Teaching Gay History in California

Teaching Gay History in California

There are 12515 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12856 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes. We don't annul the marriages of people who abuse or even kill their children, and even convicted child abusers, spouse abusers, and rapists who are serving time, including life in prison, can still get married, proving having children, being a good parent, or even the ability to have sex is not a requirement for marriage.

Yet some still believe irrational prejudice is enough to continue refusing to treat all persons equally under the law, as require by the constitution, simply because that irrational prejudice is popular.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12857 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Is there anything sadder than a motherless child?
A child with this mother.

Anti-gay Christian convicted of child pornography involving her daughter
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/national-gaze...
PA Proctologist

Carlisle, PA

#12858 Jan 13, 2013
Gay men need to strongly consider going straight because their sphincters get destroyed at a young age and then it's just a matter of time before they become incontinent and have to wear adult diapers for the remainders of their crappy lives.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12859 Jan 13, 2013
PA Proctologist wrote:
Gay men need to strongly consider going straight because their sphincters get destroyed at a young age...
I have yet to see any documentation of this claim.

Yet even if it were true, many gay men practice other methods including frottage. Gay women use other methods as well. Yet even more straight people practice it than do gay people.

We also know, efforts to change sexual orientation are not successful and often cause harm including self destructive behaviors.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12861 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
I loved both of my parents and was fortunate that they both worked to raise me (sometimes, it was a LOT of work).
I'll answer your questions, please answer mine. Was there anything your mother taught you about life, understanding feelings and social interactions that your father couldn't? Was there any skills or values about providing for a family your father taught you that your mother couldn't? Did you see any value in having both a mother and a father?

Keep marriage male/female to honor your mother and father.

.
Jerald wrote:
A child with no parents to raise her.
Agreed, it's better that a child have even a single parent than no parents. And better two same sex parents than one parent. But best of all, the model for marriage where a mother and father raises a child. Keep marriage as one man and one woman for the sake of every child.

.
Jerald wrote:
Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of children are being raised by same-sex couples in this country RIGHT NOW, TODAY.
That's true, but all those children were born from male/female relationships and NONE from male/male or female/female relationships.

.
Jerald wrote:
Of those children being raised by same-sex couples, 84% of them are the biological offspring of one of the partners.
84% of children raised by same sex couples aren't with their mother or their father.

.
Jerald wrote:
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?
The parental rights of the parent disenfranchised by same sex marriage is the legitimate governmental reason keep marriage as one man and one woman. The father who's wife decides she wants to marry her girlfriend then sues for custody because the father is a single parent and she has a two parent home is the legitimate governmental reason to keep marriage male/female. The mother who's husband deserts his wife and marries his boyfriend then sues for custody because the mother has inadequate income is the legitimate reason to keep marriage gender integrated.

There are good reasons to keep the ideal model of marriage as one man and one woman.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12862 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
A child with this mother.
Anti-gay Christian convicted of child pornography involving her daughter[URL deleted]
If you are going to offer bad heterosexual parents as examples, I'll have to do the same. You can't compare apples and oranges; you must compare good same sex couples to good opposite sex couples or abusive same sex couples to abusive opposite sex couples if you want to be reasonable.

I'd prefer not to offer examples of bad homosexual couples out of simple human decency. Let's not go there.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#12863 Jan 13, 2013
PA Proctologist wrote:
Gay men need to strongly consider going straight because their sphincters get destroyed at a young age and then it's just a matter of time before they become incontinent and have to wear adult diapers for the remainders of their crappy lives.
What do you expect? Most gay guys participate in gang bangs where they'll have anal sex with up to 20 different men in one evening. Sickos.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12864 Jan 13, 2013
Jerald wrote:
Mothers are great. So are fathers. If children are being raised successfully by both, then that's wonderful.
A child raised by his own married parents is the ideal. Marriage was created to make an appropriate place for sexual congress and a home for the children of that union. Marriage serves a social need; the next generation of citizens raised in an optimal environment.

.
Jerald wrote:
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.
Government always establishes standards; polygamy and incest marriages are felonies in many states. There's no law against same sex couples and no criminal penalty for same sex marriage anywhere in the USA.

.
Jerald wrote:
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?
Not all children deserve to be raised by same sex couples who are terrible parents or abusive homosexuals. You have to compare good same sex couples to good mother/father couples to be reasonable. I don't want to produce evidence of bad gay parents so let's not labor this irrelevant point.

