BF2S Forums "Gay History" taught in schools now?

Hephaistion's (rumoured) gay relationship with Alexander the Great would have certainly influenced behavior. Throughout history marriages were formed to symbolize solidarity between two countries. If it was discovered that a prince was secretly banging a child boy then the faux marriage could be outed, and alliances breached. I personally think that's relevant.

One of the reasons we study history is to learn about the relationships of the people involved. I don't think talking about same sex relations is going to hurt anyone. Knowledge always benefits us.

As far as "positive contributions" as it relates to sexuality. Beyond civil rights I have a hard time finding relevance.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Um, okay?

"Teach the fight for civil rights by including the gay struggle, but don't teach who was gay because we don't teach who was black!"

That is your argument? wtf

Tell you what, you go ahead give me the historical relevance if it turns out Lincoln sucked a dick.

Wow.

You really think that teaching gay rights = teaching sexual acts.

Good one, chief.

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.

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Tell you what, you go ahead give me the historical relevance if it turns out Lincoln sucked a dick.

Wow.

You really think that teaching gay rights = teaching sexual acts.

Good one, chief.

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.

The contributions to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans ... be part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes.

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.

Social studies classes are going to be taught the social contributions by a group that were (and are) historically discriminated against.

Put 2 and 2 together. What do you think they'll be teaching?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Wow.

You really think that teaching gay rights = teaching sexual acts.

Good one, chief.

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.

The contributions to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans ... be part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes.

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.

Social studies classes are going to be taught the social contributions by a group that were (and are) historically discriminated against.

Put 2 and 2 together. What do you think they'll be teaching?

Been through this Aussie, women and blacks etc, that fought for civil rights and suffrage is historically relevant because they fought for those things, NOT because they were women and blacks.

As I said IF they want to teach historical discrimination against gays and the progression of gay rights, so be it. Probably plenty of straight people that contributed to that fight as well. But that is not what they said, nor is it what they are implying and you know it.

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

That would be fair. What they are trying to do however is celebrate the fact that Joe Blow was gay, AND signed the Declaration of Independence, and it just doesn't have a thing to do with history, not any more than him being straight would.

Well no then. It is not the duty of the educational system to specifically and intentionally promote gay pride. The curriculum in our public school system should focus on relevant facts. We have a hard enough time getting our kids to retain basic history knowledge.

Well I mean you read the OP, do you not read it that way?

I did. "As far as "positive contributions" as it relates to sexuality. Beyond civil rights I have a hard time finding relevance."

I was adding information regarding historical context, and the situations I personally felt it should be included. It seemed a little more enlightening than "this is stupid, lowing hates minorities".

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Well no then. It is not the duty of the educational system to specifically and intentionally promote gay pride. The curriculum in our public school system should focus on relevant facts. We have a hard enough time getting our kids to retain basic history knowledge.

Well I mean you read the OP, do you not read it that way?

I did. "As far as "positive contributions" as it relates to sexuality. Beyond civil rights I have a hard time finding relevance."

I was adding information regarding historical context, and the situations I personally felt it should be included. It seemed a little more enlightening than "this is stupid, lowing hates minorities".

lol, yeah well.....

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 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.

let me google that for you


/thread

What happened with your google search? Who the fuck in history has NEVER been hated or discriminated against? and then name a job that gays are excluded from, because they are gay. Lets have it.

Gays were excluded from the military up until, erm, now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14056365

lowing wrote:

discriminated against

It was effective exclusion and obviously discrimination.

Before DADT they were officially excluded.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-07 05:51:16)

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Gays were excluded from the military up until, erm, now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14056365

No, they weren't. They just couldn't talk about their sexuality. Straight people aren't supposed to either. Considered unprofessional. DADT didn't prevent gays from serving.

It prevented them from serving if it was found out. They were discharged from service.

No one is supposed to talk about their sex life while in uniform.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

let me google that for you


/thread

What happened with your google search? Who the fuck in history has NEVER been hated or discriminated against? and then name a job that gays are excluded from, because they are gay. Lets have it.

Gays were excluded from the military up until, erm, now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14056365

No they weren't. for over a decade the govt. has a don't ask don't tell. The govt. didn't ask anyone if you were gay, OR straight, and you didn't tell them if you were gay or straight.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wow, over a decade?

And before that?

How far back you wanna go? We are talking about NOW. and NOW the gays want sexual orientation to become historically relevant.

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.