new california bill.. this is insane

john121

Newbie
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
384
Reaction score
0
Calif. bill would require textbooks include 'gay history'
Apr 12, 2006
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)--A bill that would require California public school textbooks to include "gay history" is making its way through the state legislature, and experts warn it could have an impact nationwide.

The bill, SB 1437, passed a state Senate committee April 4 by a vote of 3-1 and is expected to be debated in the full body in the coming days. It would require textbooks to include "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to the total development of California and the United States."

The bill also changes state law to prohibit teachers from saying anything "adversely" about homosexuality. That in of itself could change the way schools teach about the natural family (mom, dad and children).

The bill specifically is aimed at the social sciences -- which includes history -- but presumably could have an even wider reach.

"It's blatantly one-sided and would portray homosexuality, through curriculum in the schools, as mainstream," Lynne Fishel, spokesperson for the California Family Council, told Baptist Press. "It would end any open discussion about the issue of homosexuality in the public classroom."

The fear among conservatives is that if the bill becomes law, it could influence the content of textbooks in other states. California is the nation's largest textbook purchaser.

"As they say, 'As California goes, so goes the nation,’" Fishel said.

Just last year, the California Senate and Assembly, both controlled by Democrats, passed a bill that would have legalized "gay marriage." But it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has yet to take a public position on the latest bill.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the homosexual group Equality California, applauded the committee for advancing the bill.

“Current California law recognizes the importance of teaching about a variety of people and groups that contribute to our diverse society," Kors said in a statement. "Adding the important contributions of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and individuals is in keeping with that educational goal.”

But the Campaign for Children and Families, a California-based pro-family group, argues that the bill could mean the end of "kings" and "queens" during homecoming and prom week as well as sex-specific sports such as boys and girls basketball. The bill says that "no teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion." That part of the bill, CCF says, could result in homosexuals and transsexuals arguing that sex-specific sports, as well as homecoming "kings" and "queens," are "discriminatory."

"There’s no mistaking that the California Department of Education will use SB 1437 to erase all traditional distinctions of gender or sexual standards," a statement on CCF's website states.

Said Fishel, of the California Family Council, "This bill legitimizes the pro-homosexual viewpoint and negates any traditional views of family. While it's shrouded in an anti-discrimination tolerance bill, it's really discriminatory against people of faith, who would question homosexuality as a behavior.

"It elevates homosexuals and transgenders into the category of men, women, blacks, Hispanics and other culture and ethnic groups.... I wasn't aware that we call out sexual orientation when we're teaching history. That would be very new for our kids," Fishel said.
 
This is Very Wrong!!! Shame on you California, This makes me angry i cant even talk right now.
 
Replace the word 'gay' with the word 'black' or 'female'.

Would you still feel the same way?
 
^What he said.

I can't see any problem with this.

Also, this should be in Politics.
 
and? are they not entitled to be included in history? should a few closed minded individuals negate any impact homosexuals may have had on the history of california just because of personal bias? A lot of legal precedents that affected america in positive ways stemed from the gay rights movement in california ..should that be erased because some people find their choice of partner morally reprehensible? ...the day these sort of stories arent reported will be a good day indeed
 
Mr.Magnetichead said:
Replace the word 'gay' with the word 'black' or 'female'.

Would you still feel the same way?
you don't choose to be black, white, female, male.. well.. i guess you could choose to be male or female, but my point is you choose this lifestyle. would it matter any if Alexander Graham Bell was gay? no, it wouldn't. he would still be the great inventor even if he liked women, men, cats, dogs or aliens. it would be like saying, "oh, he's wearing RED pants! well, THAT makes a difference!"

and to answer your question, i am not racist at all against women, blacks, yellows, blues, gays, transvestites, or lesbians... all i'm saying is that a person's sexual preferences have nothing to do with a person's accomplishments
 
I actually have to side against this one too. I'm against requirements of this sort as a rule, regardless of what they're about because they usually just end up causing problems and stupid controversy.

I do think we should encourage (not require) educators to include gay aspects of history.
 
Mr.Magnetichead said:
Replace the word 'gay' with the word 'black' or 'female'.

