Right now, the California senate is proposing a bill (that has to be signed by the Govenator) to insert information about sexual orientation, where appropriate, in school history books. In essence, they are advocating teaching about sexual orientation in schools, in an effort to highlight the contributions of gays and lesbians, as well as give gays and lesbians a place in history. This debate, obviously since it is in regards to anything gay, is getting a bunch of parents up in arms in California, and honestly, it just pisses me off. But, you ask, “duane, why does it matter??” Because, the Senate is obviously trying to make inclusion and acceptance part of the curriculum (surprise! who would have thought we need more of that?), and there are parents out there that are showing us that they prefer ignorance and deniability to compassion and understanding. I think the reason that it pisses me off most, is because mainly, if the same were to be said about the contributions of women, blacks, Hispanics, or any other minority group, it would just be unthinkable and a blatant act of bigotry; but when it comes to sexual orientation, it is a debate as to whether you should include anything about a person’s true self, or not. And that just isn’t right.
See, I look at myself and when I do, I see a gay man. That is who I am, through and through, balls to bone. If I were to be denied any of that identity, be it now, or after my death, I feel like I would not be represented as the real me. I would feel like you had left a major component of my life out if there was a description of me that didn’t include something about my sexual orientation; because it is who I am. I would feel that those who I love were unrecognized and that our relationships were deemed inferior or worthless. I would feel like the struggle and perseverance I endured personally and publicly would be denied. I feel like, in essence, this would be saying that what I went through (coming out, coming to terms with myself, being proud of myself, working hard just to be myself) meant nothing, and that this struggle and journey I endured to find myself, wasn’t part of what made me who I am. I feel it would be saying that being gay didn’t shape how I act, react, and do what I do; which is so utterly wrong, it is unthinkable. But, that is exactly what I see in the people that are against this inclusion. They are saying that a person’s sexual orientation doesn’t matter, when, with regards to history, it can actually make a huge difference.
I get mad at things like this, because there are kids out there that are going through what I went through right now. They are being picked on everyday and are being called fag at every turn. They are struggling with who they are, and attempting to make sense of why they “aren’t normal”. BUT, if they were to learn about a famous author, a singer, an actor, a historian, a scientist, a poet, a playwright, a leader, a politician, a person that made a significant contribution to history; they MAY be able to see that they ARE normal. They may be able to find something in this person to look up to, and they may realize that gay people have done things in history; that gay people do exist, and have a place in this world. Perhaps then, they may feel included. They may feel less ashamed or hurt at the feelings inside of them. They may be able to see themselves for who they are, and the struggle to find themselves may be a little easier. And even more importantly, there may be a sense of understanding and compassion that comes from children that learn that being gay is just a part of who someone is. There may be a chance to teach children inclusion instead of hatred. Just maybe, if there is a place for us in history, there can be a better place for us in the future. Being included isn’t asking too much, is it?
On a final note (sorry this is so long), I say all of these things with certainty, because I remember when I was little, and I learned the amazing and wonderful things that men like George Washington Carver did, and I realized that the prejudices in my family were so very, very wrong. If you can teach a child acceptance and inclusion, they can learn how to treat others fairly, and they can escape the prejudices taught in society. They can learn about history accurately, and that can shape theirs, and our, future.
duane, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. I just don’t think this is something that the government should get there hands involved with. First off, it sets a dangerous precedent. When you pass a law that gives the government the ability to sponsor programs to intentionaly influence the masses, you may be doing so with a noble goal (such as this), but you also open the opportunity to far less noble goals down the road. What if we felt so threatened by the growth in Asia that we wanted to start beefing up our school books with information about why China and Korea are so bad? What if we wanted to exclude any foreign contributions or achievements from American textbooks so that students would think all other countries are inferior to the US … hmm… kind of how I feel, but whatever… I recognize that our books have been written with certain biases over the years and continue to be written that way right now, but that does not give us any right to encourage such actions.
Also, remember my Straighthating post? I think by distinguishing historical figures as homosexual or not, you are encouraging the continued separation of the two groups of people. Text books right now do not say that so-in-so-historical-figure is heterosexual. If you start pointing out just the homosexuals (even if they were all kickass people), then you’re going to cause kids to think that even though those people did great things, they are somehow different from ‘the rest of us.’ If you only identify the sexuality of the homosexuals, then you give kids the impression that gay people aren’t normal. Is that what you want? Also, to be completely fair with this law, you would also have to point out any negative historical figures that were gay. What if it were to come out that Stalin, Genghis Khan, and Charles Manson were all gay? Would you not run the chance of making people feel that gay people are crazed lunatics?
