CA Legislature Passes Bill To Teach LGBT History In Schools

Maria_EfremenkovaThey say history is written by the winners, who will be writing the LGBT history curriculum? Via Reuters:

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.

Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has not said publicly whether he supports the bill, which he has 12 days to sign or veto once it reaches his desk later this month. If he takes no action, the measure would become law automatically.

The bill gained final passage from the state Assembly on a vote of 49-25, without a single Republican supporting it. The measure cleared the state Senate in April.

California already requires public schools to teach the contributions made to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.

[Continues at Reuters]

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Richiefoster

    its one thing to be gay but our kids can decide that one when its time! you dont have to shove it on them let them be kids!

    • Andrew

      Did you decide to be straight?

    • Jin The Ninja

      so teaching people social history is in your view teaching kids to be gay?!
      oh then i suppose we shouldn’t teach kids about civil rights, suffrage, or labour struggles because that would just be too confrontational regarding the regressive history of america. 
      let’s not teach them about native americans, and their annihilation by white settlers, slavery, chinese railroad workers, eugenics, japanese internment or alternative political systems because that may “indoctrinate” them further.

      In fact let’s not teach them any social or politcal philosophy at all (wait, isn’t that pretty much the case already???)- so they can braindead nationalist drones, with no social conscious whatsoever.

      The fact is- teaching people (kids specifically) about these issues will allow them to combat injustice and be more critically minded in the future. It is imperative to illustrate the people’s history- a holistic view- instead of the accepted white washed history of the world- so people don’t grow up to be faux news bigots.

      • SF2K01

        They’re not teaching the kids the important of tolerance, they’re just requiring special highlighting of people who were gay. That’s not teaching them about the issues, that’s just saying that these people are defined by their identity and we wouldn’t mention them except that their sexual orientation is of interest today. We don’t spend a class on how Einstein was Jewish. If they’re human beings who made a contribution to human history, it shouldn’t matter what color or religion they are or orientation they have.

        • Jin The Ninja

          SF,
           it DOES matter if they are glbtq! It matters because the queer community is not equal to the heterosexual community. Don’t get me wrong i am not a liberal “equalitarian”/ i am a radical progressive, but i think for the time being we cannot pretend racial or sexual identity is not a factor in how groups are treated by the dominant culture. i am queer, and i hate GLAAD for instance for their insistence on an american liberal capitalist critique of popular culture. However, when it comes to education i feel it IS important to teach kids that people with separate identities/culture contribute to the overall “american” culture. Kids learn about “black” history as an ongoing area of study because of a horrific historical (and contemporary) context, i feel the glbtq community deserves at least passing mention.

          • SF2K01

            Lots of communities are unequal in size or representation, but I don’t think that should be a basis for legislating education into focusing on a given community as we can’t fairly devote any time to studying each and every unequal community equally or you end up favoring this community over that one. It is my personal feeling that the best way to create tolerance is to minimize the boundaries between people by reducing categories to a mere technicality, forging a human identity. Personally people should decide what is important for themselves, but as a matter of public policy, emphasizing differences is not the way to go and creates an exclusionary feeling that such a group is not a part of us but something to be viewed from afar. The lgbtq community does deserve mention within the context of history, but it is not to be taken outside the context of human history which it is a part of.

          • Jin The Ninja

            I very much see that you understand  and are sympathetic to minority issues; however i think you are looking at this through an american liberal lens, which has historically been unhelpful in progressing the issues communities like the gltbq face. Try to imagine yourself as a queer person or a person of colour, and recognise that effacement of cultural difference is then allowing the politics of oppression to continue. As a multi-racial person, who is very much engaged in identity politics,i can say that attempting to equalise humankind as part of a unified system in a historical context is unhelpful academically or personally.

            check out colorlines. it has some good articles on this issue. again i am not trying to attack you or be overly critical, but being a PoC, i have seen this type of rhetoric before, and generally it is derived from a paternalistic liberal POV- that takes away the agency of the very community it attempts to help. Agency is a very important concept in discussing minority issues, as it clarifies the “right” of another to speak to issues that do not affect them.

          • SF2K01

            Believe you me, I do in fact belong to a specific minority, although it is not the queer one. Gay people themselves can be proactive about their identity as much as any group, but there’s a big difference between that and the government literally rewriting education to throw in the view of history as stemming from the sexual orientation of people. I would be more supportive of the notion if it were an optional measure. I simply think we can teach the concept of tolerance on it’s own merits in the context of the American melting pot. I don’t know how liberal that is or isn’t.