.
Jerald wrote:
And the fact remains that many children are being raised RIGHT NOW in happy, healthy, and successful homes by parents of the same sex.
That's true, but those children are missing one of the kid's parents; those children are all either motherless or fatherless.

.
Jerald wrote:
There is no rational basis to remove these children from their homes,
I've never advocated removing children from their homes and I think same sex couples should be able to adopt as long as adoption providers can make decisions based on the best interest of the children ahead of political considerations for the 'rights' of a mascot victim group of homosexual parents. Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption services field in Massachusetts and D.C. because of same sex marriage; that hurts children and religious freedom too.

.
Jerald wrote:
or deny to them the same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers who are being raised by opposite-sex couples.
Government has a vital interest in mothers and fathers raising their own children together and should not create a new gender segregated standard for marriage.

.
Jerald wrote:
...This is more of your invented nonsense that doesn't apply to the topic. It's a non sequitur.
That's the definition of same sex marriage: gender segregated marriage. Traditionally, marriage has a perfect affirmative action of 1:1 with all the benefits of gender diversity and harmony. Same sex marriage creates a new standard of gender apartheid so I understand your reluctance to face that issue.

.
Jerald wrote:
Then move to France.
Or, learn from France. We must consider the consequences of our policy and actions more than our sympathy for gay people. When you stop making political decisions based on what makes you feel good and think about what will happen next, you stop being a liberal and become conservative.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#12865 Jan 13, 2013
fr Joe Balls:

> You mean "special rights," don't you? I've never witnessed a gay person being denied their civil rights. <

Oh really? When a glbt couple is denied the basic human RIGHT of making final arrangements for one of the couple, that's denying civil rights. So is denying the couple the RIGHT to live where they choose, to marry the legal, consenting, non-attached adult person of their choice, to go to school where they want, to work at their job, to be refused credit, bank accounts or to adopt a child, THAT is denying a couple basic human rights.

Get a clue, joey, and grow UP.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12866 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Was there anything your mother taught you about life, understanding feelings and social interactions that your father couldn't?


Sure. She wasn't the same person as my father, so her perspective about "life, understanding feelings and social interactions" would be unique to her. Same answer for my father. His personal perspective on life was unique to him, so what he had to offer would have been different from my mother.
Brian_G wrote:
Did you see any value in having both a mother and a father?
Sure. So what? My personal situation isn't the same for all. Not all opposite-sex parents are good parents. And many same-sex parents are excellent ones. Perhaps the greater "value" was that I had TWO parents, not parents of the opposite sex.
Brian_G wrote:
Keep marriage male/female to honor your mother and father.
I'll honor my mother and father as I see fit, thank you very much. And both of them encouraged me and my partner and our relationship. My very conservative Catholic father came to see that civil marriage could indeed comprehend same-sex couples, and said so.

I'll honor that.
Brian_G wrote:
Agreed, it's better that a child have even a single parent than no parents. And better two same sex parents than one parent. But best of all, the model for marriage where a mother and father raises a child.


That's purely an opinion. The "model" is a subjective claim. The objective facts demonstrate that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples on every objective metric.
Brian_G wrote:
Keep marriage as one man and one woman for the sake of every child.
Even marriages that have no children? Or every child being raised by abusive "one man/one woman" marriages? EVERY child? Really?

No. That's just bad pubic policy.
Brian_G wrote:
That's true, but all those children were born from male/female relationships and NONE from male/male or female/female relationships.
Again, so what? What difference does that make? Infertile opposite-sex couples adopt children all the time, but you're not proposing denying THEIR marriages.
Brian_G wrote:
84% of children raised by same sex couples aren't with their mother or their father.
That's incorrect. Those 84% ARE with either their mother OR their father.
Brian_G wrote:
The parental rights of the parent disenfranchised by same sex marriage is the legitimate governmental reason ...


This is a completely bogus and meaningless claim. How are parental rights "disenfranchised" simply by allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage?

The answer: they aren't.

