CA Bill Would Mandate Teaching of LGBT Contributions (legally, homosexual)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Think about it. Take a simple statement of fact: "In 2011, John Doe invented the kerfurfuldinger which replaced the thingamajigger previously used in most modern automobiles."

Now rewrite it to accomplish the aims of this piece of bad legislation: "In 2011, John Doe, who was gay, invented the kerfurfuldinger which replaced the thingamajigger previously used in most modern automobiles."

What does that add that anyone needs to know and what does it have to do with a useful invention?

If the renown is directly attributable to an LGBT issue it might be worthy of mention but otherwise, there's no value added and it becomes mere social engineering.

It's important if John Doe's ultimate fate was linked to his homosexuality, like that of Alan Turing or Harvey Milk. Turing, if he hadn't been arrested in a men's room, would not have been institutionalized and lobotomized which caused him to commit suicide, and Milk's political activism stemmed directly from his homosexuality.

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by RabbitMage

The issue I'm having with your argument, Steven, is that "teaching homosexual history"=indoctrination.

I haven't seen you put forth any evidence to support this claim.

Again, I don't have to "prove" something thats in front of your face. That's like asking me to prove there's oxygen in the atmosphere. Just take a breath!

Teaching homosexual history to children as young as five (5) has to be proven as indoctrination? Maybe you don;t fully understand what the word means. Maybe this will help:

in·doc·tri·nate
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

According to Merriam Webster, there leaves no doubt that this is indoctrination.

We are talking about 5-10 year old children. This is shameless mind molding on the most innocent in our society to perpetuate a secular ideology. Sound familiar?

Why don't you prove how this isn't indoctrination.

Originally Posted by majoun

It's important if John Doe's ultimate fate was linked to his homosexuality, like that of Alan Turing or Harvey Milk. Turing, if he hadn't been arrested in a men's room, would not have been institutionalized and lobotomized which caused him to commit suicide, and Milk's political activism stemmed directly from his homosexuality.

But for the majority of gay men and women, their life revolves around their homosexuality. There's a much greater history of heterosexuals accomplishing great things. Should we add their sexual preferences to all things historical? If a heterosexual had sexual addictions should we also teach about that? Sexual preference has nothing to do with accomplishment, unless it was to accomplish something about their sexuality. So the truth of it is that homosexual activists want to, and are succeeding, to place homosexuality on a pedestal.

BTW- Turing killed himself as a result of his sexuality which had nothing to do with his contribution to the development of Computer Science. His sexuality is simply a footnote to the story and not the story itself.

Welcome to our school system where the likes of Harvey Milk are placed on the same level as Martin Luther King Jr.

[TimC2462]

This has to be one of the worst bills ever proposed by two dimwits who wants to push their homosexuality agendas on the rest of the state.

I don't give a flip if my co-worker, my doctor, or the person I play sports with -- is a homosexual or not. I'd be more interested in the common interests we share more than knowing their actual sexual preference. If this mandate goes through, expect a lot of uproar about it since parents will not have the option to opt their children out of LGBT course material.

This bill is a sham and is as worse as Proposition 8.

[maja]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

This has to be one of the worst bills ever proposed by two dimwits who wants to push their homosexuality agendas on the rest of the state.

I don't give a flip if my co-worker, my doctor, or the person I play sports with -- is a homosexual or not. I'd be more interested in the common interests we share more than knowing their actual sexual preference. If this mandate goes through, expect a lot of uproar about it since parents will not have the option to opt their children out of LGBT course material.

This bill is a sham and is as worse as Proposition 8.

And during the Prop 8 Campaign, the Citizens of California were ASSURED there would be NO changes to the public school curriculum. Is it any wonder that people don't trust the slippery slope we are on?

[Ceece]

Since nobody knows what kind curriculum there will be nobody knows if it's anything worth opting out of. This bill doesn't provide that kind of detail.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by Ceece

Since nobody knows what kind curriculum there will be nobody knows if it's anything worth opting out of. This bill doesn't provide that kind of detail.

Googled:

SB 48 Senate Bill - ENROLLED

[majoun]

Originally Posted by steven_h

But for the majority of gay men and women, their life revolves around their homosexuality. There's a much greater history of heterosexuals accomplishing great things. Should we add their sexual preferences to all things historical? If a heterosexual had sexual addictions should we also teach about that?

Sexual addictions are no more real than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and the whole concept is pseudoscience on the order of creationism or astrology. But that's a whole other issue.

