Teaching Gay History in California

Teaching Gay History in California

There are 12513 comments on the EDGE story from Jul 9, 2011, titled Teaching Gay History in California. In it, EDGE reports that:

California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12834 Jan 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's not a reason to radically change the fundamental social institution of marriage.
What about AIDS? Most AIDS carriers are black AND gay, but it's spreading to other circles because they inter-mingle with women.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12836 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
Of course there isn't. Rational people already understand that.
I'm glad we agree.

.
Jerald wrote:
So we won't. Civil marriage isn't denied to homosexuals anyway. No state denies civil marriage on the basis of the sexual orientation of the partners.
True, homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Many homosexuals oppose same sex marriage:
http://www.homovox.com
http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/nom-s-...
http://www.salon.com/2011/06/28/gay_marriage_...
http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-...

.
Jerald wrote:
We'll simply stop using the sex of the partners as the sole legal basis for denying civil marriage.
No, let's not take the perfect affirmative action of gender integration out of marriage. Marriage as one man and one woman gives an adopted child something no same sex couple can; a mother and father.

.
Jerald wrote:
How about this: There is no such legal construct as "traditional marriage", just as there is no such legal construct as "same-sex marriage" (or interracial marriage, or interfaith marriage, for that matter).
That's untrue, DOMA is the law of the land. Most states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman. The state has always imposed conditions on marriage, the number, consent and age of partners for example. Polygamy and incest marriage are crimes under some state's law but no state criminalizes same sex marriage.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are civil contracts; marriage is more. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; quite the opposite. The Second Section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states male and female are different, just as adult and child or citizen and non-citizen are different and have different rights.

.
Jerald wrote:
The legal construct is "civil marriage." There is no legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.
Male/female marriage gives the state a benefit same sex marriage can't provide, the next generation of taxpayers and a home to raise those children. Further, radically changing marriage by removing the gender diversity requirement brings us to gender apartheid marriage. We like the harmony of integration and oppose gender segregation marriage.

.
Jerald wrote:
Civil marriage can and does comprehend couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex. No segregation imposed; no diversity denied.
No, marriage doesn't include same sex couples in many states. The male/female aspect of marriage has been universal in human culture just as the male/female nature of human reproductive biology is universal.
Quest

Culpeper, VA

#12837 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>..........No, let's not take the perfect affirmative action of gender integration out of marriage. Marriage as one man and one woman gives an adopted child something no same sex couple can; a mother and father.
.........
And adoption by gay couples give a child something they never had.
Parents.
A great many gay couples adopt older and special needs children out of the system. Who denied those children a mother and father to raise them?
The sperm and egg donors who abandoned them.
I will never understand why people like you blame the heroes who step to raise these children, simply because you don't like their gender.
How many older and special needs children have YOU adopted?
Quest

Culpeper, VA

#12838 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
...... Many homosexuals oppose same sex marriage:
......
And the nice thing is that they will never be forced to. And, like so many straigth folks who don't believe in marriage, if they ever change their minds, they will be free to choose married life.

Simple.
Quest

Culpeper, VA

#12839 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
.....
<quoted text>That's untrue, DOMA is the law of the land. Most states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman. The state has always imposed conditions on marriage, the number, consent and age of partners for example. Polygamy and incest marriage are crimes under some state's law but no state criminalizes same sex marriage.
.........
DOMA will not remain the law of the land forever, thank goodness.

And, to impose conditions on legal marriage, you need to prove that there is a logical reason for such conditions, and that they are not simply based on animus and dislike of a minority group, as is the case with same sex marriage and interracial marriage.

You have yet to prove that such restrictions on marriage for gay couples is rational or reasonable.

The fact that you personally don't want gay couples to marry really isn't a valid reason for discrimination.
Quest

Culpeper, VA

#12840 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
..Male/female marriage gives the state a benefit same sex marriage can't provide, the next generation of taxpayers and a home to raise those children.......
Untrue statement, of course, since NO straight couple is required to procreate to obtain a marriage license, and gay couples provide a great many wonderful and stable homes for raising children.

