LGBTQ curriculum now to be taught in Illinois schools. (employment, legal, death)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You think there were no LGBTQ people involved in "basic foundational knowledge" throughout human history? Like it or not, people who are gay etc. exist, they have existed throughout history, they have affected our society and will continue to do so.
What are you afraid of?
Excuse me, but when did I say gay people don't exist, or that I am afraid of them? (Why do liberals take this to ridiculous and untrue extremes?) I said school should focus on math, history, science, geography, English, etc. The fact that gay people have affected history or math or georgraphy is great (well, for the good stuff!), but their sexuality has nothing to do with that.
Excuse me, but when did I say gay people don't exist, or that I am afraid of them? (Why do liberals take this to ridiculous and untrue extremes?) I said school should focus on math, history, science, geography, English, etc. The fact that gay people have affected history or math or georgraphy is great (well, for the good stuff!), but their sexuality has nothing to do with that.
These are kids. They need to learn the BASICS.
I mean, I can see your point. But if we can touch on historical figures' spouses and significant others in history classes (and we do, even if fleetingly, which I'd expect this plan to be as well), then I say why not for LGBT couples either. I don't expect this curriculum to focus on every, single gay person, but on historical moments. I and others believe that it is significant and noteworthy that LGBT individuals were doing positive given what used to be taught about homosexuality being a mental illness needing to be "cured" and given the previous government discrimination against LGBT people, to include Don't Ask Don't Tell and other discriminatory programs. Such instruction as Illinois is trying to introduce merely says that LGBT people aren't that bad after all. That they have been doing great things throughout history, even when they were being persecuted.
Moreover, I think that teaching people to respect and value differences--to include differences in sexual orientation--are among the basics. We do it with other historically marginalized groups, to include black Americans, American Indians, and others. Why shouldn't we include LGBT people?
I mean, I can see your point. But if we can touch on historical figures' spouses and significant others in history classes (and we do, even if fleetingly, which I'd expect this plan to be as well), then I say why not for LGBT couples either. I don't expect this curriculum to focus on every, single gay person, but on historical moments. I and others believe that it is significant and noteworthy that LGBT individuals were doing positive given what used to be taught about homosexuality being a mental illness needing to be "cured" and given the previous government discrimination against LGBT people, to include Don't Ask Don't Tell and other discriminatory programs. Such instruction as Illinois is trying to introduce merely says that LGBT people aren't that bad after all. That they have been doing great things throughout history, even when they were being persecuted.
Moreover, I think that teaching people to respect and value differences--to include differences in sexual orientation--are among the basics. We do it with other historically marginalized groups, to include black Americans, American Indians, and others. Why shouldn't we include LGBT people?
We do when the spouse themselves have had major contributions.
But otherwise we don't touch on it...never have.
So does that mean now everyone in history will have a side paragraph on their personal life and sexual preference ?
I mean...if you're going to be inclusive then include everyone.
Do you really think LGBTQ doesn't affect everyone?
No, it doesn't. The liberal playbook tries to make it universal when it only affects a small minority who have made that choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Do you really think there are no LGBTQ students in public schools?
There are. I acknowledge that, but to be honest I really don't care about them or their chosen lot in life. My child is in a private school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Do you really think the admission that people who have achieved in or affected our society, our world, and our history are gay or bi or whatever is going to "turn" kids gay or bi or whatever?
How does the manner in which one chooses to use their genitals affect their lot in life in a positive way when achieving anything? As far as "turning", it should not be presented as being significant or a contributing factor in determining their contributions, nor should it be presented as an enticement to children trying to find their place in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Do you really think there's nothing to learn from how our society has treated LGBTQ people like second class citizens, or worse, demonized them?
Yes, for this instance I do think that. This is not an ethnic group, a national group, a political group, or a religious group. This is a group defined by behavior freely chosen. Nothing genetic makes a man act feminine and lispy. Nothing genetic makes a woman act masculine or butch. Emotionally unstable - perhaps. Prone to bizarre behavior - most likely (as do afflictions such as autism or retardation. Or pedophilia) It's not cured by mutilation and makeup and having others play pretend as well to pander to the madness. CD's resident cross-dresser may disagree, but may at the moment be occupied elsewhere screaming "It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Learning about LGBTQ issues in history and in current events isn't going to hurt anyone. What are you afraid of?
It's certainly not going to help anyone either. Why impose it on those who cannot refuse? What value is there, other than indoctrination and desensitization?
There you go with your "afraid" thing again. Straight from the radical playbook. Use words like [fill-in-the-blank]-phobia to demonize those who disagree. This is like screaming "RACIST!" to the opposition, and like that, has lost it's impact. I'm not afraid of anything, despite your insistence on labeling that which you disagree with as phobic.
I'll ask again. Do you think a subset of society should have opportunistic control over the hearts and minds of children in contradiction to the values of the families of those children? Do you own my child? Consider your position carefully, because if you do feel that way you'll be answered in your quest by a level of fury you can't begin to imagine.
