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.

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?

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 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 you didn’t mean it that way, but that is an insanely insensitive and narrow minded statement. That is almost hateful.

Jay, please find in any of my statements where I said we should not teach kids about homosexuality or which historical figures are gay

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

It’s not wrong for someone to think homosexuality is evil. It is ignorant, but it is not wrong.

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.

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.

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.

America and American History are big enough for everyone.

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