California's "Gay History" Bill

[Pangloss]

Some background can be found here. Essentially, California is considering a bill that would put more information in textbooks about specific contributions of gay people in history.

 

Here's a question: How is this different from creationists asking for religious history to be taught as part of the non-optional curriculum?

 

- Both are arguably aimed at a specific social engineering goal

- Both involve highly stylized and politically-motivated re-writings of history

 

So what exactly is the difference? Why would one be legitimate, and not the other?

[Sayonara]

Here's a question: How is this different from creationists asking for religious history to be taught as part of the non-optional curriculum?

Because the contributions of gay people to society are not mythological?

 

 

If there is a dearth of acknowledgment in the present curriculum then that needs to be addressed in exactly the same way you'd address a curriculum that (for example) disregarded the work of black politicians.

 

If they are going to go over the top and hand over a disproportionate slice of lesson time to it then you'd be quite justified in querying that, but not by likening it to creationism. You're better at arguing than that Pangloss

[ydoaPs]

Some background can be found here. Essentially' date=' California is considering a bill that would put more information in textbooks about specific contributions of gay people in history.

 

Here's a question: How is this different from creationists asking for religious history to be taught as part of the non-optional curriculum?

 

- Both are arguably aimed at a specific social engineering goal

- Both involve highly stylized and politically-motivated re-writings of history

 

So what exactly is the difference? Why would one be legitimate, and not the other?[/quote']is "Black History Month" legitimate?

[Pangloss]

is "Black History Month" legitimate?

 

Is it? Not all blacks agree on this point, you know.

 

 

Because the contributions of gay people to society are not mythological?

 

I might not have been clear, but I'm not talking about Bible teachings, I'm talking about the history of religion in western civilization, and what contributions it may or may not have had on it. For example, the influence of Christianity on the American "founding fathers" and how they debated the relevent issues of the time, how they wrote their important documents, and so forth.

 

There's nothing "mythological" about that, and yet as we've discussed here in the past, often the purpose of creationists injecting this sort of thing into the curriculum is to open the door for further religious exploration, such as the teaching of creationism itself.

[swansont]

Is it? Not all blacks agree on this point, you know.

 

But is it surprising that within any minority division you might choose, that there is still a diversity of opinion on any given topic?

 

 

 

I might not have been clear' date=' but I'm not talking about Bible teachings, I'm talking about the history of religion in western civilization, and what contributions it may or may not have had on it. For example, the influence of Christianity on the American "founding fathers" and how they debated the relevent issues of the time, how they wrote their important documents, and so forth.

 

There's nothing "mythological" about that, and yet as we've discussed here in the past, often the purpose of creationists injecting this sort of thing into the curriculum is to open the door for further religious exploration, such as the teaching of creationism itself.[/quote']

 

The objection to creationism being taught is in a science class, or pretending to be science. Not in a history class, or a comparitive religion class.

[Pangloss]

But is it surprising that within any minority division you might choose' date=' that there is still a diversity of opinion on any given topic?

[/quote']

 

No, probably not. I'm afraid I've lost track of the point to this line of reasoning, though.

 

 

The objection to creationism being taught is in a science class, or pretending to be science. Not in a history class, or a comparitive religion class.

 

Yes, which is why I left it out of my question -- that point doesn't seem to directly correlate, so I asked a different question. We're backing up a step from creationism in the classroom, and looking at the larger issue of the teaching of comparative religion in high school, for example.

[bascule]

Essentially' date=' California is considering a bill that would put more information in textbooks about specific contributions of gay people in history.

 

Here's a question: How is this different from creationists asking for religious history to be taught as part of the non-optional curriculum?[/quote']

 

I would think the difference is between the historical contributions of gay people and the history of being gay. I wouldn't be opposed to a bill which puts more information in textbooks about specific contributions of religious people in history.

 

For example, none of my history classes ever touched upon the Dissenters who would become the industrial barons of England. Expelled from mainstream society for being non-adherents of the Anglican church (they were mostly Puritans, iirc), they constructed a nationwide system of canals which moved goods more efficiently than ever before (at least, until the railroads came along). They pioneered many techniques of industrial manufacturing, and built some of the first schools which provided comprehensive education in science to all of their students.