            Personally I feel pandered to when the government or other institution tries to make a day or project to celebrate my ethnicity. In trying to turn it into something that can easily be explained in a 30 minute class they misconstrue the entire thing. However, I understand that’s often the only exposure people will get so I’ll swallow my pride for a while, but if asked I would say not to have it at all and if people want to know about it they could just ask me informally.

          • Jin The Ninja

            I appreciate the discussion, even if we disagree. I also find it annoying if people constantly ask me what my racial background which happens a lot, but you can inform people about things they are unaware of by being open to it. You also can gauge how undercover racist someone is- when you tell them or explain something.
            it’s a useful skill i’ve learned to appreciate about being mixed.

             

      • Tuna Ghost

        Oh then i suppose we shouldn’t teach kids about civil rights, suffrage, or labour struggles because that would just be too confrontational regarding the regressive history of america. 

        Damn its like you’re reading the minutes of the Texas Board of Education’s meetings

        • Jin The Ninja

           LOL, was that a compliment or a chastisement? i couldn’t tell… my position is/was progressive, but perhaps i lost a bit in sarcasm?!

          • Tuna Ghost

            It’s merely a comment on Texas’s recent decisions regarding the information they’ve cut out of their textbooks

    • SF2K01

      Agree, this is obnoxious. Teach history without special regard to who is black, white, Jewish, catholic, protestant except the degree to which that identity was relevant to their place in history. If the only reason they are significant is because they are gay then that wasn’t really much of a contribution to the human race.

      • Jin The Ninja

        …. I totally disagree… this idea of non-identification plays perfectly into neo-liberal post racial politics. Could not be more contrary to holistic progressive education.

        • SF2K01

          I didn’t actually say don’t identify at all, but rather we don’t need to pretend that someone was only special because they were a gay chemist as opposed to a chemist who was also gay. Similarly, I don’t care that so and so was from Kansas city, but I would expect it to be listed in their biographical info, so put this stuff where it belongs instead of highlighting it as if it is the most important thing about the person.

          • Jin The Ninja

            i agree and disagree. Highlighting unimportant aspects is not critical or engaged education. However, we need to recognise minority voices because they are UNDER represented in mainstream history. american/canadian education (as the two systems i know intimately) focus heavily on what we academically refer to as “old, wealthy, white man” history. It DOES make a contextual difference if someone came from an ‘outside’ culture. i don’t care if someone is from kansas city, but it does matter if it influenced their perspective/contributions. Kip Fulbeck for example is a well-known asian-american studies scholar, who specialises in hapa and mixed-asian culture in the US. To know he himself is hapa- makes a tremendous difference to understanding his work. Likewise you cannot take a queer cinema class without identifying an auteur as queer/str8 (john waters vs ang lee) and then understanding how that changes your definition of queer cinema. Would bell hooks be pertinent as a third wave feminist scholar if she wasn’t a black women? NO! it makes sense to identify people in the context of their work. If it is solely for extraneous biographic info- then that is just poor pedagogy.

    • Jaymalls

      couldn’t agree more… In the next 1 or 2 yrs, our health classes are going to start explaining intercourse with a plastic dick and a male ass (which is not made for penetration). <- That was kinda harsh! But still, where do we draw the line. Who's to say a person isn't allowed to marry their animal… now-a-days people can argue that case… They can say that its their choice or THEIR RIGHT! #JustSayin <- if your going to live life the way you want to, don't flaunt it in everyones face, Same thing goes for heterosexuals… i dont wanna see people (heterosexuals + homosexuals) having sex on National TV with my kids… Thats what i got the Playboy Channel for!!!   

      • Duderanch

        plastic dick and male ass lmao…  having sex on National TV with your kids?  That was funny grammar!  lmao again

        • Jaymalls

          i just read it to my friend and he started cracking up… lol! I definitely should have worded it better… Anyway, your welcome for your free laugh 2day!

        • Leeloo

          It’s okay to have sex with his/her kids on the Playboy channel.
          BTW How do we know it’s specifically a “male ass”?

      • E.B. Wolf

        “Who’s to say a person isn’t allowed to marry their animal… now-a-days people can argue that case… They can say that its their choice or THEIR RIGHT!”
        Simple. An animal can not verify consent.

      • Tuna Ghost

        To clarify, a class on sex education should definitely include homosexual sex, since a real and verifiable percentage of students are/will be engaging in exactly that.  Obviously it has no place in a Biology of Human Reproduction class, but any class labeled “sex education” should include it.  It’s been a while, but I don’t recall ever having a “sex ed” class, now that I think about it–we learned about the birds and the bees in biology class.   Does that still happen?

        Of course, I went to an upscale private Christian high school, so the only time the word “sex” was mentioned it was in a whisper very far away from the innocent children’s ears.  

    • Drunkpimp3000

      When do kids decide to be gay? Do they hand out pamphlets, tell them to make a grave choice of who they’re attracted to? But speaking of shoving (down their throats no doubt), when I was a kid I had this idea coming at me from a million directions that I was alone and a freak, and not normal for feeling how I was.

      I think that maybe if I had known about gay civil rights leaders like harvey milk, and brilliant scientists like Alan Turing, it would’ve helped me at that age.

    • 5by5

      What it teaches, nitwit, is that what makes us unique is something to be not just tolerated, but cherished, even prized. 

      The struggles that minorities have gone through are nothing short of heroic, and that too is something kids can learn from — how to stand up for themselves, and how to authentically BE THEMSELVES. It also teaches that something which the world tells you is a weakness, can actually be a source of great strength. These are all valuable lessons, and it is the reason why someone’s membership in a  minority – especially at certain stages in history, is important to acknowledge, and not pretend like there were no challenges for these great figures in our history to overcome. 

      Race, class, gender, and orientation EXIST, and you can’t eliminate the irrational prejudices against them by pretending like they don’t exist. You can however destroy the ignorance before it takes hold in a kid’s heart, by EDUCATING them with an alternative narrative to that foisted upon them by the homophobes, racists, classists, and sexists of the world.And newsflash – you don’t “decide” to be gay. You either are, or you aren’t, or you’re somewhere in-between. The only thing you “decide” is how to interact with others once you know this about yourself.

  • Richiefoster

    its one thing to be gay but our kids can decide that one when its time! you dont have to shove it on them let them be kids!

  • Andrew

    Did you decide to be straight?

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    so teaching people social history is in your view teaching kids to be gay?!
    oh then i suppose we shouldn’t teach kids about civil rights, suffrage, or labour struggles because that would just be too confrontational regarding the regressive history of america. 
    let’s not teach them about native americans, and their annihilation by white settlers, slavery, chinese railroad workers, eugenics, japanese internment or alternative political systems because that may “indoctrinate” them further.

    In fact let’s not teach them any social or politcal philosophy at all (wait, isn’t that pretty much the case already???)- so they can braindead nationalist drones, with no social conscious whatsoever.

    The fact is- teaching people (kids specifically) about these issues will allow them to combat injustice and be more critically minded in the future. It is imperative to illustrate the people’s history- a holistic view- instead of the accepted white washed history of the world- so people don’t grow up to be faux news bigots.

  • Anonymous

    Agree, this is obnoxious. Teach history without special regard to who is black, white, Jewish, catholic, protestant except the degree to which that identity was relevant to their place in history. If the only reason they are significant is because they are gay then that wasn’t really much of a contribution.

  • Anonymous

    They’re not teaching the kids the important of tolerance, they’re just requiring special highlighting of people who were gay. That’s not teaching them about the issues, that’s just saying that these people are defined by their identity and we wouldn’t mention them except that their sexual orientation is of interest today. We don’t spend a class on how Einstein was Jewish. If they’re human beings who made a contribution to human history, it shouldn’t matter what color or religion they are or orientation they have.

  • Guest

    RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MURDER AND PERSECUTE HOMOSEXUALS!

    • David T

      I am religious and I don’t remember murdering or persecuting anyone.  Must have slipped my mind.

      • http://www.ryandennler.com ImmaculateHunkOfPremiumFlesh

        Right but the reason why religion exists and has survived to this day was because the extremism of it and the wars which have involved numerous amounts of people dying in order to maintain the power of their ‘god’.

        The mere fact that you’re sitting here TYPING a response and saying you’re religious is because a bunch of people in the past killed a bunch of other people. So, you’re right, let’s reiterate this then, that what you represent, your religion whatever it may be (save for buddhism and even then you have some gray area) but it’s most likely christian, is based on the killing and persecution of thousands of people over a span of many many years. Here’s a smaller example it’s like a republican politician with political power and a regular republican, a regular republican you meet on the street might be a nice guy (1/10), but the people who represent that guy on tv and in court and sets the standards for republicans , are evil mother fuckers.

        Does that work?

  • Guest

    RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MURDER AND PERSECUTE HOMOSEXUALS!

  • Butter Knife

    Based on the phrasing, I suppose the status quo might be that contributions made to humanity by homosexuals are simply glossed over. That actually sounds plausible, given the tendency to merely overlook the contributions anyone who isn’t a white male. The inclusion of a few token blacks and women, simply to show how not sexist and not racist we are, doesn’t really help the cause.

    I think the other half of this is that we need to cover the atrocity and hypocrisy faced by those who contributions we laud, often from their own beneficiaries. Alan Turing, WWII hero and father of modern computing, took his own life after the post-war British Government saw fit to ruin his life and career by prosecuting him for being a homosexual.

    • Jin The Ninja

      good post. ty.

  • Butter Knife

    Based on the phrasing, I suppose the status quo might be that contributions made to humanity by homosexuals are simply glossed over. That actually sounds plausible, given the tendency to merely overlook the contributions anyone who isn’t a white male. The inclusion of a few token blacks and women, simply to show how not sexist and not racist we are, doesn’t really help the cause.

    I think the other half of this is that we need to cover the atrocity and hypocrisy faced by those who contributions we laud, often from their own beneficiaries. Alan Turing, WWII hero and father of modern computing, took his own life after the post-war British Government saw fit to ruin his life and career by prosecuting him for being a homosexual.

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    SF,
     it DOES matter if they are glbtq! It matters because the queer community is not equal to the heterosexual community. Don’t get me wrong i am not a liberal “equalitarian”/ i am a radical progressive, but i think for the time being we cannot pretend racial or sexual identity is not a factor in how groups are treated by the dominant culture. i am queer, and i hate GLAAD for instance for their insistence on an american liberal capitalist critique of popular culture. However, when it comes to education i feel it IS important to teach kids that people with separate identities/culture contribute to the overall “american” culture. Kids learn about “black” history as an ongoing area of study because of a horrific historical (and contemporary) context, i feel the glbtq community deserves at least passing mention.

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    good post. ty.

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    …. I totally disagree… this idea of non-identification plays perfectly into neo-liberal post racial politics. Could not be more contrary to holistic progressive education.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t actually say don’t identify at all, but rather we don’t need to pretend that someone was only special because they were a gay chemist as opposed to a chemist who was also gay. Similarly, I don’t care that so and so was from Kansas city, but I would expect it to be listed in their biographical info, so put this stuff where it belongs instead of highlighting it as if it is the most important thing about the person.

  • Anonymous

    Lots of communities are unequal in size or representation, but I don’t think that should be a basis for legislating education into focusing on a given community as we can’t fairly devote any time to studying each and every unequal community equally or you end up favoring this community over that one. It is my personal feeling that the best way to create tolerance is to minimize the boundaries between people by reducing categories to a mere technicality, forging a human identity. Personally people should decide what is important for themselves, but as a matter of public policy, emphasizing differences is not the way to go and creates an exclusionary feeling that such a group is not a part of us but something to be viewed from afar. The lgbtq community does deserve mention within the context of history, but it is not to be taken outside the context of human history which it is a part of.

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    i agree and disagree. Highlighting unimportant aspects is not critical or engaged education. However, we need to recognise minority voices because they are UNDER represented in mainstream history. american/canadian education (as the two systems i know intimately) focus heavily on what we academically refer to as “old, wealthy, white man” history. It DOES make a contextual difference if someone came from an ‘outside’ culture. i don’t care if someone is from kansas city, but it does matter if it influenced their perspective/contributions. Kip Fulbeck for example is a well-known asian-american studies scholar, who specialises in hapa and mixed-asian culture in the US. To know he himself is hapa- makes a tremendous difference to understanding his work. Likewise you cannot take a queer cinema class without identifying an auteur as queer/str8 and then understanding how that changes your definition of queer cinema. Would bell hooks be pertinent as a third wave feminist scholar if she wasn’t a black women? NO! it makes sense to identify people in the context of their work. If it solely for extraneous bibliographic info- then that is just poor pedagogy.

  • TennesseeCyberian

    Academia has embraced “Queer Studies” for a long time now, but I’ve always wondered who was responsible for the invention of various gay sex toys, who pioneered the techniques of anal sex without significant physiological damage, and how many man-slaves Alexander the Great deflowered.  So I would say that highlighting the gayness of history is a particularly fascinating line of inquiry.

    Why are people so afraid of the truth?  In case nobody ever told you, history is totally gay, brah.

  • JoJoDancer

    Academia has embraced “Queer Studies” for a long time now, but I’ve always wondered who was responsible for the invention of various gay sex toys, who pioneered the techniques of anal sex without significant physiological damage, and how many man-slaves Alexander the Great deflowered.  So I would say that highlighting the gayness of history is a particularly fascinating line of inquiry.

    Why are people so afraid of the truth?  In case nobody ever told you, history is totally gay, brah.

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    I very much see that you understand  and are sympathetic to minority issues; however i think you are looking at this through an american liberal lens, which has historically been unhelpful in progressing the issues communities like the gltbq face. Try to imagine yourself as a queer person or a person of colour, and recognise that effacement of cultural difference is then allowing the politics of oppression to continue. As a multi-racial person, who is very much engaged in identity politics,i can say that attempting to equalise humankind as part of a unified system in a historical context is unhelpful academically or personally.

    check out colorlines. it has some good articles on this issue. again i am not trying to attack you or be overly critical, but being a PoC, i have seen this type of rhetoric before, and generally it is derived from a paternalistic liberal POV- that takes away the agency of the very community it attempts to help. Agency is a very important concept in discussing minority issues, as it clarifies the “right” of another to speak to issues that do not affect them.

  • David T

    I am religious and I don’t remember murdering or persecuting anyone.  Must have slipped my mind.

  • Anonymous

    Believe you me, I do in fact belong to a specific minority, although it is not the queer one. Gay people themselves can be proactive about their identity as much as any group, but there’s a big difference between that and the government literally rewriting education to throw in the view of history as stemming from the sexual orientation of people. I would be more supportive of the notion if it were an optional measure.

    Personally I feel pandered to when the government or other institution tries to make a day or project to celebrate my ethnicity. In trying to turn it into something that can easily be explained in a 30 minute class they misconstrue the entire thing. However, I understand that’s often the only exposure people will get so I’ll swallow my pride for a while, but if asked I would say not to have it at all and if people want to know about it they could just ask me informally. 

  • Anonymous

    Believe you me, I do in fact belong to a specific minority, although it is not the queer one. Gay people themselves can be proactive about their identity as much as any group, but there’s a big difference between that and the government literally rewriting education to throw in the view of history as stemming from the sexual orientation of people. I would be more supportive of the notion if it were an optional measure.

    Personally I feel pandered to when the government or other institution tries to make a day or project to celebrate my ethnicity. In trying to turn it into something that can easily be explained in a 30 minute class they misconstrue the entire thing. However, I understand that’s often the only exposure people will get so I’ll swallow my pride for a while, but if asked I would say not to have it at all and if people want to know about it they could just ask me informally. 

  • DeepCough

    It’s really lame now that people are lobbying for their own versions of history to be taught in school, even though there are plenty of examples of gay people making contributions to history: ever heard of Ancient Greece?

    • Duderanch

      Ancient Greece should have been called Anus Grease with all of the lube they enjoyed.  What do you think the first tzikiki (spelling I know…) sauce was made from?  They had to do something with that excess output…

      • DeepCough

         Great, thanks to you, I can never enjoy gyros again, you Christian cunt.

      • Jaymalls

        LMAO.. i just spit my food out! You almost made me ruin my keyboard.  

  • DeepCough

    It’s really lame now that people are lobbying for their own versions of history to be taught in school, even though there are plenty of examples of gay people making contributions to history: ever heard of Ancient Greece?

  • Anonymous

    couldn’t agree more… In the next 1 or 2 yrs, our health classes are going to start explaining intercourse with a plastic dick and a male ass (which is not made for penetration). <- That was kinda harsh! But still, where do we draw the line. Who's to say a person isn't allowed to marry their animal… now-a-days people can argue that case… They can say that its their choice or THEIR RIGHT! #JustSayin <- if your going to live life the way you want to, don't flaunt it in everyones face, Same thing goes for heterosexuals… i dont wanna see people (heterosexuals + homosexuals) having sex on National TV with my kids… Thats what i got the Playboy Channel for!!!   

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    I appreciate the discussion, even if we disagree. I also find it annoying if people constantly ask me what my racial background which happens a lot, but you can inform people about things they are unaware of by being open to it. You also can gauge how undercover racist someone is- when you tell them or explain something.
    it’s a useful skill i’ve learned to appreciate about being mixed.

