Teaching Gay History in California

Jul 9, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

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.

Comments
12,081 - 12,100 of 12,516 Comments Last updated Sep 7, 2013

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13035
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Disturbing sexual practices. Sounds a lot like homosexual anal sex to me.
Again, that is your prejudice in action. Had you been living there at that time, it would have seemed like an important part of the fertility ritual orgies taking place with prostitutes in the temple. You were taught to fear and despise gay people from early childhood, based largely on Paul's misunderstood letters. You live in a different place and time.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13036
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the bible say that was the reason why? No it didn't, otherwise it would have said..
Context.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13037
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Isolating cows and leaving them on their own, with other cows with rising hormones! Sexual confusion and a lack of understanding of themselves! Yes, of course this sounds more like the human phase teenagers go through, but no one said cows can't be teenagers, although I'm sure they go through a considerably more simplified version.
Most of the over 1500 species are wild.

Again, there is no scientific support for your irrational theory. Same sex bonding and behavior are a natural expression of being alive for a minority of the human population and many other species as well.

“I AM”

Since: Jan 13

Blow Me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13038
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel bitter about gays really, until they rape innocent children! Now that makes me angry!
Those are your pedophile. Many who will breed their own victims. They are age specific. I agree they are sick demented people. Not sure that I would put them in the category of being gay.

“I AM”

Since: Jan 13

Blow Me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13039
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh My God...Please go read something...anything, Other than the King James Bible! BTW who was a closet queen.
People have a right to their religious beliefs. Just as you have your rights to your homosexuality.

There will never be one hundred percent agreement in lifestyles. Equality needs to be one hundred percent in all lifestyles though.

You shouldn't be trying to deny something in others when you are trying to gain something from others.
Acceptance and tolerance woks both ways.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13040
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

-Popeye- wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are your pedophile. Many who will breed their own victims. They are age specific. I agree they are sick demented people. Not sure that I would put them in the category of being gay.
This is a standard and popular demonization technique. It has been used on other groups in the past, and continues to be used in an attempt to dehumanize, and in doing so, justify harming all gay people. It ignores the fact most molesters identify as heterosexual.

When used to justify marriage discrimination, it ignores the fact that most gay people are not abusers, yet even convicted straight child molesters and rapists are allowed to get married while serving time in prison.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13041
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Popeye- wrote:
<quoted text>
People have a right to their religious beliefs. Just as you have your rights to your homosexuality.
There will never be one hundred percent agreement in lifestyles. Equality needs to be one hundred percent in all lifestyles though.
You shouldn't be trying to deny something in others when you are trying to gain something from others.
Acceptance and tolerance woks both ways.
When religious beliefs are used to justify harming others by refusing to treat them equally under the law, they deserve to be challenged.

In this case, acceptance and tolerance are not a clear two way street. Those opposed to equal rights are trying to use the law to harm gay people by refusing to treat them as they would themselves under the law. Gay people are only seeking to be treated equally under the law. They are not trying to deny anyone of any rights they already possess. These are not two sides of the same coin.

The difference in our positions is, we are not trying to harm anyone.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13042
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Popeye- wrote:
<quoted text>
People have a right to their religious beliefs. Just as you have your rights to your homosexuality.
There will never be one hundred percent agreement in lifestyles. Equality needs to be one hundred percent in all lifestyles though.
You shouldn't be trying to deny something in others when you are trying to gain something from others.
Acceptance and tolerance woks both ways.
You need to read the whole interaction before assuming anything. I'm not denying him his religion, but I will deny him my respect for not being educated about it. Unfortunately, for him he's just believing what he's been told, which is a lazy cop out and then has audacity to be self-righteous; that's what leads to denial and intolerance.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13043
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Popeye- wrote:
<quoted text>
Many heterosexuals have anal sex. Is that also considered disturbing as well by your standards?
Many heterosexuals have their bag of toys. Is that too considered to be disturbing? You seem to have quite the imagination for the homosexual bed room. Is it just as imaginative for the heterosexuals with the bag of toys?
I think both sides present a valid point of view, I do not agree sex needs to be thrown into the discussion.
In addition to the fact many gay men and most gay women do not have anal sex, everything gay men and women do is practiced by even more straight men and women, as you seem to realize. Yet this is only used to justify discrimination against gay people, not straight ones too.

But the attempt to reduce the lives and loves of gay people to nothing more than a sexual act, is another standard technique intended to demonize and dehumanize in order to justify causing harm.

There is no valid argument to support refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law. And that is why demonization and dehumanization remain the primary tools used to support discrimination and prejudice.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13044
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I just read the full article, one thing that stands out to me is this paragraph:

"The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays."

So, I guess it was important to censor any material that 'reflects adversely on gays'. Yep, that's fair. Tell me, how can kids form an opinion on homosexuality if they are only fed pro-homosexuality viewpoints?

