...

and for the record, I don't think any government money should be spent educating children about minorities in public schools. we're already paying far too much to indoctrinate these kids on the American version of history as it is.

[deakolt]

Slathar is making some good points and saying "troll go away" just proves your own ignorance imo

[Ektar]

he's not making good points. he's trolling :P white males are advantaged? yes. white-male supremacy? no.

wording matters.


and he just goes around trolling so I don;'t give him the benefit of the doubt..

[Feachie]

to make that a true statement, need to be more specific imo. white males are advantaged everywhere there is a white majority. ;)

[Slathar]

Yea. It was the black men who used whites to build the largest economy in history.

[Slathar]

Furthermore, we stole this country from Native Americans and what used to be Mexico. Manifest destiny for real.

[Harrison]

You're slacking on the trolling boy.

It's too obvious.

[Beauregard]

I'd support this bill nationally. I view it as a huge victory in the culture wars for my secular brethren. Teaching that lbgt's aren't immorals, shitheads, prostitutes, and other miscreants they are grouped with in the bible could encourage more young religious students to examine the bible more closely or consider its sources.

I listen to AFR (http://www.afa.net/radio/) pretty often when in my car and today a caller made it on the air who, after rambling about the 2nd Amendment and taking back "our" white house, declared that he would take his shotgun and blow the brains out of anyone who told his boy that its ok to have sex with another boy. The far right in America is really going apeshit over this bill and I fucking love it.

[Stormhowl]

I've got nothing against gay anything and everything, but to force gay history means throwing out something more important to the grand scheme of history. It's not like current history curricula purposely leave out gay contributions. If a gay person contributes something to history, he goes in; if a straight person contributes something to history, he goes in.



idk to what extent this whole thread is trolling or whatever the fuck you people like to do, but this also recently came up elsewhere in my life recently about forcing women studies into the curriculum and it's the same exact thing.

What about learning about the civil rights movement in history class? Should we not teach people about monumental events like that because its forced upon us?

It's exactly the same thing. If the goal is to teach history so that we may avoid repeating our mistakes and understanding how our culture has been shaped, why should we have an issue with gay history being "forced" upon us when we've had civil rights and the women's movement "forced" upon kids for decades now?

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Ektar]

if it's worthy of being taught, let it be taught. I'm not saying don't teach it; nor am I saying it's not worthy of being taught.

I'm far from being in a position to say what's worthy of being taught, but civil rights movement? a significant piece of history. gay rights movement (we'll call it)? could be.

But to mandate that gay people from the past be shoved into the curriculum once they've already been deemed not important enough to make the cut? no.

[Ektar]

however, it's already been brought up that cali may be better off than nyc and actually have more than history classes, so putting gay stuff into a sociology class or whatever I can see. sociology is a bit more tangible than history.

but I'd still argue to the death about the other thing I mentioned with forcing extra women figures into history.

[Stormhowl]

I'm far from being in a position to say what's worthy of being taught, but civil rights movement? a significant piece of history. gay rights movement (we'll call it)? could be.

If the civil rights movement was a significant piece of history that's taught in schools, then the gay rights movement should also be given the same attention. Either all of it is okay, or none of it is okay.

I suppose my only issue is with your "could be", honestly. /shrug

But to mandate that gay people from the past be shoved into the curriculum once they've already been deemed not important enough to make the cut? no.

If I may ask, what do you base this off of? The article linked in the original post spent 2 paragraphs talking about the decision, and the rest of the article detailing various reactions from the conservative religions that think teaching history is indoctrinating children to be gay (a laughable claim, to be sure).

I wish to know where you've gleamed this information. :/

[Prince]

naez raped by fat girl in hot tub while tripping on acid

[Ektar]

civil rights movement being worthy of teaching does not mean gay rights is worthy. Note I am not saying it is not worthy, just thato ne does not imply the other.

Well I suppose you don't have to read the whole thread, so I'll quickly sum up everything I've said that I was coming from.

I did not read the article - because I'm lazy and don't like to read. I only read the synopsis in the OP. I mistakenly automatically translated it to an issue I was recently talking about in a class, which is the mandate of increased women figures in history. my argument is that we can assume a built history curriculum is 100% efficient, in that it has the most important figures of history taught in the time allotted. To force in other figures, which are by definition inferior, results in a poorer education.