California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[Eric-Pris 1,602]

It's one thing to allow gays to marry (I have no problem with people being happy), but to FORCE kids to learn "gay history" is ridiculous.

Schools should be teaching practical things that build skills one needs in life. Maybe they can teach kids how to read, count, and speak properly, to stop adding the word "had" in front of every past tense verb. "I had called him yesterday". No dummy, it's "I called him yesterday". Adding had when it's not needed doesn't make you sound smarter.

Sorry, that's just a pet peeve.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Eric-Pris

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Since when did Reuters news service become biased? Nothing biased in that story...it just stated the facts.

Does it explain in real terms what "teaching gay history" means as it pertains to the day to day curriculum? No it does not, it is left open for people like yourself to fill in the blanks with all manner of fist shaking.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Does it explain in real terms what "teaching gay history" means as it pertains to the day to day curriculum? No it does not, it is left open for people like yourself to fill in the blanks with all manner of fist shaking.

Nice try but no cigar. I know your game by now.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmakers-pass-bill-teach-gay-history-012938470.html

A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, a law was passed. But in real terms what does it mean? What specifically is going to be taught (and how)? it's not clear. In fact, it's not there at all.

You've filled in the blanks with your own assumptions and your preconceived, irrational hatred of California. You are the third poster by my count to do this. You should chill out.

Edited July 6, 2011 by fishdude

[Zero Sum 305]

Why is a law like this necessary? Historic contributions are taught based on their relevance. Nobody goes into detail about the sexual orientation of most historic figures because it is typically not relevant to their contribution. That is, if Albert Einstein slept with men (honestly, I don't know much about his personal life) we would talk about him in relation to special relativity. It is irrelevant who he slept with. There is speculation that Alexander the Great was bisexual. But we talk about him in world history because he conquered most of the known world.

Agreed. Beyond the obviously bigoted homophobic ranting from the usual suspects, the necessity for an aggrandizement of gayness within a historical context would be quite silly. However, I believe this gay history could be better taught within the context of a curricular subject, say, like gender studies, women's studies, men's studies, in how such singular factions of human behavior, be it genetic or learned, have caused history or at least influenced it.

For example, a few classes within a gay history class could be devoted to the pushback, bigoted reaction to the gay rights movement itself- just to analyze the kind of bigotry displayed by such people that at the bottom of it all, are strangely attracted to something they are not.

Actually, unlike you and the rest of the left-wingers out there, I believe in equality in that every human being is the same without the race/gendar/sexual orientation card being played.

All the Left Wing knows is how to think in seperation of society, not equality at all. They pit race and class against one another in hope of being divisive to show how different or how better someone has it and tries to blame it on another race for why they are down and out.

The last time I checked, we are ALL Americans and race is non-existent along those lines. We all have a common cause here in looking out for the best interests of AMERICANS.

It is you and your left wing cronies who are the ones who act bigoted, not myself.

You could as usual ignore historical reality and your post would make perfect sense.

[slim 1,514]

Shouldn't curriculum be handled on the local level?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yes, a law was passed. But in real terms what does it mean? What specifically is going to be taught (and how)? it's not clear. In fact, it's not there at all.

You've filled in the blanks with your own assumptions and your preconceived, irrational hatred of California. You are the third poster by my count to do this. You should chill out.

Gay history...that's what they are going to be required to teach in California public schools. I'm guessing they will start out with something like how Liberace had a great affect on piano players, and then something about Rock Hudson and using condemns and finish off with how great of a father Rossie O'Donnel is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gay history...that's what they are going to be required to teach in California public schools. I'm guessing they will start out with something like how Liberace had a great affect on piano players, and then something about Rock Hudson and using condemns and finish off with how great of a father Rossie O'Donnel is.

Yes I read it too - gay history. What is missing is what that actually means in the classroom.

[Zero Sum 305]

Shouldn't curriculum be handled on the local level?

States dictate their own curricular standards.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

States dictate their own curricular standards.

So it is not reasonable to ask how this law translate into actual teaching and actual lessons.

[Zero Sum 305]

So it is not reasonable to ask how this law translate into actual teaching and actual lessons.

It is not unreasonable. Then better opinions could be formulated without them being predictable hateful rants.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So it is not reasonable to ask how this law translate into actual teaching and actual lessons.

Seeing how it's California I'm guessing it's going to be taught using a lot of visual AIDS.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seeing how it's California I'm guessing it's going to be taught using a lot of visual AIDS.

You have a ####### sense of humour.