Stimey
­
+786|6381|Ontario | Canada

Macbeth wrote:

Stupid. I understand the motive behind it but I think any sort of tolerance teaching should be left out of schools. Schools should focus on actaully teaching students math, science, reading etc. instead of "we should all be nice to each other". Really is not the schools place.

Besides you can't force tolerance, it has to develop naturally.
never been to a christian elementary school I see
­
­
­
­
­
­
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France

Macbeth wrote:

Stupid. I understand the motive behind it but I think any sort of tolerance teaching should be left out of schools. Schools should focus on actaully teaching students math, science, reading etc. instead of "we should all be nice to each other". Really is not the schools place.

Besides you can't force tolerance, it has to develop naturally.
Actually the stupid thing is comparing the plight of women and blacks to being gay...

...I agree that yes, there is discrimination against gays, but it's not up there with woman's suffrage or slavery.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Problem is the OP did not say they want to teach gay rights, they said they want to teach the historic contributions of gay people. Stop inventing something that was not said or even implied, to make the argument easier for you to. If they wanted to teach gay rights they would have said gay rights.
Well, here's the problem.

You are doing it wrong.

It seems clear that you are hell-bent on making this into a "look what the homo did"...when they specifically said that discriminatory curriculum should be handled like women, blacks, latinos, etc are now.

You mentioned Rosa Parks.  Who is Rosa Parks? Isn't answered by "she was a black lady".  It what she did.

You honestly think they throw out a name and the answer will be "the dude sucked dick and was an astronaut"?  They aren't going to teach without context.

You are on a completely asinine tangent bub.
No I think it will be Joe BLow,  the first homosexual astronaut was the 17th man to walk on the moon. Fact is if not mentioning him as being a straight guy is relevant neither is him being a gay guy.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

No I think it will be Joe BLow,  the first homosexual astronaut was the 17th man to walk on the moon. Fact is if not mentioning him as being a straight guy is relevant neither is him being a gay guy.
Is it relevant that Rosa Parks was black?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

No I think it will be Joe BLow,  the first homosexual astronaut was the 17th man to walk on the moon. Fact is if not mentioning him as being a straight guy is relevant neither is him being a gay guy.
Is it relevant that Rosa Parks was black?
Of course it was, her being black and sitting the front of the bus was against the law and she was in defiance of that law.

It isn't against the law to be gay, nor is it against the law to be an astronaut. The 2 examples are completely different and him being gay in space is no more or less extraordinary or historically relevant as stating that he was a straight guy in space. If they want equality then let it start with the fact that they are nothing special, and not deserving of special footnotes in history.

Last edited by lowing (13 years, 6 months ago)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7033|PNW

Obviously not because "no group of people in history have been excluded from hate and discrimination."

Other than that, the two don't quite compare in intensity.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

No I think it will be Joe BLow,  the first homosexual astronaut was the 17th man to walk on the moon. Fact is if not mentioning him as being a straight guy is relevant neither is him being a gay guy.
Is it relevant that Rosa Parks was black?
Of course it was, her being black and sitting the front of the bus was against the law and she was in defiance of that law.
Okay, here's the point:
I highlighted the context of why she was important.  If you just say "she was black" there's no story.

lowing wrote:

It isn't against the law to be gay, nor is it against the law to be an astronaut. The 2 examples are completely different and him being gay in space is no more or less extraordinary or historically relevant as stating that he was a straight guy in space. If they want equality then let it start with the fact that they are nothing special, and not deserving of special footnotes in history.
Well, no shit.  I'm using the astronaut example to make a point, not to have the same point I'm making thrown back at me.

The schools are stressing CONTEXT.  So if they are teaching about the gay astronaut...they are going to tell you WHY it's important to put the gay guy in space.  (There's got to be a reason there was a gay challenge overcome...)

You seem to lack this, but for instance:
Rosa Parks
-first black on bus
-staged protest
-resulted in change of system
-very significant because became a rallying point for civil change
(sorry, didn't take US history...but that's what I know)

So if they are discussing a gay dude...they are going to stress some important event:
Gay Armstrong
-first gay in space
-staged protest
-resulted in change of system
-significant because became rallying point...