 

To me that's enormously different from teaching "Well class, there's this group who thinks that modern biology, geology, and physics are all wrong. They think the earth, and for that matter, the entire universe, is 6,000 years old, and that evolution isn't responsible for the diversity of life: an intelligent designer is."

[Pangloss]

So you don't think that something like this will lead to, for example, "homo-sexual education" in the classrooms, where students are shown exactly how gay people "do it", and given pamphlets showing them how they can "choose the option that best works for them"?

[Sayonara]

That sounds like a massive leap to me.

 

What intermediate steps are you envisaging?

[ydoaPs]

So you don't think that something like this will lead to, for example, "homo-sexual education" in the classrooms, where students are shown exactly how gay people "do it", and given pamphlets showing them how they can "choose the option that best works for them"?

iirc, they don't even do that for heterosexual sex.

[Pangloss]

You didn't get sex-ed in high school? Maybe that's gone now, I don't know. When I was in high school I got a very graphic, literal class on how sex is physically performed. I just assumed it was still done that way.

 

That sounds like a massive leap to me.

 

My main point here is that a special interest group is a special interest group is a special interest group. Whether it's creationism, anti-tobacco, environmental, or whatever, doesn't really change the fact that the general approach of these groups is always more or less the same. The goal is the only variable.

 

That being the case, shouldn't we be every bit as leery of a "gay activist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum as we are about a "creationist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum?

[Severian]

I don't think there is anything wrong with mentioning that great people in history were gay, but to imply that their greatness was caused by their sexual orientation (without proof - it may be in some cases) would be wrong.

 

PS: Is it just me or does Sayonara³'s new avatar look incredibly dodgy?

[Sayonara]

My main point here is that a special interest group is a special interest group is a special interest group.

All of whom have the same right to a voice under your system of democracy, I have been led to believe.

 

Whether it's creationism, anti-tobacco, environmental, or whatever, doesn't really change the fact that the general approach of these groups is always more or less the same. The goal is the only variable.

Isn't that a product of your political system?

 

That being the case, shouldn't we be every bit as leery of a "gay activist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum as we are about a "creationist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum?

Why not adjust the amount of leeriness based on the merits or shortcomings of the particular circumstances on a case-by-case basis, instead of tarring anyone who wants to change something with the same brush?

 

 

Your original question was "So what exactly is the difference? Why would one be legitimate, and not the other?"

 

You've already identified what the difference is, and it's fairly clear that whether or not either cause is "legitimate" is pretty much down to point of view. It depends who you ask. That Randy Thomasson in the article you linked to certainly wouldn't describe the bill as legitimate.

[ydoaPs]

You didn't get sex-ed in high school? Maybe that's gone now, I don't know. When I was in high school I got a very graphic, literal class on how sex is physically performed. I just assumed it was still done that way.

around here, it consists of "males have genetalia. females have genetalia. males insert their genetalia into the female's. nine months later, the female gives birth." there were no explainations of positions or anything.

[Sayonara]

I don't think there is anything wrong with mentioning that great people in history were gay, but to imply that their greatness was caused by their sexual orientation (without proof - it may be in some cases) would be wrong.

That is not the purpose of the bill. From the link in the OP:

SB 1437 reads in part, "No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion."

The bill also requires all social studies textbooks to "study the role and contributions of...people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender...with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."

 

PS: Is it just me or does Sayonara³'s new avatar look incredibly dodgy?

In what way?

[bascule]

In what way?

 

The curvy things look rather labial...

[Pangloss]

LOL! I hadn't noticed that. I think it's kinda cool, actually. Get yo minds outa da gutter, boys! =)

 

All of whom have the same right to a voice under your system of democracy' date=' I have been led to believe.

[/quote']

 

Yup. Doesn't mean we have to let them run over us, though.

 

Why not adjust the amount of leeriness based on the merits or shortcomings of the particular circumstances on a case-by-case basis, instead of tarring anyone who wants to change something with the same brush?

 

I don't think I'm doing that. I think what I'm doing is pointing out that special interest groups are special interesting groups, not citizens, and they have agendas, and those agendas aren't about the common good or the overall benefits to society. They're about achieving those agendas by any legal means necessary.

