A bill is being considered by the state Senate that would mandate that California's schools teach about the pro-societal impact of homosexuals in America. Opponents say this bill is for indoctrination and supporters say it will battle discrimination.
California is the largest buyer of school books in the United States and as a result, will set the trend for other schools around the country. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may have to make a decision on this controversial bill soon.
Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat from Los Angeles, wrote the proposed bill and she touts research that indicates that children may have better lives in response to this indoctrination.
This is fine by me, I do not think the Capital Resource Institute, who "believes teaching about sexual orientation should be left up to parents," has a leg to stand on. Details such as religious affiliation and race are already commonplace in history. Are these always relevant to the material? No, but they are included to better familiarize us with the people who shaped history. Sexual orientation is no more unrelated, frivolous, or threatening than any of these details. Ms. England's states, "If we're discussing history, who someone had sex with is inappropriate. I don't think most Californians want history and social sciences taught through the lens of who in history slept with whom." It always says a lot about where a person is coming from on this issue when they obviously consider homosexuality to be all about sex. Sorry lady, but your prejudices aside there is no reason to not include this information amidst the myriad of other colorful details in the tapestry of history.
Too many homosexuals are running in politics...I'm sure if we had more straight ones there would be less trouble with things like this. Not that anything is wrong with homosexuality but that is just the case here. You can't tell me there isn't someone up there who is either gay, lesbian, or has a dear close friend of such sexuality that hasn't tried to push their personal beliefs into society.
" You can't tell me there isn't someone up there who is either gay, lesbian, or has a dear close friend of such sexuality that hasn't tried to push their personal beliefs into society."
It's a conspiracy I tells ya, the gays are gonna get us!!
Someone trying to advocate beliefs in Washington? Gads!
How about we worry about the rich white guys trying to push their beliefs (and financial interests) on society, then worry about people trying to humanize homosexuality? The latter are a wee-bit outnumbered.
Kids don't even know their own countries history, much less world history. Most kid can't even name the vice president or their local congressman. What a farce by the far left homosexuals to force their views down everyones throats.
I have zero preoblem with this being an elective in college, forcing people to learn Gay History, whatever the hell that is, is just plain wrong.
If a gay person made a significant contribution to history, they should be in a normal history book because of their actions, not because they are gay.
oh give me a break.if this is not a agenda i dont know what is.eh arnold dont let them have one inch or they will take a mile.boo poor chirldren need protection from peoples sexual agenda............
understand it, they are not saying there should be a special course on gay history. It seems to me that they simply want the sexual orientation of historically significant people to be mentioned.
This seems to be on par with Affirmative Action. By instituting a class like this they would be further promoting discrimination, not abolishing it
"If a gay person made a significant contribution to history, they should be in a normal history book because of their actions, not because they are gay." Liberaliminator has the right idea there.
A class like this would open the gates for further idiotic classes (I'll refrain from making a bad analogy here). I'm assuming this is for high schools but the source is rather ambigious in that area. I have no porblem with such a class, but it belongs at a college level, as an elective course.
I just don't think sexual orientation matters. So Alexander The Great liked guys? Bah it doesn't make one bit of difference (to me). He was still one of the greatest conquers of all time.
Liberaliminator has a point but it is clouded by the evil "wiberals" bit. Its fine to include if it’s just "oh yeah and he/she was homosexual". But why make that the main part of the story. And why is this in the state senate? Seems like a school board matter.
@Liberaliminator “What a farce by the far left homosexuals to force their views down everyones throats.” Yes and “the right” just minds their own beeswax? God I wish!
Can you stop sacrificing the truth and trumping up the events for the sake of YOUR agendas?
"The bill, which was passed by a Senate committee Tuesday, would require schools to buy textbooks 'accurately' portraying 'the sexual diversity of our society.' More controversially, it could require that students hear history lessons on 'the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.'"
This is not a class, it is simply a measure mandating that textbooks not closet historical figures. How is accurately portraying a historical figure an "agenda?" How do you rationalize sheltering kids from facts? If parents want to do this, they should homeschool so they can screw up their kids however they like. Finally, Liberaliminator, no one is proposing putting people into the history books because they are gay - put the strawman away. These people are already in the books, this is simply about including an often-overlooked detail in their lives. Maybe if such details were included, people would not have such a warped view of homosexuality, such as idiots who declare in all sincerity that gays have never contributed anything to society.
Fine, as long as you state all historical figures sexual preference as gay, straight, beast lovers, etc. We can add extra chapers to text books so kids learn even less and are even more stupid then they are now.
You are wrong, it is because they are gay that they would be in a text book..
Quote from the source article: "...it could require that students hear history lessons on ``the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.''...
That sure sounds to me like they are saying that including their gender is important instead of their contributions to ALL of society, not just the gays.
State whatever you like about whoever you like, so long as it is factual. Frankly, I do not see how changing "Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great" to "bisexual Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great" is going to greatly eat up valuable class time. Why would extra chapters be needed for this? There really is not much on which to elaborate. The only people suggesting that a huge deal is to be made of it are the opponents. This seems to be another one of those little pebbles making giant waves.
Regarding that sentence, am I supposed to be alarmed that a whole lesson could be devoted to this topic? You're grasping at straws. How one minority or another shaped history is a perfectly valid foundation for a lesson and nothing new. As far as your interpretation of the sentence, this does not mean they have to dig up unremarkable people to do such a lesson, because there are plenty of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered people already in the books.
I see his point... why would we say "bisexual Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great" when we don't say "The great Hetrosexual leader George Washington".
Seems fair that we don't point them out as gay or bisexual, when we don't do that for straight people. Now if them being gay plays into the history, like if alexander had my peace with a nation by taking a gay lover, I agree, mention it, but otherwise, leave it out.
he did 'balh' and he is straight. so whoy shoud they say now, he did 'blah' and he was gay? It confuses me in a way. Also its open to outright lies. The greeks flat out deny alexander was gay. some say there is no doubt he was. Yet no one knows 100% because they are all dead. Who will be making the decision if someone was gay or not? Could someones relatives sue, if they were marked as gay yet they actually we not? Kinda seems like a pointless exercise. What about people who were gay but no one who wrote the history knew? So they are portraid as straight? History is already full of enough errors depending on what books you read. Dont fark it up further.
T: We point out a lot of life details as points of interest, to better flesh out who the person was whether or not it directly relates to why they were famous. As previously mentioned, we mention race and religious preference, why not sexual orientation? It's not mentioned for straight individuals because a heterosexual preference is assumed, so it is hardly notable. We do not refer to "The great White leader George Washington," but we do refer to "The great Black statesman Frederick Douglass." Minority affiliations often denote personal challenges or at very least add life to the character.
Liberaliminator is right that, in a perfect world, we would not need the government rule on educational content. This, however, is not a perfect world.
S: The same argument can be made of any aspect of history, and I suppose if we reported nothing at all, it would be perfect. The South as a WHOLE greatly objects to accounts of the Civil War, so let's just not cover that. Some people deny the Holocaust happened, so let's just skip that because they disagree. The best we can do with history is to report what is widely thought to be the truth, and the source notes that in a few cases this may be an issue. Obviously they are ready to deal with that, and a misreported sexual preference is hardly the end of the world.
You seem to be going against your libertarian beliefs here...
While sexuality and other personal details may add flavour and character to historical figures, it should not be mandated rather encouraged.
Is the "perfect world" argument an attempt to turn you position into one of pragmatism? Because as I see it, it is neither pragmatic nor idealistic. (liberal ideals that is.)
In the vast majority of cases, I don't see the relevance of pointing out who was gay and who was straight.