Don’t get me wrong, I take no issue with book companies voluntarily pointing out homosexual figures in history, but I just don’t like a law that requires them to do so. Government is supposed to be there to protect us, not shape us. As a society we have made gigantic leaps in the acceptance of homosexuals within my own short lifetime. I know there are mountains that still must be crossed before everyone is on the same level playing field, but I just don’t think it’s the government’s responsiblity to get us there.
Excellent point. I don’t think personally that it would have helped me in school to know - because what you are hearing everyday is probably going to override what you are reading. But it def. wouldn’t hurt to include them because looking back I never remember learning about anyone gay in school books. I try not to personally make being gay the highlight of my life but I also wouldn’t want it totally greyed out either.
Duane,
Who are your favorite gay Americans in history? If it turns out the Lincoln is gay, as a recent book has it, I’m going to have to go with him.
Duane,
What I think Dave is trying to tell you is that you should get on Cafe Press right now and make stickers that say “Homosexuality is a theory.”
Um, teaching inclusion and acceptance does that? Well, then we need more of that then, dangerous or not.
This isn’t to “influence the masses”. It is about telling the truth, plain and simple. As I said, it is a part of who they are, just like being black, Hispanic, or female is to anyone else, and I think that those are important distinctions. It is part of who they are. It isn’t influence, it’s truth.
Not at all the same thing. See, one, saying someone is gay, is true. The other, is making up, or leaving out stuff that you DON’T WANT. That is selection, which is not the same thing.
To the contrary, I think it would do the opposite. Like I said, GROWING UP GAY is very hard, especially when you feel like you are the only one. If you realize that there are other gay people, even great ones, you will feel more included. And, I would like to think that children, if taught in tolerant and inclusive ways, have the compassion to see all people as equal. But distinguishing gay people, you show that we make an important contribution to society, and history, and deserve a place just like everyone else. If you notice, children don’t start hating gay people until societal pressure sets in… perhaps this could be a way to help circumvent that.
While it is highly debated that Hitler was gay, I don’t think that this is the precedent. In fact, this should mean that heterosexual white men are the ones to fear, as 2 out of the three you mentioned were just what I described.
I totally agree, but the unfortunate thing is, dave, that this country is VERY EXTREMELY discriminatory towards gay people, and a law is what is going to take for them to stop. I wish we could all just live equally without “special consideration”, but we are obviously a long way from that.
Check out the parts of that quote that I highlighted, and you may understand how I feel. How is the government going to protect us when they won’t even let us be on the field? How are we going to be treated as equal when even the government that is supposed to protect us is against us? I for one think that ANY law that shows us as included and shows us compassion is a leap in the right direction.
duane, I recognize that the intentions of this law are good, but I just don’t think it is the place for government to get involved. You highlighted my “Government is supposed to be there to protect us,” line but did you miss the part after the comma? “not shape us.” That is exactly what you are asking the government to do.
I know you’re one for instant gratification but do you honestly think that identifying homosexual figures in school books is going to change society’s opinion over night? Hardly… would it fast track it a little bit? More than likely. Is it the place of the government to get involved and force companies to spend money on re-writing books so that the school system has to buy new books just to get this point across? No… not when it’s my tax dollars being involved.
You and I knowingly differ on the political fronts and this is just another reason why. I don’t belive government is there to shape my life, you do. Nothing is wrong with either of our view points… and unfortunately for me, we’re heading more in the direction of your ideals everyday…
Well, there’s a shocker…
See, they already are involved. You say that, “the government is here to protect us, and not shape us” (and I intentionally left out “not shape us”), but both of things are exactly what they are supposed to do. The government protects us, grants us freedoms, and things like that. That is protecting us. But, the government also controls us, tells us what is right and wrong, and enforces those beliefs. That is called law, and I believe that is part of government (since it changes at the hand of the government). So, yeah, the government is here to protect us, but it is also shaping us. Also keep in mind that the government shapes us in bad ways too. In this case, it would only be undoing a little bit of the shit that they are “shaping” about us right now.
I am not now, nor will I ever be, that naive. Change takes a long time, and as evidenced by the current climate towards gays and lesbians, it is going to BE a long time before we gain true and total acceptance. This is just a MINOR step in the right direction. This is about inclusion, and it has got to start somewhere.
First of all, the government isn’t forcing the companies, and the companies sure as hell aren’t fronting the bill… that is the government. But, I believe that if it fosters inclusion, it is necessary. If you really want to get down to a waste of government money, there is a few trillion dollar activities that I would point to first. And you don’t have to worry… those are California’s tax dollars, not yours.