 

You don't see it that way? Tell me where I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

[Jim]

Some background can be found here. Essentially' date=' California is considering a bill that would put more information in textbooks about specific contributions of gay people in history.

 

Here's a question: How is this different from creationists asking for religious history to be taught as part of the non-optional curriculum?

 

- Both are arguably aimed at a specific social engineering goal

- Both involve highly stylized and politically-motivated re-writings of history

 

So what exactly is the difference? Why would one be legitimate, and not the other?[/quote']

 

 

Teaching gay history does not invoke separation of church and state issues.

[Pangloss]

True, but there are just a few more issues covered by the Constitution than merely the separation of church and state.

[Severian]

The curvy things look rather labial...

 

Phew! Thank God it wasn't just me

[Sayonara]

Yup. Doesn't mean we have to let them run over us, though.

But there's clearly a difference in the motives behind the agendas of creationists (your example), and the parties who want the contributions of homosexuals to be recognised.

 

Wanting to "run over [you]" doesn't seem to be on the cards with this bill.

 

I don't think I'm doing that. I think what I'm doing is pointing out that special interest groups are special interesting groups, not citizens,

and they have agendas, and those agendas aren't about the common good or the overall benefits to society. They're about achieving those agendas by any legal means necessary.

Does this mean you don't think that a better and more widespread appreciation of the role played by a minority group in helping a society to develop is going to improve things for anyone?

I'm sure I need not point out that having an agenda is not automatically a bad thing.

 

You don't see it that way? Tell me where I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

I'm not saying you are wrong per se. I just don't understand where your objection is coming from.

[Dak]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200605%5CCUL20060505b.html

 

Not requiring textbooks to include homosexuals' and transgenders' contributions to California history amounts to "enforced invisibility," said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Democrat lesbian who introduced the bill.

 

wtf? how does that work? not forsing people to learn something that has little academic value is the same as preventing them from teaching it? imbecil.

 

Why bother learning gay history? I mean, if someone played an inportant part in history, why specifically point out his/her sexuality, unless it was specifically relevent?

 

As an example: in school, when studying WWII, we were tought that the nazis persecuted people, mainly jews but also black people, gays, and, well, pretty-much everyone, but those were the main three. In that case, it's relevent 'cos the homosexuals were one of the groups being persecuted. But why focus on gays in other situations?

 

So you don't think that something like this will lead to, for example, "homo-sexual education" in the classrooms, where students are shown exactly how gay people "do it", and given pamphlets showing them how they can "choose the option that best works for them"?

 

I dont really see the problem.

 

In fact, I was tought about gay sex in sex-ed at school (admittedly there were no pamphlets)

[Sayonara]

wtf? how does that work? not forsing people to learn something that has little academic value is the same as preventing them from teaching it? imbecil.

Allowing the persistence of a scenario where an event does not arise is the same as preventing that event from occuring, in effect if not in intention.

 

IOW, sometimes inaction needs to challenged just as much as action does.

 

Why bother learning gay history?

It's not "gay history", it's a more complete view of everyone's history.

 

I mean, if someone played an inportant part in history, why specifically point out his/her sexuality, unless it was specifically relevent?

Because there is a sociological benefit to be had - especially in schools - from being shown that gay people have something to contribute. It's no different from highlighting the contributions made by women, back in the days when they really had a hard time of it.

 

There is a very worrying trend which is evident everywhere (even on this site) among young people who are determined to stick with the belief that homosexuals have "no purpose" and are of no benefit to society. Not only does this harm the homosexual community, but it also harms society as a whole by increasing divisions and reducing the likelihood of interactions that could lead to benefits for everyone.

 

The bill may well help to dispell such cancerous beliefs.

 

As an example: in school, when studying WWII, we were tought that the nazis persecuted people, mainly jews but also black people, gays, and, well, pretty-much everyone, but those were the main three. In that case, it's relevent 'cos the homosexuals were one of the groups being persecuted. But why focus on gays in other situations?

If I happened to mention that Einstein was straight while giving a short introduction to the man in the first lecture of Relativity 101, are you going to accuse me of focusing the lecture or the course on his sexuality?