So they aren't going to celebrate gay astronaut for no reason...there's going to be a backstory (not a pun)
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Is it relevant that Rosa Parks was black?
Of course it was, her being black and sitting the front of the bus was against the law and she was in defiance of that law.
Okay, here's the point:
I highlighted the context of why she was important.  If you just say "she was black" there's no story.

lowing wrote:

It isn't against the law to be gay, nor is it against the law to be an astronaut. The 2 examples are completely different and him being gay in space is no more or less extraordinary or historically relevant as stating that he was a straight guy in space. If they want equality then let it start with the fact that they are nothing special, and not deserving of special footnotes in history.
Well, no shit.  I'm using the astronaut example to make a point, not to have the same point I'm making thrown back at me.

The schools are stressing CONTEXT.  So if they are teaching about the gay astronaut...they are going to tell you WHY it's important to put the gay guy in space.  (There's got to be a reason there was a gay challenge overcome...)

You seem to lack this, but for instance:
Rosa Parks
-first black on bus
-staged protest
-resulted in change of system
-very significant because became a rallying point for civil change
(sorry, didn't take US history...but that's what I know)

So if they are discussing a gay dude...they are going to stress some important event:
Gay Armstrong
-first gay in space
-staged protest
-resulted in change of system
-significant because became rallying point...

So they aren't going to celebrate gay astronaut for no reason...there's going to be a backstory (not a pun)
and here is my point. Being gay is not special, regardless as to how bad they want it to be. What he does in the bedroom and in private is not historically relevant. You do not say the first straight guy in space, why would you say the first gay guy in space? Because the OP wants recognition for being gay, NOT for what the person accomplished.

As I said, if gays are loking for equality, then they need to stop trying to set themselves apart from everyone else.

Last edited by lowing (13 years, 6 months ago)

Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

and here is my point. Being gay is not special, regardless as to how bad they want it to be. What he does in the bedroom and in private is not historically relevant. You do not say the first straight guy in space, why would you say the first gay guy in space? Because the OP wants recognition for being gay, NOT for what the person accomplished.

As I said, if gays are loking for equality, then they need to stop trying to set themselves apart from everyone else.
Rosa Parks isn't the first person to ride a bus.  Yet there's a reason why she's significant.

Again, I point to the link.  It explains the importance is the CONTEXT not the fact the dude is gay.  Did you bother to make that distinction?  Nope.

I don't know who a historically significant Gay is...but I'm betting there's a "gay Rosa Parks" in there.  That's who they will teach about.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

and here is my point. Being gay is not special, regardless as to how bad they want it to be. What he does in the bedroom and in private is not historically relevant. You do not say the first straight guy in space, why would you say the first gay guy in space? Because the OP wants recognition for being gay, NOT for what the person accomplished.

As I said, if gays are loking for equality, then they need to stop trying to set themselves apart from everyone else.
Rosa Parks isn't the first person to ride a bus.  Yet there's a reason why she's significant.

Again, I point to the link.  It explains the importance is the CONTEXT not the fact the dude is gay.  Did you bother to make that distinction?  Nope.

I don't know who a historically significant Gay is...but I'm betting there's a "gay Rosa Parks" in there.  That's who they will teach about.
I guess you can not make the distinction that rosa parks was black in public, and so was riding in the front of the bus as a black person. Your sex life, be it straight or gay, IS NOT historically significant.

If they want to talk about various forms of discrimination and what it takes to combat it and stand up to it, and WHO stood up to it, fine I don't give a shit. But as shown, the OP wants to make special footnotes that whatever Joe Blow did, he did so as a gay guy, and that is not historically relevant.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

I guess you can not make the distinction that rosa parks was black in public, and so was riding in the front of the bus as a black person. Your sex life, be it straight or gay, IS NOT historically significant.

If they want to talk about various forms of discrimination and what it takes to combat it and stand up to it, and WHO stood up to it, fine I don't give a shit. But as shown, the OP wants to make special footnotes that whatever Joe Blow did, he did so as a gay guy, and that is not historically relevant.
NOOOOOOO

JFK was a significant for the Civil Rights movement.  AKA, that's part of the the curriculum too.  Repetively you are missing the point.

THEY ARE FOCUSED ON CONTEXT.  Not "who's gay".

I'll post the quote from the article YOU linked but didn't bother to read:
"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.

Supporters of the latest bill said it would simply include gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals in that existing requirement, making it part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes."

Aka, it's being taught THE SAME WAY.



And secondly, "your sex life, be it straight or gay, IS NOT historically significant"?