Would you still feel the same way?
Precisely. Makes perfect sense to me.
That "pro-family" group is, I think, getting a bit hot-under-the-collar without due cause. The word "could" was used so lavishly in that article.
john121 said:
you don't choose to be black, white, female, male.. well.. i guess you could choose to be male or female, but my point is you choose this lifestyle. would it matter any if Alexander Graham Bell was gay? no, it wouldn't.
No, you don't "choose" to be gay. Most gay people are gay because that's who they are and that's who they've always felt like.
As for whether it matters whetyher an inventor etc was gay - no, of course it doesn't, but I imagine the teaching aspect would be more on the rise in gay rights, etc. in the same way that people learn about the end to slavery and the suffragette movement.
 
john121 said:
you don't choose to be black, white, female, male.. well.. i guess you could choose to be male or female, but my point is you choose this lifestyle. would it matter any if Alexander Graham Bell was gay? no, it wouldn't. he would still be the great inventor even if he liked women, men, cats, dogs or aliens. it would be like saying, "oh, he's wearing RED pants! well, THAT makes a difference!"

you dont choose to be gay just like you dont choose to be heterosexual

john121 said:
and to answer your question, i am not racist at all against women, blacks, yellows, blues, gays, transvestites, or lesbians... all i'm saying is that a person's sexual preferences have nothing to do with a person's accomplishments


nor does their race? Martin Luther king jr probably would have been unknown today were he born white.
 
The bill, SB 1437, passed a state Senate committee April 4 by a vote of 3-1 and is expected to be debated in the full body in the coming days. It would require textbooks to include "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to the total development of California and the United States."

If this is saying that all textbooks should place emphasis on the sexuality of inventors or politicians for no other reason then political correctness, there is no way you can defend that as sane.

If it's adding gay rights movements and their history into history courses at schools i have no problem with this. Studying black civil rights a couple of years back was informative and provided a lot of historical debate.
 
but why would anyone think this is to force sexual orientation of individual people to the history books ...this is about honouring their contributions to the history of california, nothing more
 
look at Ellen DeGeneres, is she a good comedian? I think so. Is she any more funny or less funny that she is gay? no, i dont think so at all.. i feel she's right up there with Jerry Seinfeld actually. My point is this.. sexual preference has no bearing on accomplishments.
 
Mr.Magnetichead said:
Replace the word 'gay' with the word 'black' or 'female'.

Would you still feel the same way?
Yes. It doesn't matter whether the person was gay, straight, black, white, etc. etc. etc.
It. Doesn't. Matter.

As long as we are acknowledging and showing off the differences, people will continue to be treated differently.
This flies in the face of the concept that we should ignore each others differences, and unite as one.
I doubt even you liberals can argue with this one.
 
MiccyNarc said:
Yes. It doesn't matter whether the person was gay, straight, black, white, etc. etc. etc.
It. Doesn't. Matter.

As long as we are acknowledging and showing off the differences, people will continue to be treated differently.
This flies in the face of the concept that we should ignore each others differences, and unite as one.
I doubt even you liberals can argue with this one.

yes we can ..very effectively in fact. Martin luther king ..does it matter that he was black? I'd like to see you argue that it doesnt
 
CptStern said:
yes we can ..very effectively in fact. Martin luther king ..does it matter that he was black? I'd like to see you argue that it doesnt
What if a white man led the civil rights movement? :rolleyes:
You're treating people differently based on skin color and sexual orientation.
I thought we were supposed to ignore those differences.
 
Wow, as long as people look at each other differently, there will never be peace.

Why can't history just be history?

Instead of gay history and black history, why not include all the subjects in one term...?

I'm obviously not saying that black history etc should be excluded, but be taught in the same subject... stop spiltting things up, or people will never be treated as equals.
 
MiccyNarc said:
What if a white man led the civil rights movement? :rolleyes:
You're treating people differently based on skin color and sexual orientation.
I thought we were supposed to ignore those differences.

stop twisting my words and answer the question ..a white person couldnt have led the civil rights movement just like a man couldnt lead the suffragette movement


Shodan said:
Wow, as long as people look at each other differently, there will never be peace.

Why can't history just be history?

Instead of gay history and black history, why not include all the subjects in one term...?

I'm obviously not saying that black history etc should be excluded, but be taught in the same subject... stop spiltting things up, or people will never be treated as equals.

shodan this has nothing to do with identifying sexual preference ..it's about recognising gay rights accomplishments, nothing more, nothing less ..just like black history is about recognising black history, or spanish history, or indian history, or whathaveyou
 
stop twisting my words and answer the question ..a white person couldnt have led the civil rights movement just like a man couldnt lead the suffragette movement
Why the hell not?
And you're ignoring my point anyway.
 
By the time all these people are done, we won't know anything about history except for the stuff happening since 1900's on... cause all this 'new' stuff will push all the old critical stuff out of the way.
 
MiccyNarc said:
Why the hell not?

you're not listening ..he couldnt lead the movement because he doesnt represent it, not physically, not ideologically, he has no personal stake in the movement. Again I dont think Martin Luther King would have been remembered had he been white ..he just wouldnt/couldnt have the same resonance within the black community

MiccyNarc said:
And you're ignoring my point anyway.

which is?


there is only one reason why anyone would oppose this bill ..homophobia (ok I can fully understand that misunderstanding of motivations is the biggest factor for our members rather than homophobia) ..the bill is clearly designed to incorporate gay civil rights history into the history books, no gay agenda to rewrite history to be more politically correct exists yet some people automatically leap to that conclusion which begs the question as to why
 
Jesus.