I'm raising my child as I see fit. I choose what values are taught, what realities rule over your feelings, and how to conduct herself in the world. I've taught her that women marry men, men marry women, and make-believe "families" are not real. Everyone has one real mom and one real dad. Adoptions may change that, but a sick and twisted imagination does not. I teach her whom to associate with, whom to avoid, and how to protect herself in this world against those who would harm her given the opportunity - and of those there are plenty. Raise your children as you wish, but hands off of mine.
]Moreover, I think that teaching people to respect and value differences--to include differences in sexual orientation--are among the basics. We do it with other historically marginalized groups, to include black Americans, American Indians, and others. Why shouldn't we include LGBT people?
Exactly. Who knows how many more plays Oscar Wilde may have written if he'd not been jailed for "gross indecency", which ruined his health? Alan Turing, the mathematician who cracked German codes in World War II, lost his job after he admitted an affair with a man, and was forced into "treatment" that ruined his health. He tried immigrating to the U.S., but was turned down because he was gay. How many more hit singles would Lesley Gore have had, but she quit recording because she didn't want her private life scrutinized.
Human history is littered with intolerance and violations of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Teaching respect and tolerance is as "basic" as it gets, and touches almost every "basic" subject there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
There are. I acknowledge that, but to be honest I really don't care about them or their chosen lot in life. My child is in a private school.
And you think none of the kids in private school are gay? How naive.
And don't those kids deserve to be validated as much as any other kid?
Quote:
This is a group defined by behavior freely chosen. Nothing genetic makes a man act feminine and lispy. Nothing genetic makes a woman act masculine or butch. Emotionally unstable - perhaps. Prone to bizarre behavior - most likely (as do afflictions such as autism or retardation. Or pedophilia)
Wow. That is beyond disturbing. And ignorant. Perhaps you should educate yourself.
Quote:
Why impose it on those who cannot refuse? What value is there, other than indoctrination and desensitization?
Basic humanity, for one; perhaps that would reduce the number of people who think the way you've indicated in your quote above this one.
Quote:
I'm not afraid of anything, despite your insistence on labeling that which you disagree with as phobic.
What you've written in this post proves you wrong.
Quote:
Do you think a subset of society should have opportunistic control over the hearts and minds of children in contradiction to the values of the families of those children?
Who's controlling anyone, let alone "hearts and minds"? How is acknowledging the truth of our society - that gay people exist, that they are discriminated against and ridiculed, and that they have contributed to history and society despite discrimination and ridicule - an attempt to control anything except presentation of the truth?
Hide your head in the sand (or elsewhere) all you want, but that doesn't negate the facts, negate history.
Quote:
I've taught her that women marry men, men marry women, and make-believe "families" are not real. Everyone has one real mom and one real dad.
And someday she'll find out that you've presented her with only half the truth.
Quote:
Adoptions may change that, but a sick and twisted imagination does not.
And she'll learn how ugly intolerance, prejudice, and fear can be.
Last edited by Ohiogirl81; 08-12-2019 at 07:23 PM..
Sending your child to a govt school is a form of child abuse.
Many years ago I was against homeschooling because I felt like even though K-12 education was watered down, the social aspects of homeschooling would be detrimental to a child's overall social maturation process.
In today's world I am 100% for homeschooling. "Educational" institutions today are nothing but indoctrination farms filled with propaganda and various twisted agendas.
Does this bill specify at which age liberals are planning to make an issue of gay people part of the curriculum?
This focus is completely wrong. Our country is falling way behind other developed countries, especially in math and science. The high school in the adjacent county (estimates are almost 25% are illegal) scored a 13% proficiency in math, for G-d's sake! We need courses that will prepare kids for some level of self-support (not everyone goes to college), and we should be beefing up computer classes, basic accounting classes, maybe some vocational classes senior year, that type of thing (in addition to the basic history, science, and math).
It is NOT as important that children know that Sally Ride was gay (I didn't know that, and now that I do....I couldn't care less) as it is for them to focus in academic and job preparation classes.
We do when the spouse themselves have had major contributions.
But otherwise we don't touch on it...never have.
So does that mean now everyone in history will have a side paragraph on their personal life and sexual preference ?
I mean...if you're going to be inclusive then include everyone.
Not true. In basic biographies of historical figures, their family--to include spouse--is always mentioned. In fact, my honors and AP history teachers used to quiz us on that information to see if we actually read the entire book or piece
But, if heterosexual people were persecuted like LGBT individuals were, then sure I'd have no problem with having such consideration in this historical academic context. But we are not comparing apples to apples here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is acknowledging the truth of our society - that gay people exist, that they are discriminated against and ridiculed, and that they have contributed to history and society despite discrimination and ridicule - an attempt to control anything except presentation of the truth?