As Tellgar said, IF being gay contributed directly to whatever historical action a person might be noted for, then fine, it should be included. If the history book wants to theorize that a person did such-and-such because they were gay, and they can back that theory with some evidence, then fine. For example, homosexuality in Hilter’s 3rd Reich is a topic worthy of discussion. Of course the sword cuts both ways here, and you’ll end up with bible-thumping types claiming homosexuality was a root cause to the social degradation of pre-war Germany.
But in general I don't think you can compare being black to being gay in a social discrimination context. Not unless you are dealing solely with the modern era, then I think the levels of discrimination are about equal, albeit in vastly different ways.
Notable black figures out of history have their, er.. blackness? noted because they hail from a time where blacks were severely oppressed. George Washington Carver, Fredrick Jones, Madame Walker, Daniel Hale Williams – all big names in black history, and for good reason. They rose to the tops of their fields despite being born in a time where blacks were completely unequal members of society. Unless you care to suggest that gays have faced the same level of discrimination as blacks did 150 years ago, you can’t really compare the two.
Post 1950, you don’t really see much note of famous blacks outside the civil liberties movement. I think this is because by this time, by and large blacks are no longer as oppressed – they have access to the same educational opportunities (on paper at least) as any other American. They aren’t being regarded as being sub-human of sub-intellect, they aren’t worth 2/3 a vote, etc. About the only time I see black as being relevant anymore is when the black person also comes from ghettos. As in “so-and-so was born to a family on 116th Street, New York.” If such a person rises above the crime, destitute, and poverty of such an area to become a meaningful contributor to society (gangsta rappers need not apply =P), then it’s worth noting, not so much for them having been black, but that they managed to overcome the typically crippling obstacles in their path.
For a black to rise to the equivalence of a white in any field prior to the early 1900’s was truly remarkable and I think worthy of historical note. I can’t say the same for gays in history. It seems to me it’s only been the last couple of decades where being gay even seems to have been a hot-button issue in this country. I don’t know if it’s revisionist history or not, but in the history books I read in high school it seems to me that America was a lot more tolerant of openly gay people in the 1920’s than they are today. Or maybe everyone was so busy hating the blacks that they forgot to hate the gays, I dunno.
Either way, the only reason I would see in pointing out the sexuality of historical figures is in schools where anti-gay sentiments run high or to kids that are caught expressing anti-gay sentiments on campus. Set them up in lessons that highlight the contributions of famous gays throughout history, like *insert Greek figure here*, Alexander the Great, Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo (not the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles =P), Fredrick the Great, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, John Maynard Keynes, etc. Point out that nearly all of the samurai that today’s Japanophile youth are so enamored with were encouraged to partake in homosexual affairs.
Anyhoo, that’s just my opinion. As a Californiaite, revamping school books to be more “diverse” is one of my pet peeves. Diversity is great, don’t get me wrong, but there are only so many hours in the day to cram information into young, impressionable minds. The more time we have to spend on “diversity” topics to meet some sort of diversity quota, the less time we have to spend on other, comparatively more important subjects.
I’d even go so far as to say that curriculum should be tailored to better relate to the audience – i.e. in predominantly Latino schools, go out of your way to include notable Latinos in some lesson plans. In predominantly black schools, go out of you way to include famous blacks, etc. In general instilling some racial pride is a good thing for minorities I think, but should be done on a case-by-case basis. Pointing out influential Chinese figures to a class in Harlem isn’t the best use of time IMO. Likewise, pointing out sexual orientation to students where there isn’t a discrimination problem seems to be a waste of time.
Very good point about the schools. Last time I checked, California was 49th in education. We are already behind far enough, changing more is just gonna hurt even more kids.
i didnt read the source so forgive my ignorance but is this advocates the teaching of the gay culture in America much like 'black history' then that's ok ONLY if it doesnt turn into some stupid "we love homos" thing.
It is a fact that gays have struggled with the stupidity from the right from te begining of AMerican history, and that should be noted along with any other civil rights struggle, but I don't want to see this turn into a "gay people are special" thing.
for behaviour is past behaviour." bear with me in a little foolishness:
so some figures in authority were gay as recorded by history, maybe whole cities were gay(if we choose to consider a biblical source, i.e Sodom and Gomorrah) then i would imagine that a bill was passed with consequences banishing gays into the closet...skip some hundreds of years... now gays come out of closet and compulsory buying of gay-friendly history is put into place... skip another hundreds of years... complete chaos as heterosexuals go into the closet awaiting a bill to teach heterosexual friendly history so they can come out of the closet.
for behaviour is past behaviour." bear with me in a little foolishness:
so some figures in authority were gay as recorded by history, maybe whole cities were gay(if we choose to consider a biblical source, i.e Sodom and Gomorrah) then i would imagine that a bill was passed with consequences banishing gays into the closet...skip some hundreds of years... now gays come out of closet and compulsory buying of gay-friendly history is put into place... skip another hundreds of years... complete chaos as heterosexuals go into the closet awaiting a bill to teach heterosexual friendly history so they can come out of the closet.
It is not a good idea to make an entire class dedicated to a certain group of people. I personally support gay rights, but i do not like that idea. I agree, however, that many important leaders and events relating to gay history should be included in the u.s. history curriculum, which it will be more relevant as the gay rights movement ties in with the civil rights movement is some ways. Students should be taught about the stonewall riots and other important events which led to the advancement in some ways of homosexuals. Teaching events like the stonewall riots not only informs a student about gay history, but it helps further the knowledge of the many ideas and movements that occured and began during the 1960s. This is why i believe gay history should be integrated as part of u.s. history in high schools, but should not have an entire course.
a little divisive. What is next? Left Handed History Month? Manic Depressive History Month? Nudist History Month? To hell with month, if we keep creating cubby holes in which to further categorize historical figures we are going to have Black History Day because of a lack of time. If we continue to make a big deal out of our differences, how will we ever recognize our commonalities. How can we build a color blind society when everytime something bad happens we must identify the race of those involved?
It seems to be very hard for the anti-gay crowd to accept the fact that many important persons in our history were gay. It appears to interfere with their comfort zone to know that a gay person may have had a hand in shaping their life. That is what this exercise in education is putting in their face. Point in question: A few years ago I was taking a college econ course. At the end of the days lecture the college professor was lecturing about John Kinsey, the father of modern economics. I was shocked when he closed his lecture with this statement, “I couldn’t believe it when I found out that John Kinsey was a faggot, a goddamn fudge packer.” This earned him a grievance and a public apology to the class. The head of student affairs actually tried to defend his actions saying, “Professors have a lot of lee way on what they say in class”. After asking for two grievances he started back peddling very quickly. As the IT person for the Student Union I either saw first hand or heard about many such attacks by the administration and faculty on the gay community. I often had to wonder what country I was in.
While I support and commend the effort, I’m not sure a country so filled with hate is ready for this. When “good Christians” choose to listen to Christ instead of Ayatollah Falwell or Ayatollah Robertson and bury the hate this idea may come of age. Do I condone teaching “Who’s Who in Gay History”, no, but I see no problem letting students know that it takes all types to make the world go round. If this class lowers the “hate factor” that is a good thing. In the 50’s (not all that long ago) white kids in the south couldn’t even imagine having a black kid in their school. Now they don’t even think twice about it. Well the gays have been there all along, it is just that no one wanted to know about it. Get used to it people, they are not going to go away and maybe someday your son or daughter may come up to you and say, “I’m gay”, what are you going to do then? 10% of the population is gay, next time you are walking down the street start counting people you pass, 1,2,3,4…8,9,GAY! By the time you get to work you will be laughing your ass off….until you realize you are surrounded by gays. Well it didn’t bother you before you knew so why should it make any difference now? Just one more point to ponder, gay people don’t breed, they come from straight people, so the mere existence of gay people is the result of straight people breeding. YOU CAUSED GAY! If you really hate gays, stop breeding. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
That is just the point. To me it doesn’t matter. I have no hatred of gays. The people that may benefit from this are those that still harbor these feeling of hate and need to realize that there are gays all around them whether they know it or not. When they find out one of their co-workers is gay why all of the sudden do they ostracize them? They are the same person, nothing really has changed. The purpose of this exercise is to let students know that gays are just people and some of them are famous, leaders, inventors, or statesmen, and that realization may help them to loose the hate. “Gay” will no longer hold sway over their fragile ego, it will loose its derogatory meaning. They will learn that even gays helped build and shape the world we live in today. Gays will just be people to them and that is all gays really want, just to be people with the same rights and privileges as anyone else. The white kids in Southern schools no longer question the rights of black kids to attend the same schools. Why? Because they grew up knowing nothing different and the extreme hate that is evident in integration films from the 60’s no longer exists.
Personally I don't think the people of the USA are smart enough to handle this. They will have to prove me wrong and I sincerly hope they do.
Jendres: "You seem to be going against your libertarian beliefs here..."
Not at all - the government already has full control of education, so I expect and accept they are going to be manipulating it. Mandating and encouraging are synonymous in this regard.
"Is the "perfect world" argument an attempt to turn you position into one of pragmatism?"
My position IS one of pragmatism. I completely agree with Tomblik that these special-focus history periods should not exist and I would rather they did not - they DO foster separation in society. But, I am a liberal Libertarian because I do not believe that any pure ideology will ever fully address the needs and circumstances of the real world. The government should be out of our lives as much as possible...but in some cases government intrusion is guaranteed, and in others needed. Libertarisnism does occasionally result in a dropped ball, and that is where I rely on limited liberalism to pick it up. I'll get to that in addressing Dedolito.
"As Tellgar said, IF being gay contributed directly to whatever historical action a person might be noted for, then fine, it should be included."
Ah, but who is to say what motivates us, let alone another person? Who is to say what effect the closeting endured by those famous persons had on their resolve in and dedication to other matters? Being gay should be no big thing, but in the past it has been, and it is that past we are trying to accurately and fully depict.
"But in general I don't think you can compare being black to being gay in a social discrimination context. Not unless you are dealing solely with the modern era, then I think the levels of discrimination are about equal, albeit in vastly different ways."
I could certainly make a case for that in modern times. I also propose this is the case in the past, just not in the traditional sense. Blacks could not hide or deny their skin color, so discrimination presented itself differently to them. Adversity and struggle can come from internal as well as external sources, and both influence character and behavior.
"Either way, the only reason I would see in pointing out the sexuality of historical figures is in schools where anti-gay sentiments run high or to kids that are caught expressing anti-gay sentiments on campus."
You see, I think America as a whole has a problem with this. One of the biggest factors in establishing lessons and months focusing on black/minority history was a rather ethnocentric view of history, presented as something crafted by white men. The same could be said of sexuality and history - shaped by straight white men. Who the person was married to is often mentioned, and that is not always of relevance. If the person was not married or it is not mentioned, it is assumed the person was a lifelong bachelor. Why should this be the case? The fact is that details are often presented which are not relevant to a person's historical significance, and sexuality is one of these things. Often, though, it is omitted if it does not fit the conventional mold ("Person X was married/not married"), leading to a distorted view of the person and the minority's role in history. As I've said, I've heard the argument far too many times that gays have contributed nothing to history. That is why - we are taught about these historical figures from childhood, but selective omissions consistently made lead us to draw certain conclusions not always true. For that reason, I think society could use a little government push in educating itself.
they should be alowed to choose whether or not they wish to study gay history and relegeous studys also. Forcing people to do gay history studies wont make people embrace gayness, i have gay friends but i know for a fact if i were a student and was being forced into gay study i personally would not ever attend class because gayness doesnt intrest me but some people it will which is why the students should have the choice on these lessons
“Ah, but who is to say what motivates us, let alone another person?”
Again, if there is provable historical evidence to support a claim that a person’s sexuality influenced their behavior in a historical manner, then by all means make a lesson out of it. If you don't see a clear-cut 1:1 relationship, it's probably not a primary motivating factor and can be omitted unless delving into an individual's biography beyond simply learning what the individual was notable for.
“Who is to say what effect the closeting endured by those famous persons had on their resolve in and dedication to other matters? Being gay should be no big thing, but in the past it has been, and it is that past we are trying to accurately and fully depict.”
I disagree. It seems to me that only in the modern era, and mostly only in America, is homosexuality a huge taboo subject. Yes, there have always been homophobes throughout history, but it seems to me society in general was much more accepting of it in the past. Or at the very least an ignored facet.
”I could certainly make a case for that in modern times.”
Yes, to the same level of discrimination that other minorities face TODAY. I said as much. But when looking into the past gays were not as an oppressed group as blacks (or other minorities) were.
“Adversity and struggle can come from internal as well as external sources, and both influence character and behavior.”
Maybe, but they are apples and oranges. On the one side you have a people deemed by “modern” science to be sub-human, incapable of civilized or intellectual behavior, treated as property, denied equal opportunity in every facet of life vs a group of people that are not at ease with their mind/bodies and suffer from social consequences due to their sexuality.
Apples. And. Oranges. A black man rising to the top of his scientific field in 1890 is a completely different achievement as a gay man gaining literary renown in 1890. One is worth noting, as the adversity that he overcame was staggering. The other, not so much unless you are delving into his works specifically.
“You see, I think America as a whole has a problem with this.”
I disagree. I think only a small minority of people have prejudice problems severe enough that they require some sensitivity training. They are an extremely vocal, bigoted, hate-filled minority, but a minority nonetheless. We don’t need a broad-spectrum antibody to cure the problem, we need a surgically precise method of attack. If anything I think such broad tactics would serve to further alienate the general population that sit between casual acceptance and prejudiced bigotry.
“The same could be said of sexuality and history - shaped by straight white men.”
Only for the last couple of decades. The needle is too far to the “Right” right now, but a blitz attack that I see this revamp of educational materials shoves it too far to the “Left”. Force-feeding gay history to people won’t make them any more accepting of the lifestyle, and I think it will make them reject it even more strenuously. I think a more subtle approach is required, get people used to thinking in broader terms slowly, not all at once.
“ If the person was not married or it is not mentioned, it is assumed the person was a lifelong bachelor.”
Why would you assume that? I never did.
“The fact is that details are often presented which are not relevant to a person's historical significance, and sexuality is one of these things.”
I don’t follow. First you say that sexuality should be mentioned because it has not been, and now you say that sexuality is presented but is not relevant. I’m guess that’s not what you are trying to say…
“Often, though, it is omitted if it does not fit the conventional mold ("Person X was married/not married"), leading to a distorted view of the person and the minority's role in history.”
Was the fact that Charles Limburg was a Nazi sympathizer important to his historic flight? No. That’s why those facts aren’t taught until a later age, if at all. Usually in the context of the geopolitical situation of the time. Likewise It’s unnecessary to include that Plato himself engaged in homosexual activities when discussing his dissertations on forms of government. On the other hand if you are talking about Greek culture or Plato’s argument for same-sex lover regiments in the Greek army it would be worth noting.
“As I've said, I've heard the argument far too many times that gays have contributed nothing to history.”
I don’t know where you live, but I’ve never heard anyone make that argument. Perhaps YOUR area could use better education, but I don’t think the population as a whole needs it. I think that you attribute mass ignorance to the general population erroneously based on the actions of a small (but vocal) minority of bigots.
In all honesty, nothing will stop racisim and discrimination.
There are too many people out there keeping it alive, and no, I'm not just talking about ones who are actually considered to be racisit or discriminatory, but its the target of which those two hatred items are pointed to.
After all, take a look at what happened to the african american people, the mexican (latino) people, and the asian people or america. Each group has their own method of keeping everyone seperate. Wheather it be a scholarship, a tv station, etc.. etc..
The whole point of it being, racisim and discrimination will not stop unless BOTH SIDES stop it, and wholeheartedly, there are too many bleeding hearts to do that.
"If you don't see a clear-cut 1:1 relationship, it's probably not a primary motivating factor and can be omitted unless delving into an individual's biography beyond simply learning what the individual was notable for."
If you're talking about a one or two sentence note on the person, yes. I am assuming a somewhat extensive look at the person, in which a myriad of facts are included. The assumption that many here are leaping to is that such a detail is to be included into every little blurb, or made into an entire lesson - an alarmist reaction for which I see no justification.
"It seems to me that only in the modern era, and mostly only in America, is homosexuality a huge taboo subject. Yes, there have always been homophobes throughout history, but it seems to me society in general was much more accepting of it in the past. Or at the very least an ignored facet."
Indeed, when it was not spoken of unless perhaps you were an artist, society likely was more "accepting." Once again, I point out that a black person could not hide their color, and that hiding does have an effect on the individual.
"Apples. And. Oranges. A black man rising to the top of his scientific field in 1890 is a completely different achievement as a gay man gaining literary renown in 1890. One is worth noting, as the adversity that he overcame was staggering. The other, not so much unless you are delving into his works specifically."
So, because gay people could be open in art, things must have been OK? I assume you chose an easy example rather than just worked off a stereotype, but that is the slant of history which I disapprove of, as well.
"I disagree. I think only a small minority of people have prejudice problems severe enough that they require some sensitivity training. They are an extremely vocal, bigoted, hate-filled minority, but a minority nonetheless."
We are not talking about sensitivity training and indoctrination here, but including a rather minor detail where space permits. Nor am I talking about raving bigots, but the common person who whose view of history is warped by omission but may not be overtly prejudicial. There is a difference between traditional and modern prejudice - violent antipathies versus passive-aggressive opposition.
"Force-feeding gay history to people won’t make them any more accepting of the lifestyle, and I think it will make them reject it even more strenuously. I think a more subtle approach is required, get people used to thinking in broader terms slowly, not all at once."
Once again, we're not talking about gay history classes and indoctrination programs. Show me where these proposed laws would require this. I think the two of us have very different assumptions of the application of this law.
"Why would you assume [lifelong bachelorhood]? I never did."
A heterosexual preference is the norm, so with the omission of any conflicting details (which bachelorhood is not), people assume a non-marrying heterosexual. Even if you do not think about it, at some point an assumption must be made when the information is assimilated and committed to memory. Why not put that information out in the open?
"First you say that sexuality should be mentioned because it has not been, and now you say that sexuality is presented but is not relevant."
I've said that HETEROSEXUALITY is presented but not relevant, so I see no reason why the alternatives ought not to be presented similarly. If you see a blurb on Washington, most often it will not delve into his marriage/relationships. You would, however, see that in a more lengthy summary. Was that relevant to how he presided as President? How he led as a general? Possibly, possibly not, but it is included because it gives us a more well-rounded view of the person. I've not proposed that sexuality is always relevant, but references are often included - in the case of heterosexuality.
"Was the fact that Charles Limburg was a Nazi sympathizer important to his historic flight? No."
And what was the lifelong imprint on his psyche for this affiliation? How might it have motivated him? A party affiliation is not an integral part of the self, so the answer is "very little," but that is not the case for other details which could be included in a historical account.
"Likewise It’s unnecessary to include that Plato himself engaged in homosexual activities when discussing his dissertations on forms of government."
Hmm, speeches must have been much more interesting back then. Gotta hand it to the Greeks - people must have had far better multitasking abilities.
I don’t know where you live, but I’ve never heard anyone make that argument [that gays have contributed nothing to history]. Perhaps YOUR area could use better education, but I don’t think the population as a whole needs it."
Actually, I was referring to ShortNews (and like-forums before it). I live on the West Coast.