I thought that was the point? I thought that having protection from the government was having the government shape your life? Not to start a different debate, but think about how the government is shaping the lives of immigrants right now. It might not be right, but they are doing it, and that is what they do. The government is choosing whether or not I can marry my partner, and that is a hell of a lot more than “protection”. Shaping someones life can be for the better, or the worse. Don’t forget that.
By protect us, I mean: Prevent direct physical and/or financial harm against me.
By shape us, I mean: Influence my views or beliefs.
It’s not wrong for someone to think homosexuality is evil. It is ignorant, but it is not wrong. It is wrong to act upon that belief and assault someone because of it.
You could argue that by influencing one’s views, you could prevent the assault in the first place. Yes… but, not the right course of action.
what may appear to be a wrong view now, could very well be a right view in the future. Galileo ring a bell?
Also, what I was trying to say was that when you differniate homosexuals from the whole, you make people think they are anything but normal.
As far as the cost part of it goes. You’re absolutely right the book companies won’t be fronting the bill. They’ll make a profit off all of this. I’m sure they’re all too eager for the bill to pass … unless their owned by the ultra-jesus-freaks. The government will pay for the whole thing which is obviously just more money out of the pockets of the CA taxpayers. No, it’s not my tax dollars… I was just arguing the point.
Like you said, not to get into another debate, but just to clarify my point on what you said. When you break the law, you give up your rights. We aren’t shaping the illegal aliens. We’re punishing them for their infractions… and not punishing them enough I might add. Finally, as you know, I disagree with the government not allowing gay people to marry. I honestly don’t see what government has to do with marriage in the first place… straight or gay. I don’t think the government should recognize any marriage.
Amber, all I get is a single snide remark? I feel so… justified.
Sorry dpb, the analogy that gay is no different than heterosexual (with regards to having to point it out with a historical figure or not) is very myopic. It’s like saying, “hey, we don’t feel the need to point out that most of the great people you hear about in history are white, heterosexual Christian males”. Well, duh. Well, I guess we shouldn’t point out that George Washington Carver or Martin Luther King is black because as you say “[we don't want] kids to think that even though those people did great things, they are somehow different from ‘the rest of us.’” Right? Well if we go with what you’re saying, that of course to you (I’m assuming) and everyone else, would say that’s ridiculous, of course we should point out they were “black” (uh oh, there’s one of those terrible labels pointing out they’re different than the rest of us). Homosexual people ARE different than straight people, with regard only to sexual orientation. We are a group, marginalized, discriminated against, ridiculed, beaten, killed, denied rights similar to those of straight people (regardless of your opinion of govt’s role in those rights or not).
The government, again regardless of your opinion of the validity of it, DOES dictate what goes into our textbooks. So to properly educate society of the differences in the population, to prepare them for the different people they will interact with in society and the workplace, IS a valid part of education. If you want to argue that government shouldn’t have any say in this, that’s another issue. But since the reality is that government (and by proxy, the people, as it should be) DOES have a say in this, then there is no reason one should be against including mentions of discriminated groups of people and their accomplishments or contributions to society (or determiments to be fair). It certainly shouldn’t be EXCLUDED.
This is why I gave up on conservatism. It is such a cop-out to just say “screw it, government should be involved in any social issues”, it just isn’t practical. We shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders and say, well it’s not the government’s business, let’s leave it up to society. Because with that thinking, in this century, women and black people wouldn’t be voting. Government had to step in and GASP! pass laws to allow this to happen. And look society hasn’t crumbled. /sarcasm off
If kids can get the vague Paul Lynde reference that is Roger the Alien’s voice in American Dad, then they can learn about gay history in school.
America and American History are big enough for everyone.
Jay, please find in any of my statements where I said we should not teach kids about homosexuality or which historical figures are gay. … I’ll wait. … Ok, I didn’t. In fact, I said,
As much as it pains me to say it, there was a time in our society when legislation was required to get people to hire people of a different race or women. I think we’ve come a long way since then, but to say that homosexuals now are in the same place that women or blacks were 50 or more years ago is an insult to the women and blacks that stood up for those rights.
I know gay people have it hard. I know that I can never fully appreciate exactly how hard it is. But this is a waaaay more open society than the one women and blacks had to fight through. Yes, there are plenty of ignorant people out there trying to keep the gay men down, but there are just as many if not more that take the road that gay people are no different than anyone else.
I probably pissed a lot of gay people off with this comment, but that wasn’t my point. I’m not hiding behind any conservative agenda that states gov’t should have no role, because… honestly… conservatives want the gov’t to have a role in trying to make it harder for homosexuals to be considered equal.