Prohibiting such material, however 'bigoted' it may be, is censorship. So much for Free Speech.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13045
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
I just read the full article, one thing that stands out to me is this paragraph:
"The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays."
So, I guess it was important to censor any material that 'reflects adversely on gays'. Yep, that's fair. Tell me, how can kids form an opinion on homosexuality if they are only fed pro-homosexuality viewpoints?
Prohibiting such material, however 'bigoted' it may be, is censorship. So much for Free Speech.
We know they get plenty of irrational anti-gay prejudice from other kids and other sources including the net. There is no scientifically justifiable reason to teach them anti-gay prejudice in school.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13046
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

"What is being objected to is tolerance of gays, not genuine promotion of homosexuality. And if tolerance itself is not acceptable, what is the absence of tolerance? It is bigotry. If we do not promote tolerance in the public schools, we are accepting that bigotry has a place there. Is this really what we want?" http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13047
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
We know they get plenty of irrational anti-gay prejudice from other kids and other sources including the net. There is no scientifically justifiable reason to teach them anti-gay prejudice in school.
I believe that only scientifically way to prove whether someone is gay or not from birth, is to isolate the person from society and then release into society them when they turn 18.

When they are 18, ask them to go into a room filled with people their age. If he/she immediately starts checking out the same sex then its a good bet that they are gay. Yet, if he/she starts checking out the opposite sex then they are straight.

I believe the number one reason someone seeks out same-sex partners is that they suffered rejection from the opposite sex during their K-12 years. What happens is that two rejected men or women seek each other's company (because misery loves company), and they then form an emotion attachment to the other person. Since they cannot get sex from the opposite sex, they make the choice to get sex from the person that they have an emotional attachment to.

For me, homosexuality has always been a choice. By teaching kids the pro-homosexuality viewpoint/theory that homosexuality is a built-in trait then it will only encourage the 'loners' to become homosexuals.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13049
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that only scientifically way to prove whether someone is gay or not from birth, is to isolate the person from society and then release into society them when they turn 18.
When they are 18, ask them to go into a room filled with people their age. If he/she immediately starts checking out the same sex then its a good bet that they are gay. Yet, if he/she starts checking out the opposite sex then they are straight.
I believe the number one reason someone seeks out same-sex partners is that they suffered rejection from the opposite sex during their K-12 years. What happens is that two rejected men or women seek each other's company (because misery loves company), and they then form an emotion attachment to the other person. Since they cannot get sex from the opposite sex, they make the choice to get sex from the person that they have an emotional attachment to.
For me, homosexuality has always been a choice. By teaching kids the pro-homosexuality viewpoint/theory that homosexuality is a built-in trait then it will only encourage the 'loners' to become homosexuals.
Your experiment would have to include a large population sample if true that sexual orientation is independent of learning, and only a minority of the population are gay and bisexual. And of course, it would be totally unethical. There is also no support for your theory that people choose to be gay, for any reason.

And the bisexual people confuse the issue as well for many who look at orientation. To various degrees, they are both emotionally and physically attracted to members of both sexes. You may have a choice of expressing emotional and physical attraction to some members of either sex, but you don't have a choice over being attracted. Most gay and straight people will tell you they have no such emotional and physical attraction to either the opposite or same sex respectively.

But decades of research and clinical experience have already demonstrated, sexual orientation ranges along a continuum from exclusively attracted to the same sex to the opposite sex. Every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country agree. While we don't know exactly how sexual orientation or even sex drive works, we know it is natural, and highly resistant to change. Most people will tell you they have no choice over attraction. Just the expression of it.

Ironically, much of the research showing orientation is not a choice, comes from efforts to change it. Not only have such efforts shown efforts to change orientation are not successful, but that they are often harmful to the point of self destructive behavior including suicide.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13050
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."

Based on this review, the task force recommended that mental health professionals avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts when providing assistance to people distressed about their own or others' sexual orientation.

Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says [American Psychological Association]

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13051
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
For me, homosexuality has always been a choice. By teaching kids the pro-homosexuality viewpoint/theory that homosexuality is a built-in trait then it will only encourage the 'loners' to become homosexuals.
Evidence exists both through clinical studies as well as through the personal testimony of millions of gay and straight people around the world who will testify they have no choice over to whom they are emotionally, romantically, and physically attracted. Again, bisexual people sometimes confuse the issue as it takes some of them a long time to realize that while they experience attractions to some members of both sexes, they have no choice over being attracted. Like gay and straight people, they only have a choice of whether to act on their attractions.

Your stereotype also fails to account for the Rock Hudsons, Ricky Martins, and so many other gay men and women who were attractive and popular in childhood and adolescence, or the straight adults who weren't.

Some of us over achieve in part to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of being treated as fully human. My photo is in the year book more often than anyone else. I was in with the in crowd, but accepted everyone else as well, and so I was very popular. And I know many other gay men and women who were leaders and very popular, as well as those who were too scared to talk to anyone. Gay people are a very diverse population. But even today, no one would choose to be gay even if they could, and they can't. True, you can fake behavior, but you can't fake an enduring pattern of emotional as well as physical attraction.

