CA Schools Curriculum: Inclusive of Historical Accomplishments of Gay Men & Lesbians

[Donjeta]

It's not telling them they exist that bothers me.

It's teaching them that it's a good thing.

Not everybody thinks it is.

This should be left up to the parents.

Is it not? As far as I can tell the legislation that was quoted above does not say that children are to be specifically taught that it is a good thing to be gay. The bill says that the students are to be told of the contributions and the role of LGBT people in the development of the society and that the schools should adopt no instruction or materials that promote discrimination based on a number of characteristics including sexual orientation. IMO parents can still tell their children whatever they like about their moral stance on homosexual orientation, both before and after their children are told about some people who happened to be gay contributing something and read some books that refrain from stating that it is a bad thing to be gay.

 

[Nova]

Will they include bad gay people in the history classes? There are a lot of bad people in our history books.

Just wondering since this was marketed as a way to stop bullying.

I'm sure they already do. But now when they teach J. Edgar Hoover they can also mention that he was gay. I'm sure the kids will appreciate the irony just as the rest of us do. Ditto Roy Cohn.

Will there be a special unit on the subject, Bad Gay People Through History? Probably not.

 

[Donjeta]

It's not the history of California exactly but I remember being told about some pretty horrible Roman emperors with homosexual lovers.

 

[Nova]

It's the all let's change it, we'll define it broadly and hope for the best, when our schools are already having a hard time teaching the basics.

From your specific remarks in the same post, I think you want any change to be a perfect solution. No, taxing the rich fairly won't pay for endless wars in the Middle East, but it'd be a start toward balancing the budget.

Likewise, reasonable people can disagree as to what should be taught when. But this law is intended to rectify the complete omission of queer people from history.

And Harry Hays is a rather inspiring example of how one person can make a difference. His Mattachine Society looked like tilting at windmills in the 1950s, but look what it inspired! Within a little over half a century, we have gay marriage in many states.

Isn't that our basic, national narrative, that one person can change the entire country? There's no reason not to teach Hays in middle or high school; but on the other hand, the law doesn't require any school to do so.

You keep saying people will be taught "just because they are gay," but that's not what the law says. The law specifically talks about people (gay, disabled, etc.) who have made contributions to history.

 

[Nova]

BBM - Then you could simply not opt out.

I do want the choice to opt out.

But, I have a long time before I have to worry about it. Thank God I don't live in California.

I just feel for the other parents who have NO CHOICE in the matter.

Do I get to "opt out" my children from lessons about the Pilgrims? They were rather famous religious bigots. I want my children to believe religious intolerance never existed in the Americas and wasn't a factor in the founding of my country.

 

[Nova]

I am not saying the subject is unmentionable. I just don't think it should be at a young age. I also don't see the point in labeling anyone. That's my whole issue with this. Not that someone is gay.
For my five year old I think it's too young. For my nine year old, knowing about gay people is more acceptable.
What I meant about the innocence was not about the gay thing, it was about the young age of the child they want to start teaching all of this to.

Thanks, brandi. I realized in your later posts that I had read that first post of yours more harshly than you intended it.

 

[Nova]

I've tried to avoid it. I really have because I do care about how everyone feels.

I'm just tired of being called a bigot because of my beliefs.

Then isn't it fortunate that you can choose to be a bigot or not? You can even choose to be a Christian or not.

Gay people don't get to "opt out" of being gay. They just get to learn to be comfortable in their own skins or live sad lives carefully hiding their feelings out of fear. (Learning to accept who you are is a little easier once you learn there are other people like you in the world.)

As for your rights, nobody can stop you from teaching your children whatever you want to teach them. You know that.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Do I get to "opt out" my children from lessons about the Pilgrims? They were rather famous religious bigots. I want my children to believe religious intolerance never existed in the Americas and wasn't a factor in the founding of my country.

They were no more bigots as anyone else.

By you calling them bigots, you are being intolerant to their beliefs and opinions. That is the definition of a bigot.

I guess we are ALL bigots.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Then isn't it fortunate that you can choose to be a bigot or not? You can even choose to be a Christian or not.

Gay people don't get to "opt out" of being gay. They just get to learn to be comfortable in their own skins or live sad lives carefully hiding their feelings out of fear. (Learning to accept who you are is a little easier once you learn there are other people like you in the world.)

As for your rights, nobody can stop you from teaching your children whatever you want to teach them. You know that.

But it's not the state's job!!!!

That's my point!

Classes on bullying is a great idea. Those who bully should be punished.

I assure you nobody in my house is a bully.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm sure they already do. But now when they teach J. Edgar Hoover they can also mention that he was gay. I'm sure the kids will appreciate the irony just as the rest of us do. Ditto Roy Cohn.

Will there be a special unit on the subject, Bad Gay People Through History? Probably not.

There shouldn't be a special unit AT ALL based on sexual orientation.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

From dictionary.com

bigot
- noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

There are several here that are utterly intolerant of my belief or opinion because it differs from yours.

I'm not intolerant of your belief or opinion, I just don't want it shoved down my children's throats.

 

[southcitymom]

I am a Christian, and I do not feel this way. There are lots of different types of Christians. There are probably some gay families that have children that are Christian, too. Since I am a Gay Christian I will mention I had a straight friend in High School that was raised by two Dads and they attended a gay-affirming Baptist church unaffiliated with The Southern Baptist Convention--that is one example that comes off the top of my head at the moment.

"There are millions of Christians in America"--I am quoting not to be snarky, but because I do not want to go back and edit the post, sorry--I agree, but not all of them subscribe to your type of Christianity. I am not saying that you are a bigot, but I do not think that just because someone is a Christian, that they should automatically be lumped into all the other Christians that would not support this new legislation.

Just wanted to reiterate that plenty of Christians don't believe the Bible condemns homosexuality in any way, shape or form (mainly because it doesn't - though I do understand how some of its verses could be interpreted otherwise). My church (Episcopalian) has at least two gay bishops.

The Bible was used for years to condone slavery and deny rights to people who were considered less than, and we're still using it to separate those we consider less than. If the history of world religion proves anything, it's that mankind will use their religious texts to condone all manner of nonsense and evil.

In any event, some religious (and the particular religion doesn't matter) beliefs ARE bigoted.

Christians who continue to use a few verses from the Old Testament to call certain human beings's most personal relationships inherently sinful (while ignoring GOBS of other verses about "sinful" behavior in that same Old Testament....I mean, my Lord, why aren't Christians who think this way NOT picketing Red Lobster left and right) have no interest in attracting people to Christ's message.

Christianity is based, one may fairly assume, on the teachings of Christ (His name's right there in the name for the religion) and he didn't have one single word to say about homosexuality.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

And many do.

Like I've said in a post above, WS does not allow religious debates. So, I'm very limited in my conversation on the subject of my faith.

I can say the above post has MANY offensive points in it.
And it has many bigoted statements in it.

This member of "mankind" has no evil in her. Just because our faith based beliefs are different does not make either of us "right".

 

[Donjeta]

JMO and MOO, just disagreeing with someone in and of itself does not constitute intolerance of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

 

[Charlie09]

Just wanted to reiterate that plenty of Christians don't believe the Bible condemns homosexuality in any way, shape or form (mainly because it doesn't - though I do understand how some of its verses could be interpreted otherwise). My church (Episcopalian) has at least two gay bishops.

The Bible was used for years to condone slavery and deny rights to people who were considered less than, and we're still using it to separate those we consider less than. If the history of world religion proves anything, it's that mankind will use their religious texts to condone all manner of nonsense and evil.

In any event, some religious (and the particular religion doesn't matter) beliefs ARE bigoted.

Christians who continue to use a few verses from the Old Testament to call certain human beings's most personal relationships inherently sinful (while ignoring GOBS of other verses about "sinful" behavior in that same Old Testament....I mean, my Lord, why aren't Christians who think this way NOT picketing Red Lobster left and right) have no interest in attracting people to Christ's message.

Christianity is based, one may fairly assume, on the teachings of Christ (His name's right there in the name for the religion) and he didn't have one single word to say about homosexuality.

So this is to the Mods - are we allowed to talk about religion fairly or is it just potshots at Christianity that is allowed?

 

[Kimster]

I had a feeling this would turn into a religious debate. :waiting:

No, we cannot turn this into a "Christians are bigots" issue. Or a "Muslims are bigots" issue or anything else.

Please state your opinions without religion as a basis of fact. Thank you.