     

  • Hadrian999

    as someone who recently went back to college we have much bigger shit to worry about in public education,
    i would worry about the total lack of critical thinking and the inability of the current generation calling tldr on anything longer than a sentence fragment.

  • Hadrian999

    as someone who recently went back to college we have much bigger shit to worry about in public education,
    i would worry about the total lack of critical thinking and the current generation calling tldr on anything longer than a sentence fragment.

  • Duderanch

    plastic dick and male ass lmao…  having sex on National TV with your kids?  That was funny grammar!  lmao again

  • Duderanch

    Ancient Greece should have been called Anus Grease with all of the lube they enjoyed.  What do you think the first tzikiki (spelling I know…) sauce was made from?  They had to do something with that excess output…

  • Anonymous

    i just read it to my friend and he started cracking up… lol! I definitely should have worded it better… Anyway, your welcome for your free laugh 2day!

  • DeepCough

     Great, thanks to you, I can never enjoy gyros again, you Christian cunt.

  • Grizzlyadams

    By teaching a LGBT history, wouldn’t you have to assume the group as a whole was liberated at some point?  That has yet to happen.  Besides teaching LGBT history is ignorant.  Yeah, I’ll say it.  It’s some sort of twisted propaganda to help uplift and empower a group of people, all the while giving them special credit for what they have done, based solely on who they are fucking.  I realize they do this all in good spirit (or so I’d like to think), but really, for a group of people who is trying to not be judged based on who they are having sex with or what their gender identity is, this just seems, to me, to be counter-productive in the grand scheme of things.  Oh, and I’m part of the community.  

  • Grizzlyadams

    By teaching a LGBT history, wouldn’t you have to assume the group as a whole was liberated at some point?  That has yet to happen.  Besides teaching LGBT history is ignorant.  Yeah, I’ll say it.  It’s some sort of twisted propaganda to help uplift and empower a group of people, all the while giving them special credit for what they have done, based solely on who they are fucking.  I realize they do this all in good spirit (or so I’d like to think), but really, for a group of people who is trying to not be judged based on who they are having sex with or what their gender identity is, this just seems, to me, to be counter-productive in the grand scheme of things.  Oh, and I’m part of the community.  

  • E.B. Wolf

    “Who’s to say a person isn’t allowed to marry their animal… now-a-days people can argue that case… They can say that its their choice or THEIR RIGHT!”
    Simple. An animal can not verify consent.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Oh then i suppose we shouldn’t teach kids about civil rights, suffrage, or labour struggles because that would just be too confrontational regarding the regressive history of america. 

    Damn its like you’re reading the minutes of the Texas Board of Education’s meetings

  • Tuna Ghost

    To clarify, a class on sex education should definitely include homosexual sex, since a real and verifiable percentage of students are/will be engaging in exactly that.  Obviously it has no place in a Biology of Human Reproduction class, but any class labeled “sex education” should include it.  It’s been a while, but I don’t recall ever having a “sex ed” class, now that I think about it–we learned about the birds and the bees in biology class.   Does that still happen?

    Of course, I went to an upscale private Christian high school, so the only time the word “sex” was mentioned it was in a whisper very far away from the innocent children’s ears.  

  • Drunkpimp3000

    When do kids decide to be gay? Do they hand out pamphlets, tell them to make a grave choice of who they’re attracted to? But speaking of shoving (down their throats no doubt), when I was a kid I had this idea coming at me from a million directions that I was alone and a freak, and not normal for feeling how I was.

    I think that maybe if I had known about gay civil rights leaders like harvey milk, and brilliant scientists like Alan Turing, it would’ve helped me at that age.

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

     LOL, was that a compliment or a chastisement? i couldn’t tell… my position is/was progressive, but perhaps i lost a bit in sarcasm?!

  • Leeloo

    It’s okay to have sex with his/her kids on the Playboy channel.
    BTW How do we know it’s specifically a “male ass”?

  • Andrew

    As a straight who was repeatedly beaten up for being a “fag” beginning in first grade, I totally support this, whether the Christian or LGBT communities agree with it or not.  And parents should not be allowed to opt their kids out.

  • Andrew

    As a straight who was repeatedly beaten up for being a “fag” beginning in first grade, I totally support this, whether the Christian or LGBT communities agree with it or not.  And parents should not be allowed to opt their kids out.