You sound more like the Pekin troll David Morse.
Brian_G wrote:
The father who's wife decides she wants to marry her girlfriend then sues for custody because the father is a single parent and she has a two parent home is the legitimate governmental reason to keep marriage male/female. The mother who's husband deserts his wife and marries his boyfriend then sues for custody because the mother has inadequate income is the legitimate reason to keep marriage gender integrated.
Then you have problems with custody law, not civil marriage for same-sex couples, because the same situation could present itself with opposite-sex relationships, too. The sex of the partners has nothing to do with either case.

Nothing you've offered here is a legitimate governmental reason to deny to children being raised by same-sex partners the protections that civil marriage affords children raised by opposite-sex partners.

NOTHING.
Brian_G wrote:
There are good reasons to keep the ideal model of marriage as one man and one woman.
You can keep the "ideal model of marriage" in any form your little head can imagine.

There is no legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12867 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you are going to offer bad heterosexual parents as examples, I'll have to do the same. You can't compare apples and oranges; you must compare good same sex couples to good opposite sex couples or abusive same sex couples to abusive opposite sex couples if you want to be reasonable.
I'd prefer not to offer examples of bad homosexual couples out of simple human decency. Let's not go there.
Well, you asked what could be worse than a motherless child. I just gave you an answer that you didn't like.

But as a general rule, you're right. Anecdotal stories don't make for good public policy.

So why do you keep asking about MY personal upbringing?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12869 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage was created to make an appropriate place for sexual congress and a home for the children of that union. Marriage serves a social need; the next generation of citizens raised in an optimal environment.
If that's the sole reason why marriage was created, why can infertile or elderly couples marry? What's the legitimate governmental reason for that?

Or perhaps it's NOT the only reason "marriage was created."

In any event, who cares why "marriage was created" in some distant past? The point is what purpose marriage serves NOW. And it's clear that civil marriage benefits the partners, any children they may raise, and society in general.

Civil marriage does that, regardless of the sex of the partners.
Brian_G wrote:
Government always establishes standards; polygamy and incest marriages are felonies in many states. There's no law against same sex couples and no criminal penalty for same sex marriage anywhere in the USA.
Non sequitur.
Brian_G wrote:
You have to compare good same sex couples to good mother/father couples to be reasonable.


Fine. Feel free to provide evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse on any objective measure of outcomes compared to children raised by opposite-sex couples.
Brian_G wrote:
That's true, but those children are missing one of the kid's parents; those children are all either motherless or fatherless.
Again, another non sequitur that ignores the point entirely. They have TWO parents.
Brian_G wrote:
...Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption services field in Massachusetts and D.C. because of same sex marriage; that hurts children and religious freedom too.
That's just a flat-out mischaracterization of what happened when Catholic Charities refused to abide by state law when it was taking taxpayer money. It chose to "go out of business" rather than take state money and place children in good homes.
Brian_G wrote:
Government has a vital interest in mothers and fathers raising their own children together and should not create a new gender segregated standard for marriage.
Non sequitur and your invented "segregated standard." Dismissed. Please return to the Pekin troll's basement.
Brian_G wrote:
Or, learn from France. We must consider the consequences of our policy and actions more than our sympathy for gay people. When you stop making political decisions based on what makes you feel good and think about what will happen next, you stop being a liberal and become conservative.
I make decisions based on evidence, not sympathy or "feelings".

What evidence exists of the negative consequences CAUSED by same-sex couples being allowed to obtain a civil marriage?

The evidence shows that no harm comes from allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, and no benefit accrues by denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#12870 Jan 13, 2013
NOT true. They voluntarily dropped out of adoption services because they wanted to discriminate using their biblical doctrine while being funded by taxpayers money. No one drove them out, they did so on their own.

They wanted to impose their religious beliefs in the programs they ran and if they had been allowed to do so would be in violation of state laws. Separation of church and state is a very good thing and the tax payers should not have the burden of running church based programs.

The slack was immediately taken up by other providers who didn't feel the need to discriminate and not one child suffered because of it. In fact, if truth be told it probably resulted in some older or special needs children getting out of the system and into loving homes much faster. The older the child the less your ilk think the child is worth. Then they're summarily dumped into the street at age 18 with no resources and no family on top of it.

You should be thankful same sex couples are willingly helping the kids your folks have tossed into the dumpster known as foster care and providing them with a loving family.

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption services field in Massachusetts and D.C. because of same sex marriage; that hurts children and religious freedom too.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#12871 Jan 13, 2013
Please go back and report this VERY abusive posting. It only take a second to do so.