At least stick to facts.
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#12842 Jan 13, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
Show me one upper court decision that says that, then maybe we can discuss your foolish beliefs.
Your nothing but a Troll game player till then.
<quoted text>
I am orangelion! TomInElPaso came to the realisation that compared to me he was just a child and now is running off onto other threads hiding from me thinking I don't visit the california forums!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12843 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
... Many homosexuals oppose same sex marriage
Many? Hardly. A few gay people may oppose the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, but there is always a small sliver of any group that goes another way.
Brian_G wrote:
No, let's not take the perfect affirmative action of gender integration out of marriage. Marriage as one man and one woman gives an adopted child something no same sex couple can; a mother and father.
Marriage is not "affirmative action." Clearly, you have become rather pleased with yourself in co-opting a phrase in what you must think is a clever and cute way that has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.

There is no evidence that the gender of the parents who raise a child is important. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the number of parents (two rather that one) is the critical factor.
Brian_G wrote:
That's untrue, DOMA is the law of the land. Most states have laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Exactly. They define civil marriage on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation. And DOMA will be dead by June.
Brian_G wrote:
The state has always imposed conditions on marriage, the number, consent and age of partners for example. Polygamy and incest marriage are crimes under some state's law but no state criminalizes same sex marriage.
Why would that be? Those conditions must have at least a legitimate, if not compelling governmental reason. Restrictions based solely on sex have no legitimate governmental purpose.
Brian_G wrote:
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are civil contracts; marriage is more. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; quite the opposite. The Second Section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states male and female are different, just as adult and child or citizen and non-citizen are different and have different rights.
That may be your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but Congress passed The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles VII and XI specifically, that flatly contradict your make-believe assumption. Gender equality exists in the law of the land -- federal law -- that hasn't been overturned by the courts. The Constitution tells us that the law of the land includes the Constitution itself, all federal laws, and treaties. The Supreme Court has even ruled that discrimination based on sex or gender deserves heightened scrutiny, making sex a protected class.
Brian_G wrote:
Male/female marriage gives the state a benefit same sex marriage can't provide, the next generation of taxpayers and a home to raise those children.


Same-sex couples can provide that.
Brian_G wrote:
Further, radically changing marriage by removing the gender diversity requirement brings us to gender apartheid marriage. We like the harmony of integration and oppose gender segregation marriage.
"Apartheid?" "Integration?" "Segregation?" Again, you use language in what you think is a cute fashion but bears absolutely no relevance to the topic.

I don't care what "you" or "we" like... I care about the equal protection of the law, which you oppose.
Brian_G wrote:
No, marriage doesn't include same sex couples in many states.
But it does in nine states and the District of Columbia. That's a fact.
Brian_G wrote:
The male/female aspect of marriage has been universal in human culture just as the male/female nature of human reproductive biology is universal.
You conflate two separate concepts -- culture and biology. Marriage has always been a cultural and social construct that has changed to meet the needs of people in the culture. While we can't change the biological, we can change the cultural to accommodate same-sex couples where there is no evidence to support their exclusion.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12844 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Many? Hardly. A few gay people may oppose the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, but there is always a small sliver of any group that goes another way.
<quoted text>
Marriage is not "affirmative action." Clearly, you have become rather pleased with yourself in co-opting a phrase in what you must think is a clever and cute way that has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.
There is no evidence that the gender of the parents who raise a child is important. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the number of parents (two rather that one) is the critical factor.
<quoted text>
Exactly. They define civil marriage on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation. And DOMA will be dead by June.
<quoted text>
Why would that be? Those conditions must have at least a legitimate, if not compelling governmental reason. Restrictions based solely on sex have no legitimate governmental purpose.
<quoted text>
That may be your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but Congress passed The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles VII and XI specifically, that flatly contradict your make-believe assumption. Gender equality exists in the law of the land -- federal law -- that hasn't been overturned by the courts. The Constitution tells us that the law of the land includes the Constitution itself, all federal laws, and treaties. The Supreme Court has even ruled that discrimination based on sex or gender deserves heightened scrutiny, making sex a protected class.
<quoted text>
Same-sex couples can provide that.
<quoted text>
"Apartheid?" "Integration?" "Segregation?" Again, you use language in what you think is a cute fashion but bears absolutely no relevance to the topic.
I don't care what "you" or "we" like... I care about the equal protection of the law, which you oppose.
<quoted text>
But it does in nine states and the District of Columbia. That's a fact.
<quoted text>
You conflate two separate concepts -- culture and biology. Marriage has always been a cultural and social construct that has changed to meet the needs of people in the culture. While we can't change the biological, we can change the cultural to accommodate same-sex couples where there is no evidence to support their exclusion.
Good work.

I'd just point out, the obscure reference to women not being counted as voters mentioned in the 14th amendment was corrected by recognizing the right to vote for women in the 19th amendment. Also the wording in the 14th that requires equal treatment is "all persons". He knows this, demonstrating "Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument.”(Samuel Johnson)

I would also add, while true 9 states now recognize marriage equality within their own states, RI recognizes marriages performed elsewhere, making it 10 states (and DC) that recognize marriage equality for gay couples.

Additionally, while true having two parents is better than one (in many cases at least), the determining factor for success is the relationship between the parent and child, not the gender of the parent.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12845 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
...There is no evidence that the gender of the parents who raise a child is important. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the number of parents (two rather that one) is the critical factor...
Then, tell us from your experience, would you rather have not had a father and two mothers instead or would you have preferred not to have a mother and two fathers instead?

Is there anything sadder than a motherless child?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12846 Jan 13, 2013
Demonstrators from all over France hired coaches and high-speed trains to join a hybrid coalition of Catholic groups, backers of traditional family rights, and political conservatives – including the far-right National Front. Muslim groups and even homosexuals opposed to same-sex marriage were also taking part in Sunday’s march.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130113-huge-crow...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12847 Jan 13, 2013
www.examiner.com/article/naperville-woman-kil... ...
Nov 2, 2012 ... On Tuesday, before Elzbieta Plackowska killed her 7-year-old son, Justin, to get back at her husband, she told the boy he was going to heaven ...

azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/police-mom-kil... ...
Aug 14, 2012 ... A 25-year-old mother who police said killed her two children told detectives she shot them after an argument with her boyfriend,

www.cnn.com/2012/11/01/justice/illinois-child...
Nov 2, 2012 ... A Chicago-area woman has been charged with killing her 5-year-old ... gave investigators a number of reasons why she killed the children.

And the list goes on and on and on...

Clearly, haveing a straight mother is no guarantee of living a good life or even living.

Science has shown the determining factor for success is the relationship between the parent and child, not the gender of the parent.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12848 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Then, tell us from your experience, would you rather have not had a father and two mothers instead or would you have preferred not to have a mother and two fathers instead?
I loved both of my parents and was fortunate that they both worked to raise me (sometimes, it was a LOT of work).
Brian_G wrote:
Is there anything sadder than a motherless child?
A child with no parents to raise her.

Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of children are being raised by same-sex couples in this country RIGHT NOW, TODAY. Of those children being raised by same-sex couples, 84% of them are the biological offspring of one of the partners.

Since you asked a question, perhaps you'll respond to mine (which no one has been willing to answer in an honest or forthright manner):

What is the legitimate governmental reason to deny these children being raised by same-sex couples the exact same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers who are being raised by opposite-sex couples?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12849 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I loved both of my parents and was fortunate that they both worked to raise me (sometimes, it was a LOT of work).
<quoted text>
A child with no parents to raise her.
Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of children are being raised by same-sex couples in this country RIGHT NOW, TODAY. Of those children being raised by same-sex couples, 84% of them are the biological offspring of one of the partners.
Since you asked a question, perhaps you'll respond to mine (which no one has been willing to answer in an honest or forthright manner):
What is the legitimate governmental reason to deny these children being raised by same-sex couples the exact same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers who are being raised by opposite-sex couples?
I think a mother (or father) who beats, burns with lit cigarettes, boiling water, or any of the other many ways parents torture and even kill their children, is worse than having no mother at all. I've seen many of these children, who are far better off being raised by even one if not two parents who care about them. As you know, many gay couples provide much needed homes for the thousands of children who are severely abused and abandoned by their straight parents.

I'm curious to see if anyone will attempt to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment as required by the constitution, in answer to your question. I know I can't, and we haven't seen any so far.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12850 Jan 13, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a mother (or father) who beats, burns with lit cigarettes, boiling water, or any of the other many ways parents torture and even kill their children, is worse than having no mother at all. I've seen many of these children, who are far better off being raised by even one if not two parents who care about them. As you know, many gay couples provide much needed homes for the thousands of children who are severely abused and abandoned by their straight parents.
I'm curious to see if anyone will attempt to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment as required by the constitution, in answer to your question. I know I can't, and we haven't seen any so far.
The problem with relying on the anecdotal stories of mothers who abuse their children is that anti-gay people can find similar anecdotes of children raised by same-sex couples where abuse has occurred.

The fact is that some small percentage of human beings is capable of doing terrible things to children, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Men and women, gays and straights are all represented in the crime logs.

The making of public policy should not be based on such anecdotes. The evidence demonstrates that, on the whole, there is no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by opposite-sex couples on any significant metric of outcomes.

The recent publication of the Family Structure Study by Mark Regnerus (his flawed conclusions notwithstanding) demonstrate that family instability, not the sex or sexual orientation of the parents, is at the heart of poor outcomes of children raised in these homes.
Ray

Newport, OR

#12851 Jan 13, 2013
What's next? Transsexual history?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12852 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with relying on the anecdotal stories of mothers who abuse their children is that anti-gay people can find similar anecdotes of children raised by same-sex couples where abuse has occurred.
The fact is that some small percentage of human beings is capable of doing terrible things to children, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Men and women, gays and straights are all represented in the crime logs.
The making of public policy should not be based on such anecdotes. The evidence demonstrates that, on the whole, there is no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by opposite-sex couples on any significant metric of outcomes.
The recent publication of the Family Structure Study by Mark Regnerus (his flawed conclusions notwithstanding) demonstrate that family instability, not the sex or sexual orientation of the parents, is at the heart of poor outcomes of children raised in these homes.
I agree anecdotal stories don't justify making restrictive laws that apply to all. But when presented with the irrational excuse for denial of equal treatment that having a mother, or mother and father is always good and necessary, it is important to remember reality as well as science does not support that assumption. We don't deny marriage to straight people based on the evidence that having straight parents is no guarantee of success or even survival. The false assumption a mother must be present fails to qualify as an excuse to deny equality to same sex couples.

I agree the Regenurus study confirmed what we already knew; intact families do better than families of divorce and dysfunction.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12853 Jan 13, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree anecdotal stories don't justify making restrictive laws that apply to all. But when presented with the irrational excuse for denial of equal treatment that having a mother, or mother and father is always good and necessary, it is important to remember reality as well as science does not support that assumption. We don't deny marriage to straight people based on the evidence that having straight parents is no guarantee of success or even survival. The false assumption a mother must be present fails to qualify as an excuse to deny equality to same sex couples.
I agree the Regenurus study confirmed what we already knew; intact families do better than families of divorce and dysfunction.
Good point.

And when parents abuse or neglect the children under their care, the government has the duty to remove those children from the home.

The government has no authority to dissolve their marriage or deny either partner the ability to get married.