  • Anonymous

    LMAO.. i just spit my food out! You almost made me ruin my keyboard.  

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Even as a gay man, I’m not sure such specialized ‘history’ is worth the time and effort to pick out and cover in a high school American history class. Critical thinking classes are desperately needed…debate, forensics and analysis are in short supply when they’re available at all…and losing focus by trying to add endless minority causes and highlights isn’t necessarily a good solution.

    Should there be some mention of key events that had a serious impact on American history? Sure…and a few of those events come to mind easily…Stonewall, Harvey Milk’s election and assassination, the arrival and initial failure to respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the galvanizing effect it had as it made celebrity deaths a public spectacle. DOMA, bad as it may be, should be mentioned as the reaction of social conservatives to the changing tide in public opinion regarding gay rights. Etc etc. The same treatment should be given to all other issues…they made a difference in our history…they should be mentioned, but not as a separate(but equal) section…just as part of the whole. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Selma, Little Rock, etc….all important.

    But to dedicate chunks of much needed school time to nothing but ‘this famous person was gay’…it sounds like a travesty of education…a complete failure to give the topic any dignity. I’d rather it be put off until college courses where deeper coverage can be given…because frankly…most people don’t need to know Walt Whitman’s love life to understand American history. I can only wonder how badly the topic will be mangled by public education boards and textbook developers…

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Even as a gay man, I’m not sure such specialized ‘history’ is worth the time and effort to pick out and cover in a high school American history class. Critical thinking classes are desperately needed…debate, forensics and analysis are in short supply when they’re available at all…and losing focus by trying to add endless minority causes and highlights isn’t necessarily a good solution.

    Should there be some mention of key events that had a serious impact on American history? Sure…and a few of those events come to mind easily…Stonewall, Harvey Milk’s election and assassination, the arrival and initial failure to respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the galvanizing effect it had as it made celebrity deaths a public spectacle. DOMA, bad as it may be, should be mentioned as the reaction of social conservatives to the changing tide in public opinion regarding gay rights. Etc etc. The same treatment should be given to all other issues…they made a difference in our history…they should be mentioned, but not as a separate(but equal) section…just as part of the whole. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Selma, Little Rock, etc….all important.

    But to dedicate chunks of much needed school time to nothing but ‘this famous person was gay’…it sounds like a travesty of education…a complete failure to give the topic any dignity. I’d rather it be put off until college courses where deeper coverage can be given…because frankly…most people don’t need to know Walt Whitman’s love life to understand American history. I can only wonder how badly the topic will be mangled by public education boards and textbook developers…

  • Tuna Ghost

    It’s merely a comment on Texas’s recent decisions regarding the information they’ve cut out of their textbooks

  • Anonymous

    Right but the reason why religion exists and has survived to this day was because the extremism of it and the wars which have involved numerous amounts of people dying in order to maintain the power of their ‘god’.

    The mere fact that you’re sitting here TYPING a response and saying you’re religious is because a bunch of people in the past killed a bunch of other people. So, you’re right, let’s reiterate this then, that what you represent, your religion whatever it may be but it’s most likely christian, is based on the killing and persecution of thousands of people over a span of many many years. So you’re right, you yourself might not have done it, but what you represent does. Here’s a smaller example it’s like a politician and a regular republican, a regular republican you meet on the street might be a nice guy, but the people who represent that guy on tv and in court and the standards for republicans , are evil mother fuckers.

    Does that work?

  • 5by5

    What it teaches, nitwit, is that what makes us unique is something to be not just tolerated, but cherished, even prized. 

    The struggles that minorities have gone through are nothing short of heroic, and that too is something kids can learn from — how to stand up for themselves, and how to authentically BE THEMSELVES. It also teaches that something which the world tells you is a weakness, can actually be a source of great strength. These are all valuable lessons, and it is the reason why someone’s membership in a  minority – especially at certain stages in history, is important to acknowledge, and not pretend like there were no challenges for these great figures in our history to overcome. 

    Race, class, gender, and orientation EXIST, and you can’t eliminate the irrational prejudices against them by pretending like they don’t exist. You can however destroy the ignorance before it takes hold in a kid’s heart, by EDUCATING them with an alternative narrative to that foisted upon them by the homophobes, racists, classists, and sexists of the world.And newsflash – you don’t “decide” to be gay. You either are, or you aren’t, or you’re somewhere in-between. The only thing you “decide” is how to interact with others once you know this about yourself.

21