So gay discrimination doesn't exist? 
Like when they talk about gay marriage bills, etc, or make it a political discussion point when running for president...ITS NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

I guess you can not make the distinction that rosa parks was black in public, and so was riding in the front of the bus as a black person. Your sex life, be it straight or gay, IS NOT historically significant.

If they want to talk about various forms of discrimination and what it takes to combat it and stand up to it, and WHO stood up to it, fine I don't give a shit. But as shown, the OP wants to make special footnotes that whatever Joe Blow did, he did so as a gay guy, and that is not historically relevant.
NOOOOOOO

JFK was a significant for the Civil Rights movement.  AKA, that's part of the the curriculum too.  Repetively you are missing the point.

THEY ARE FOCUSED ON CONTEXT.  Not "who's gay".

I'll post the quote from the article YOU linked but didn't bother to read:
"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.

Supporters of the latest bill said it would simply include gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals in that existing requirement, making it part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes."

Aka, it's being taught THE SAME WAY.



And secondly, "your sex life, be it straight or gay, IS NOT historically significant"?

So gay discrimination doesn't exist? 
Like when they talk about gay marriage bills, etc, or make it a political discussion point when running for president...ITS NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
California does not "require" teaching the contributions of women and blacks in the context of their struggles, HISTORY requires it.

As I said, if California wants to teach about the struggles of discrimination for gays, and who fought the fight, fine do it. However, as pointed out THAT is not what they want to discuss. They want to talk about the GAY general who stormed the beach, or the GAY astronaut who landed on the moon..

Straight or gay is a private matter, not a historical matter. Tell me how you justify being straight as historically insignificant, but man, if you are gay, well then, THAT is one for the history books?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7033|PNW

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:


Nope, name a job gays are not allowed to do. and name one group of people that has never been targeted for violence.
http://files.sharenator.com/trollface_R … 55-580.jpg

Pretty much this ^
Nah. He's correct. Gay men and women can serve in the military, they just cant talk about their sexuality. Straight people have the same restriction albeit they dont face expulsion for doing so. We had lesbians in my unit, and at least one slightly closeted dude. Meh.
The mere fact that it coming to light can get you expelled from the military is reason enough to claim that a group of people are being singled out. My original argument was against the OP. Gay people are in a class of their own because of how society (even "homosexual society") handles the matter. There's a difference between the treatment you can expect for being gay in some areas (violent treatment for being gay or being turned down for positions, even illegally, or activities because of it) and what you can expect from being one of those people who likes the color "orange."

Saying that they haven't been excluded from anything because of their sexual orientation or that being subjected to violence because of it is unimportant since it happens to other groups of people...

...is all ludicrous.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Nah. He's correct. Gay men and women can serve in the military, they just cant talk about their sexuality. Straight people have the same restriction albeit they dont face expulsion for doing so. We had lesbians in my unit, and at least one slightly closeted dude. Meh.
The mere fact that it coming to light can get you expelled from the military is reason enough to claim that a group of people are being singled out. My original argument was against the OP. Gay people are in a class of their own because of how society (even "homosexual society") handles the matter. There's a difference between the treatment you can expect for being gay in some areas (violent treatment for being gay or being turned down for positions, even illegally, or activities because of it) and what you can expect from being one of those people who likes the color "orange."

Saying that they haven't been excluded from anything because of their sexual orientation or that being subjected to violence because of it is unimportant since it happens to other groups of people...

...is all ludicrous.
Everything you just described can be applied to fat people as well, and there is no reason to include the weights of historical people any more than their sexual orientation. It is irrelevant to history. Period
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5439|Sydney
This thread is doing plenty for gay awareness, on a BF2s level.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7033|PNW

@lowing: recall that I also disagreed with gays being singled out (once more) by having special classes on 'gay history' for reasons already provided. What I don't agree with is the thought that gay people aren't singled out in any way or if they are, it's alright because it happens to other people too.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6367|eXtreme to the maX

Macbeth wrote:

Stupid. I understand the motive behind it but I think any sort of tolerance teaching should be left out of schools. Schools should focus on actaully teaching students math, science, reading etc. instead of "we should all be nice to each other". Really is not the schools place.