This scum of the earth needs to get gone.
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12873 Jan 13, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Joe Balls:
> You mean "special rights," don't you? I've never witnessed a gay person being denied their civil rights. <
Oh really? When a glbt couple is denied the basic human RIGHT of making final arrangements for one of the couple, that's denying civil rights. So is denying the couple the RIGHT to live where they choose, to marry the legal, consenting, non-attached adult person of their choice, to go to school where they want, to work at their job, to be refused credit, bank accounts or to adopt a child, THAT is denying a couple basic human rights.
Get a clue, joey, and grow UP.
Never seen it happen

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#12876 Jan 14, 2013
Thanks for the ammo.
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
F.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#12878 Jan 14, 2013
Honey, NARTH is the laughing stock of mental health organizations and professionals.

Why do you folks buy into this right wing propaganda? Or are you really that stupid?
Brenda Lee Johnson wrote:
A childs Nightmare
Two recent government actions, one legislative and one judicial, have called into question our society’s willingness to protect its youngest and most vulnerable members.
A hate crimes bill (H.R. 1913 and S. 909), dubbed by critics the “Pedophile Protection Act,” has already passed the House and is up for vote in the Senate. The bill earned its unofficial name when Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude pedophiles from legal protection. No doubt this legislation serves as a precursor to onerous hate speech legislation in the future.
Ads by Google
On the judicial front, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in a divorce case that two minor children must be forced to mingle against their will with their homosexual father’s “gay” and lesbian friends during visitation. Claiming the children of Eric and Sandy Mongerson will not suffer harm from this contact, Justice Robert Benham overturned an earlier lower court ruling protecting the children from exposure to “overnight company with a member of the opposite sex, or with any person deemed to be a paramour, unrelated by blood or marriage, in the presence of a child.”
Beth Littrell, an attorney for the pro-homosexual group Lambda Legal, said,“The court has done the right thing today by focusing on the needs of the children instead of perpetuating stigma on the basis of sexual orientation.”
An AP report said the mother’s attorney, Lance McMillian,“claimed the father subjected the children to an ‘array of violent, sexual, abusive and wholly inappropriate conduct’ during a trip to Arkansas and contended the father was in a series of affairs with other men while still married.”
During the trial the two oldest children expressed fear for the safety of their younger siblings due to their homosexual father’s violent outbursts. One of the girls told of finding a magazine with naked men while visiting her father.
So much for “justice” and the assertion that children’s needs are a priority.
Benham might have done his homework and discovered a plethora of reasons to block easy access to these children by the friends of their homosexual father. He could have started with the wealth of material found at the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. Numerous scientific studies show soaring rates of violence within homosexual and lesbian relationships, shortened life spans caused by diseases influenced by their lifestyle, and a significantly higher rate of child molestation as compared with heterosexual populations.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12879 Jan 14, 2013
Narth is really a religious based group posing as a secular scientific organization. They promote harmful "conversion therapy" complete with electric shock and emetics. One of their top leaders was recently caught with a "rent boy" and resigned. Other past leaders of "conversion therapy" have later denounced it as abusive and harmful, often leading to self destructive behavior including suicide when the client realizes they cannot change their same sex attractions. "Conversion therapy" relies heavily on religious shame and guilt to suppress behavior.

“We, as citizens, need to articulate God’s intent for human sexuality,” Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH, said in CNN’ 360 Degrees with Anderson Cooper, April 14, 2007. At the Feb. 10, 2007 Love Won Out conference in Phoenix, the “secular” therapist told the audience,“When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.” http://www.truthwinsout.org/narth/

“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.” 8-11-06 APA (from http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/08/apa-rele... )

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 2 hr Time again 1,551
News Sioux Falls schools unblocking LGBT Internet re... 2 hr Christsharian Dee... 20
News N.C., Miss. 'religious freedom' measures hardly... 2 hr LarryV 601
News Obama says North Carolina law should be overturned 3 hr Time again 41
News Cyndi Lauper refuses to cancel her North Caroli... 4 hr Belles Echoes 17
News The NCAA just delivered a huge blow to states w... 4 hr Belles Echoes 1
News Transgender people in bathroom: Laugh or cry 6 hr Ronald 147
More from around the web