If "protecting the children" was really a legitimate governmental reason for denying civil marriage, individuals convicted of child abuse or neglect would never be allowed to marry.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12854 Jan 13, 2013
Children deserve to have a mother and father. We don't want a new gender segregated model for marriage.

Protests against French President Francois Hollande’s proposal to allow same-sex marriage drew hundreds of thousands of people into the streets in Paris.
“There are many people who are worried about this law,” Laurent Wauquiez, a minister under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, said today on Europe 1 radio.“Do we have to destroy the family and the place of children in it? We must pay attention to the place of children.” Wauquiez joined the demonstration.
About 340,000 people joined today’s marches, according to police estimates, while organizers indicated a turnout of more than 800,000. Protesters dancing to hip-hop music carried pink flags with white images of the traditional family: man, woman and two children.

...53 percent oppose adoption for gay couples, according to a survey published Jan. 10. CSA, another polling company, found Jan. 11 that 52 percent favor gay marriage and the same proportion oppose adoption by same-sex couples.
Former PresidentSarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement party is shifting its stance to calling for a referendum on the matter.
“This doesn’t just concern same-sex couples, it’s a fundamental question for society,” former Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.“Instead of presenting this law to parliament, the president should allow the people to decide. No one can argue with that.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-13/fren...

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12855 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Children deserve to have a mother and father.
Mothers are great. So are fathers. If children are being raised successfully by both, then that's wonderful.

But don't think that just because you believe that your particular conception of family is the absolute ideal that it should apply to all persons, and that government should be mandating it or making public policy solely based on it.

Because the fact remains that not all children deserve to be raised by their own mother and/or father. Some mothers and fathers are terrible parents, and subject their children to the vilest sorts of abuse and neglect. Their children certainly don't "deserve" that, do they? Or perhaps you believe they do?

And the fact remains that many children are being raised RIGHT NOW in happy, healthy, and successful homes by parents of the same sex. There is no rational basis to remove these children from their homes, or deny to them the same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers who are being raised by opposite-sex couples.

At least, you haven't even attempted to offer a rational basis for doing so.
Brian_G wrote:
We don't want a new gender segregated model for marriage.
Who are "we"?

This is more of your invented nonsense that doesn't apply to the topic. It's a non sequitur.
Brian_G wrote:
Protests against French President Francois Hollande’s proposal to allow same-sex marriage drew hundreds of thousands of people into the streets in Paris.
“There are many people who are worried about this law,” Laurent Wauquiez, a minister under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, said today on Europe 1 radio.“Do we have to destroy the family and the place of children in it? We must pay attention to the place of children.” Wauquiez joined the demonstration.
About 340,000 people joined today’s marches, according to police estimates, while organizers indicated a turnout of more than 800,000. Protesters dancing to hip-hop music carried pink flags with white images of the traditional family: man, woman and two children.
...53 percent oppose adoption for gay couples, according to a survey published Jan. 10. CSA, another polling company, found Jan. 11 that 52 percent favor gay marriage and the same proportion oppose adoption by same-sex couples.
Former PresidentSarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement party is shifting its stance to calling for a referendum on the matter.
“This doesn’t just concern same-sex couples, it’s a fundamental question for society,” former Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.“Instead of presenting this law to parliament, the president should allow the people to decide. No one can argue with that.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-13/fren...
Then move to France.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

South San Francisco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 1 hr romanian example 17
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Proud American 20,707
News The Latest: Official: Refrigerator potential so... 3 hr Go Blue Forever 1
News Vacaville man hires 'the Last Hope' to fight co... 4 hr Birds Landing Bob 1
(.R ox y Bulk!!) ku*sh !! 14 hr San Francisco dro... 1
Hey everyone, please help me it takes only 5 mi... 22 hr PhD student from ... 1
San Francisco County Mugshots and Criminal Arre... Sep '16 Smith 2

South San Francisco Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

South San Francisco Mortgages