Besides you can't force tolerance, it has to develop naturally.
If schools focused on teaching critical thinking instead of ramming dogma down people's throats it would be a lot better all round.
They wouldn't have to teach 'tolerance' for a start.
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6672|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

If schools focused on teaching critical thinking instead of ramming dogma down people's throats it would be a lot better all round.
They wouldn't have to teach 'tolerance' for a start.
If the schools taught critical thinking, the teachers would end up being held accountable by the students...because they would quickly see through a lot of the bullshit being foisted upon them. Can't have that now, can we?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

@lowing: recall that I also disagreed with gays being singled out (once more) by having special classes on 'gay history' for reasons already provided. What I don't agree with is the thought that gay people aren't singled out in any way or if they are, it's alright because it happens to other people too.
Look gays are screaming for equality and inclusion, and yet wanting to set itself apart from others all at the same time. Fuck them.

The very fact that NO group has never NOT been singled out for one thing or another is relevant, further proving they are nothing that warrants special attention.

Last edited by lowing (13 years, 6 months ago)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6367|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If schools focused on teaching critical thinking instead of ramming dogma down people's throats it would be a lot better all round.
They wouldn't have to teach 'tolerance' for a start.
If the schools taught critical thinking, the teachers would end up being held accountable by the students...because they would quickly see through a lot of the bullshit being foisted upon them. Can't have that now, can we?
Well, if they taught critical thinking for a start, and then presented the rest in a balanced way it would work.
Fuck Israel
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

California does not "require" teaching the contributions of women and blacks in the context of their struggles, HISTORY requires it.

As I said, if California wants to teach about the struggles of discrimination for gays, and who fought the fight, fine do it. However, as pointed out THAT is not what they want to discuss. They want to talk about the GAY general who stormed the beach, or the GAY astronaut who landed on the moon..

Straight or gay is a private matter, not a historical matter. Tell me how you justify being straight as historically insignificant, but man, if you are gay, well then, THAT is one for the history books?
UMMM...you understand that the Federal government is not constitutionally allowed to force states to agree on educational subject matter right?  There's a general guide provided, but the state board of education is the primary driver.

So, in other words, the state board of California made this a requirement...not history.

I'm willing to bet Arizona isn't teaching the same "stuff" as Cali.

And for the 10th time, you are reading the article wrong.  They are going to focus on context.  I'm 100% certain that if education is designed the way you think it is for this issue, they will remove it from the curriculum immediately.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

California does not "require" teaching the contributions of women and blacks in the context of their struggles, HISTORY requires it.

As I said, if California wants to teach about the struggles of discrimination for gays, and who fought the fight, fine do it. However, as pointed out THAT is not what they want to discuss. They want to talk about the GAY general who stormed the beach, or the GAY astronaut who landed on the moon..

Straight or gay is a private matter, not a historical matter. Tell me how you justify being straight as historically insignificant, but man, if you are gay, well then, THAT is one for the history books?
UMMM...you understand that the Federal government is not constitutionally allowed to force states to agree on educational subject matter right?  There's a general guide provided, but the state board of education is the primary driver.

So, in other words, the state board of California made this a requirement...not history.

I'm willing to bet Arizona isn't teaching the same "stuff" as Cali.

And for the 10th time, you are reading the article wrong.  They are going to focus on context.  I'm 100% certain that if education is designed the way you think it is for this issue, they will remove it from the curriculum immediately.
You are right California says what it is going to teach, but if they want to teach history, then they are pretty much REQUIRED by the facts of history to teach the facts of history. That is what I meant.

So they are going to teach about the gay struggle? Thats funny that is not what it said. Because the clearly said they are going to teach the gay contributions in history. and for the 10th time, sexual orientation is not historically relevant in the context of historic events.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France
Well, I cant really understand your logic.

You are telling me US history WILL NOT discuss the gay marriage political battle? (for example)

That's not history?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6912|USA

Pug wrote:

Well, I cant really understand your logic.

You are telling me US history WILL NOT discuss the gay marriage political battle? (for example)

That's not history?
Yup that is history, and like I said, I have no problem with gay rights related struggles, now again, THAT OP does not state they want to talk about gay rights struggles, they want to talk about GAY contributions in history. That means, they want to make homosexuality relevant in historical issues that the person might have been involved in. For you to deny that is nothing more than putting blinders on.

Last edited by lowing (13 years, 6 months ago)

Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6803|Texas - Bigger than France
Well, gonna say that I got a different interpretation - the law is to teach with context.

The article's lead is poorly written, the quote within and the following paragraphs conflict with the stories' lead.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard