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.
More likely it is the battle for same sex marriage which is something that our nation does not have a consensus about. Since homosexuality is viewed as a sin for millions of Americans, I don't feel that teaching LGBT history is appropriate in the public schools. Teachers often complain that there isn't enough time in a typical school day to cover the basics so we really should not be introducing history about controversial topics that our nation is not even in agreement about.
With all due respect, GLBT history is not a "controversial topic," it's a part of history, and, in this context, American history in particular. Your attempts to relegate it to a simple legal and political topic that lacks nationwide consensus speaks volumes about your perception of GLBT as a bonafide minority group, which it is.
I would support incorporating "gay history" in regard to key events such as Stonewall riots or the assassination of Milk, but other than that I do not believe any group should receive special recognition in core history classes. My high school and college offered specialized classes such as African American History or Non-Western Civilization. Perhaps GLBT history should be offered in that way while only hitting key points in regular classes like with every other topic...
That's along the lines about what I was also thinking. I am a fan of the way that it was done in a Human Sexuality class that I took when I was a student at the Univ of Texas- Austin. They had about 6 older gays and lesbian speakers who spoke about coming out and most of all, where to get help when the students (those of us in the audience) needed it when they were discovering their sexuality. one thing that stuck in my head was when one of them referenced the Kinsey report that 1 in 10 had same sex feelings, that 1 in 10 of us might turn out gay. this generated snickers from the audience. it was the 80s after all with all of the reagan era indifference. but the message was that there is professional help when those ppl are in need of it. i think that this is needed for young ppl today.
If it's included in the main curriculum you'd open yourself up to:
History of so and so religion?
History of porn?
History of XXX whatever views someone can come up with
Not true at all. See the link that I just provided on gay history. It can easily be discussed without turning it into a discussion about religion or pornography.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,014,069 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by justcause
With all due respect, GLBT history is not a "controversial topic," it's a part of history, and, in this context, American history in particular. Your attempts to relegate it to a simple legal and political topic that lacks nationwide consensus speaks volumes about your perception of GLBT as a bonafide minority group, which it is.
That is a tough question to answer... I would say it would ONLY be appropriate when there are classes where human sexuality is also taught... Otherwise, if you can't teach about sex then you shouldn't be teaching about sexual orientation... I know that some schools don't have human sexuality classes, so it would be inappropriate to teach that subject but there are classes that do teach it in high school, in which case they should be taught along with the class subject matter... there isn't a simple "yes" or "no" to it...
Anyone not in the majority is part of a minority. Jews are a minority. Handicapped people are part of a minority. I don't think the word "minority" is defined solely by skin color.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,014,069 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Anyone not in the majority is part of a minority. Jews are a minority. Handicapped people are part of a minority. I don't think the word "minority" is defined solely by skin color.
If we define "minority" that broadly, then it would suffice that everyone fits some "minority" designation and thus, makes the term meaningless.
if you can't teach about sex then you shouldn't be teaching about sexual orientation
Saying the word "gay" doesn't require a lesson on the mechanics of homosexuality. Everybody knows what the word means.
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.