I find nothing wrong with pointing out what historical figures were gay. I just don’t like there being a law that dictates such.
dave, the point is, that WITHOUT a law, they won’t do it. That isn’t right, but it is the way it is. I for one, think that if we need a goddamned law to be equal, I want the motherfucking law on the books. I am sick of having so many laws on the books that are AGAINST me.
This is an interesting statement. I don’t know that I agree. But then we’re talking about history, not psychology/philosophy.
I think it would be good to identify gay historical figures in textbooks. I think it would go a long way to letting some kids know they are not alone and they are in fact in great company. I wish they taught about homosexuals being persecuted during the holocaust for more than a word in my high school history book. It was almost like “Oh and Hitler killed some gays too, but we don’t care so much about that.” *raises eyebrow* Excuse me?
Whether or not there should be a law that says it has to be in the books, i dunno. If it’s the only way, yeah. I would be happier if a company included the identification of gay figures and then the government stepped in when some parents tried to ban the books. But, sometimes mankind needs to take giant leaps.
Then what was the point of the post? If it’s that gov’t shouldn’t be involved in textbook content, that’s a cop-out because they ARE involved in what goes into textbooks in our schools and what is taught NOT text book companies. In fact there was a great story on McNeil News hour recently about that very process. Textbook publishers submit their books and the government decides which ones are used and by default, what is taught in our public education system. And the funny/scary thing is, is that it’s the Texas School Board that really sets the tone for the entire Nation’s textbook choices. And now, because textbook companies are cow-towing to conservatives, there is now, no more mention of condoms in Health books and ONLY abstinence with regard to avoiding STD’s. Yay, conservatives, they get what they want and Texas’ young population now has teen pregnancy and STD rates skyrocketing. With that being the case, I misunderstood you’re post. Apparently you are for the government touching on the homosexulaity issue in education (because it just won’t magically happen on it’s own without the govt’s say so). Because that’s the way it works.
Also, the gist of your post was the slippery-slope fallacious argument.
Those are the same types of fallacies used in the gay marriage issue. If gays can marry what’s next? People marrying animals, trees? We can make up irrelevant hypothetical arguments all day long. That’s why it’s a fallacy.
Damn, you want to talk of insults? Tell that to Matthew Shepard’s family (or countless others you don’t hear about on Fox News). Or the guy that got his skull caved in outside of a local bar here in Phoenix a couple months ago, or, or, or. Sorry, don’t even try to go there. We don’t have the same rights to marry as women and blacks, sexual orientation isn’t included in many State’s anti-discrimination laws which include sex and race so we can be fired or not hired simply because of our orientation. So should we say we’re worse off in those respects? Yes. In other respects no. We are not the same, but similar in that we are discriminated groups of people. If you want to nick pick semantics, fine. But a bashed in skull is a bashed in skull is a bashed in skull.
Being a woman or black or Hispanic or other minority (although I think women are actually the majority) doesn’t in itself damn you to hell. That’s the difference.
John has a MAGNIFICENT point, that I fucking totally forgot about:
They didn’t even mention it at my school. Um, that’s where the pink triangle comes from, and when I found that out, I was pissed that I never learned that in school. That, is an essential lesson about gay history that MUST be in all school text books. Fuck the “shaping” learning that does; if it keeps kids from thinking that the persecution and execution of homosexuals is okay, then it is necessary, not privileged.
And dave, I can’t even believe you said this:
I know you didn’t mean it that way, but that is an insanely insensitive and narrow minded statement. That is almost hateful.
I think it’s a great idea to require textbooks to be truthful about gays and lesbians in history. I can’t wait to see the drama when the Catholic Church continues to claim God hates fags and always has, yet the historical truth that numerous openly homosexual Popes have been appointed would tend to contradict that.
duane, you know I have no malicious intent with anything I say regarding homosexuality but regardless of the topic, I simply don’t like the government getting involved in the content of history books. That should be the job of unbiased historians. I know being unbiased is nearly impossible but through a natural progression, the truth will find its way out.
I of course wish everyone would wake up tomorrow and know, understand, and accept the truth but it’s just not going to happen. And, I don’t want to see our government gain more control of our education system simply to fast track what is already happening… albeit slower than proponents desire.
The reason I posted a comment in the first place was just to let you know that not all of the people that do not support a bill such as this are doing so because they are trying to suppress homosexuality. There are other reasons that may cause someone to think it’s a bad idea. These were mine.
And Jay, I recognized part of my statement was a slippery slope, but the fact of the matter is with government, slippery slope is much more of a reality than it is a fallacy much of the time. Every inch we give them, they take a mile. At least, that’s my opinion.