No, of course you aren't. That'd be making a mountain out of a molehill, wouldn't it?

[Dak]

Allowing the persistence of a scenario where an event does not arise is the same as preventing that event from occuring, in effect if not in intention.

 

yes, but why does the scenario actually exist?

 

Is 'gay history' not being taught for homophobic reasons, or because it's genuinely not of enough academic interest to justify it's teaching in school? I'd guess it's the latter, hence my thinking she's wrong in her statement.

 

It's not "gay history", it's a more complete view of everyone's history.

 

The bill also requires all social studies textbooks to "study the role and contributions of...people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender...with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."

 

it's history focusing on gay people. 'gay history'.

 

there have been many midgets throught history, many of whom i'm sure have been valuable members of our society; but, do we specifically focus on midgets who have contributed to society just to prove that they do? no, and i really dont see why we should specifically point out someones sexuality in a history class unless it's relevent to understanding the history being discussed.

 

(not meant as flippantly as it sounds, it's just the best way i can think to sum up my reasoning)

 

Because there is a sociological benefit to be had - especially in schools - from being shown that gay people have something to contribute. It's no different from highlighting the contributions made by women, back in the days when they really[/b'] had a hard time of it.

 

having gone to school in the same country, i'm sure that you, like me, were taught of the fact that many women took to factory work during WWII to cover for the shortage of workers caused by the fact that many men had gone to war, and that women as a whole thusly contributed greatly to the war effort; and also the fact that, once the war was over and the men had returned, many women put up a bit of a fuss about being expected to get back in the kitchen.

 

IMO, this is highly relevent from an historical pov (and thus is perfectly justified in being tought in school history classes) because it represented both a significant departure from the norm of the time (indicating the magnitude of the impact of the war on everyday life) and a majour turning point in womens rights.

 

BUT, if someone were to suggest passing a law stating that women who had achieved stuff should be found and students tought about them just to show them that women are capable of being useful, i'd react in the same way as i am to this proposed bill: if a significant historical event specifically involved women/homosexuals, or if a person was relevent enough to discuss and knowledge of their sexuality was neccesary to understand what was being discussed, by all means mention homosexuals throughout history, but not just for the sake of mentioning it.

 

There is a very worrying trend which is evident everywhere (even on this site) among young people who are determined to stick with the belief that homosexuals have "no purpose" and are of no benefit to society. Not only does this harm the homosexual community, but it also harms society as a whole by increasing divisions and reducing the likelihood of interactions that could lead to benefits for everyone.

 

The bill may well help to dispell such cancerous beliefs.

 

I agree about the worrying trend, the fact that it's bad, and that it needs to be addressed, but not like this. Its too heavy handed. history is for learning about history, not the currently reccomended socio-political ideologies.

 

Plus, i think it could actually be bad... there's alot of people in britain who resent black people for bringing in the 'positive discrimination' laws, (reguardless of the fact that both our civilians and our politicians are predominantly white), and i wouldn't be surprised if this was viewed as 'the gay folk pushing their veiws on us lets hate them for it' by many americans.

 

Like i said, this is a tad heavy-handed and i think it should be dealt with a little more gently, even if only to avoid the above scenario.

 

If I happened to mention that Einstein was straight while giving a short introduction to the man in the first lecture of Relativity 101, are you going to accuse me of focusing the lecture or the course on his sexuality?

No, of course you aren't. That'd be making a mountain out of a molehill, wouldn't it?

 

No, but i'd accuse you of adding in completely irrelevent facts for no reason whatsoever; if you want to do that, thats fine, but legally obliging people to do so kinda turns the mole-hill into a mountain IMO.

[Pangloss]

But there's clearly a difference in the motives behind the agendas of creationists (your example)' date=' and the parties who want the contributions of homosexuals to be recognised.

[/quote']

 

You seem to be indicating that you feel that some special interest groups can be held to have higher moral character than others, and trusted with regard to dealing with local government officials. Specifically, the gay SIGs can be trusted not to distort the purpose of education, but the creationist SIGs cannot. Even in cases where neither is asking for anything overtly wrong.

 

Shouldn't we view all SIGs with the same skeptical eye, regardless of who they represent?