Peoples sexual orrientation has played a massive part in history. People have been executed for it. People have died for their beliefs for such a cause, surely that is worth teaching.
 
CptStern said:
shodan this has nothing to do with identifying sexual preference ..it's about recognising gay rights accomplishments, nothing more, nothing less ..just like black history is about recognising black history, or spanish history, or indian history, or whathaveyou

I know, I can appreciate that, what I'm saying is, that people shouldn't be split up into groups like black history, gay history etc, it should all be considered as history, that way, it is more equal, but it is not removing anyones identity.
 
Solaris said:
Jesus.

Peoples sexual orrientation has played a massive part in history. People have been executed for it. People have died for their beliefs for such a cause, surely that is worth teaching.

A massive part? Are you telling me homosexual orientation has shifted the events of world history in the past?
 
Raziaar said:
A massive part? Are you telling me homosexual orientation has shifted the events of world history in the past?
Well yes. If the people who were important in history were all gay, quite alot of them would have been executed/imprisoned. But that's not the point I'm making.

My point is the gay rights movement has some great history, theirs lessons in that history that are very important, like accepting people for who they are, giving people freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't stop the freedom of another, being acceepting and open minded. This sort of stuff isn't understood by alot of students, besides it's big history and thus should be taught.
 
As long as it doesn't take time away from the more critical areas of history, I'm all for it.
 
Shodan said:
I know, I can appreciate that, what I'm saying is, that people shouldn't be split up into groups like black history, gay history etc, it should all be considered as history, that way, it is more equal, but it is not removing anyones identity.

I agree ...100 - 200 years from now, but we still need it today ..with this sort of ideology just sitting on the brink of entering into mainstream consciousness we need to protect people's rights and reword our laws to better protect them. When hate based on gender/sexual preference/colour of skin etc becomes the fringe minority then we can begin to change our language to better reflect individuality rather than as a descriptives based on physical attributes
 
It's wrong to exclude people from history becuase they are gay, but it is wrong to include them for being gay.

And it's stupid for society to allow orientation to be a social attribute, like religion it should be completly seperate from society.
 
Mr Stabby said:
It's wrong to exclude people from history becuase they are gay, but it is wrong to include them for being gay.


but that's not the case here, they're not included because they're gay, they're included because they played a role in gay rights history ..the fact that they are gay is immaterial excepting if it were biographical history
 
The age at which this is taught would be the most concerning to me.
 
Sainku said:
The age at which this is taught would be the most concerning to me.
Why. Alot of people relise they are gay as a child, and are riddiculed.
The children are more likely to find homosexuality more acceptable if they are taught it from a younger age.
 
Solaris said:
Why. Alot of people relise they are gay as a child, and are riddiculed.
The children are more likely to find homosexuality more acceptable if they are taught it from a younger age.

Most children cannot even find heterosexuality acceptable at a young age. :rolleyes:
 
Sainku said:
The age at which this is taught would be the most concerning to me.


I havent been to nursery school lately but do they teach history? how about elemantary school?

what about black history? or the suffragettes? should that be taught to impressionable kids? what exactly are you afraid of? that they might talk about homosexuals in details?

Raziaar said:
Most children cannot even find heterosexuality acceptable at a young age. :rolleyes:

wrong, most kids accept it without questioning because they dont understand sexuality so it's not a big deal to them, ..no it's their parents who influence their beliefs, but it doesnt come natually to kids
 
Most kids at a young age are NOT interested in sexuality. I can't tell you how many kids i've seen not associate with the opposite sex because of the whole 'cootie' syndrome.
 
it's not that they're not interested in it, it's more that they dont understand it so they're disinterested
 
Kids at certain ages see everything in an extremely simplistic way. Gay intolerance is just a very harsh subject for kids who don't even know what a sexual preferance is. And I wouldn't want to see the subject simplified. I can't imagine watching a teacher trying to teach about intolerance, oppression, the whole concept of sexual prefrences and everything else to 40 ten year olds all in some kind of gay history month. Tying it in with other subjects would be much more effective than having textbooks include a gay history chapter.
 
since when do 8 year olds study history to that level of detail? and gay oppression cant even compare to the the black experience in america which is taught in schools
 
CptStern said:
since when do 8 year olds study history to that level of detail? and gay oppression cant even compare to the the black experience in america which is taught in schools

That was unrealisticly young, I edited it. I was about 10 before we started going into any sort of detail about it.
 
Why can't we wait until 10 years of age before we start thrusting sex on the young people?

I swear to god, everything is about sex these days. Sex is great, but why do kids gotta learn about all that shit before the age of 10? Let them spend some time being kids for christs sake.
 
I guess theres alot of gay people out there but here there isnt really and its not that big of a deal.
 
Back
Top