Removing the stigma from being gay, will not result in people changing their natural sexual orientation.

Yet even if you remain unconvinced sexual orientation is not a choice, remember we protect equal rights based on a personal choice of religious belief. Isn't it only right to allow people to live their lives as they believe is best for them as long as it doesn't harm others?

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13052
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
I just read the full article, one thing that stands out to me is this paragraph:
"The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays."
So, I guess it was important to censor any material that 'reflects adversely on gays'. Yep, that's fair. Tell me, how can kids form an opinion on homosexuality if they are only fed pro-homosexuality viewpoints?
Prohibiting such material, however 'bigoted' it may be, is censorship. So much for Free Speech.
There is no "censorship" in this bill. The writer of the article is wrong.

The language of the bill DOES NOT prohibit material that merely "reflects adversely on gays."

It prohibits material that promotes a bias against people simply BECAUSE they are gay or solely ON THE BASIS OF their sexual orientation.

That's a key distinction. As a teacher, I can certainly say to my senior government students that Barney Frank's Dodd-Frank bill was an awful piece of legislation, and Frank was a terrible member of Congress.

While that clearly reflects adversely against Frank, who happens to be gay, it's not a criticism that is BASED ON his sexual orientation.

What's prohibited is saying "Barney Frank was a terrible congressman because he was gay," just as I can't teach that Bob Dole was a terrible Senator because he was disabled in World War II and could no longer use his right hand.

Similarly and by comparison, I can argue (assuming that I can support my claim) that Malcolm X was not a very good civil rights leader and never helped to champion any positive changes in the country. That claim reflects negatively on a black person. What I can't argue that Malcolm X was a ineffective leader of civil rights because he was black.

"Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities that promote a discriminatory bias because of race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions by referring to race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other
characteristic listed as specified."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/...

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13053
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that only scientifically way to prove whether someone is gay or not from birth, is to isolate the person from society and then release into society them when they turn 18.
When they are 18, ask them to go into a room filled with people their age. If he/she immediately starts checking out the same sex then its a good bet that they are gay. Yet, if he/she starts checking out the opposite sex then they are straight.
I believe the number one reason someone seeks out same-sex partners is that they suffered rejection from the opposite sex during their K-12 years. What happens is that two rejected men or women seek each other's company (because misery loves company), and they then form an emotion attachment to the other person. Since they cannot get sex from the opposite sex, they make the choice to get sex from the person that they have an emotional attachment to.
For me, homosexuality has always been a choice. By teaching kids the pro-homosexuality viewpoint/theory that homosexuality is a built-in trait then it will only encourage the 'loners' to become homosexuals.
You are free to believe whatever you like.

Just don't expect the rest of us to be satisfied when public policy is based on such nonsense that is unsupported by evidence or by any major medical, scientific, psychological, psychiatric, or social science professional organization.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13054
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe Balls wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't like.
Many gay men and most gay women employ other methods, while everything gay men and women do is practiced by even more straight men and women.

Yet this is only used to justify discrimination against gay men and women, not straight ones too. This attempt to reduce the lives and loves of gay people to nothing more than a sexual act, is intended to demonize and dehumanize in order to justify causing harm.

There is no valid argument to support refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law. And that is why demonization and dehumanization remain the primary tools used to support discrimination and prejudice.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13055
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Why would you believe homosexuality needs to be debated? Should race be held up for debate? Should ethnicity be held up for debate?

Homosexuality is just that. Heterosexuality is just that, as is bi-sexuality.

Just what do you wish to debate? If your religious beliefs call into question homosexuality you might do best discussing it at home within your family or in your church because it doesn't have a thing to do with myself and my sexuality. Would it be OK I were your neighbor and sat on my patio discussing your sexuality with the neighborhood kids or their parents? I bet your wife would really appreciate that.

You are speaking of sexual orientation as a group. Keep it in Health class where it belongs. If you have issues with homosexuality in general perhaps you need some mental health assistance. We're talking about people in HISTORY not in bed.

Too bad free speech includes stupidity.
BraveCon wrote:
I just read the full article, one thing that stands out to me is this paragraph:
"The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays."
So, I guess it was important to censor any material that 'reflects adversely on gays'. Yep, that's fair. Tell me, how can kids form an opinion on homosexuality if they are only fed pro-homosexuality viewpoints?
Prohibiting such material, however 'bigoted' it may be, is censorship. So much for Free Speech.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

20 Users are viewing the Transgender Forum right now

Search the Transgender Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 10 min RUSSIA a TERRORIST STATE 175
Transgender priest preaches at Washington's Nat... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 21
LGBT New Yorkers Should Be Worried 1 hr Rainbow Kid 16
goodlooking filipino offering massage in jeddah (Jul '13) 2 hr xx222cc 252
Massage in Jeddah ASAP (Sep '13) 3 hr foofoo 119
meet here gays.(. jeddah) (Feb '10) 5 hr Jeddah 12,206
where guys and gays hangout in jeddah (Sep '10) 9 hr lucky 1,210
•••
•••