I suppose kids know about Kennedy and Clinton sleeping around.

There's more of a history of heterosexuals accomplishing great things because 90 percent of the population are heterosexuals.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with accomplishment, unless it was to accomplish something about their sexuality. So the truth of it is that homosexual activists want to, and are succeeding, to place homosexuality on a pedestal.

There have been many important men whose sexuality has been suppressed by their families and by schools out of the belief "someone this important and revered could not have been gay". English teachers in every English speaking country into the 1960s taught that Oscar Wilde and Walt Whitman were heterosexual. The families of Friedrich Nietzsche and Langston Hughes deliberately destroyed their diaries in order to suppress their homosexuality. Abraham Lincoln's sexuality was never taught in schools because how could one of America's greatest presidents have been gay? (I don't even think Lincoln's sexuality would've been taught in the former Confederate states due to homosexuality in early/mid 20th century America being such a taboo subject that it could not even be brought up to condemn it or tar someone with it by association).

BTW- Turing killed himself as a result of his sexuality which had nothing to do with his contribution to the development of Computer Science. His sexuality is simply a footnote to the story and not the story itself.

Welcome to our school system where the likes of Harvey Milk are placed on the same level as Martin Luther King Jr.

The sexuality of Walt Whitman is a big part of his contributions to literature in particular. About 80 percent of his work is related to his bisexuality. The sexuality of Wilde, Hughes, Nietzsche, Herman Melville, Federico Garcia Lorca, Tennessee Williams, and many others is important to understanding their work although all of them may have been tossed out of California schools given that all of these men except Hughes are Dead White Males. If it gets those writers back into literature curricula, it's all for the better.

Milk is not a major figure in US history as a whole but he is a major figure in California history and thus it is desirable for kids in California to learn about him.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by majoun

Sexual addictions are no more real than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and the whole concept is pseudoscience on the order of creationism or astrology. But that's a whole other issue.

I suppose kids know about Kennedy and Clinton sleeping around.

There's more of a history of heterosexuals accomplishing great things because 90 percent of the population are heterosexuals.



There have been many important men whose sexuality has been suppressed by their families and by schools out of the belief "someone this important and revered could not have been gay". English teachers in every English speaking country into the 1960s taught that Oscar Wilde and Walt Whitman were heterosexual. The families of Friedrich Nietzsche and Langston Hughes deliberately destroyed their diaries in order to suppress their homosexuality. Abraham Lincoln's sexuality was never taught in schools because how could one of America's greatest presidents have been gay? (I don't even think Lincoln's sexuality would've been taught in the former Confederate states due to homosexuality in early/mid 20th century America being such a taboo subject that it could not even be brought up to condemn it or tar someone with it by association).



The sexuality of Walt Whitman is a big part of his contributions to literature in particular. About 80 percent of his work is related to his bisexuality. The sexuality of Wilde, Hughes, Nietzsche, Herman Melville, Federico Garcia Lorca, Tennessee Williams, and many others is important to understanding their work although all of them may have been tossed out of California schools given that all of these men except Hughes are Dead White Males. If it gets those writers back into literature curricula, it's all for the better.

Milk is not a major figure in US history as a whole but he is a major figure in California history and thus it is desirable for kids in California to learn about him.

I guess so. We should teach our kids in California that Harvey Milk liked sleeping around with men. We should also teach kids that Abraham Lincoln liked sleeping with women.

Kennedy liked sleeping with women. Clinton did too (and he did it with a cigar).

Hell, let's make a list of every historical figure and place them in the appropriate heterosexual and homosexual columns.

I'm sure parents of children enrolled from kindergarten to high school will be prepared to answer questions about male-to-male, female-to-female, male-to-female sexual orientations.

Now I'm just curious about the sexual orientation of this dude I play golf with cuz if he's gay, I'm gonna like him more.

[Ceece]

Googled:

Any classroom instruction details there? I can't see them.

This isn't about gay sex, it's about history. If you want to sweep everything under the rug so be it, but there is some pretty big civil rights issues regarding homosexuality that we can't pretend didn't/aren't happening. They are going to be talked about in school whether this bill passes or not, and in your state, and by your kids, and there is nothing you can do about that.

For the record I'm against this bill, but I'm also against hysterics of all sorts.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by maja

And during the Prop 8 Campaign, the Citizens of California were ASSURED there would be NO changes to the public school curriculum. Is it any wonder that people don't trust the slippery slope we are on?

If Prop 8 had been defeated there would have been no need for this bill.