SEC=UGA Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It won't be long... (AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum. The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays. Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco says SB48 is crucial because of the bullying that happens to gay students. Republicans called it a well-intentioned but ill-conceived bill and raised concerns that it would indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality. Teen's trial for gay classmate's murder to begin Video: Gay candidates sound off on same-sex marriage R.I. governor signs bill allowing civil unions "This bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized," said Assembly Speaker John Perez, the first openly gay speaker of the California Assembly. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, who has not said whether he would sign it. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill in 2006. Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a Republican from Twin Peaks, said he was offended as a Christian that the bill was being used to promote a "homosexual agenda" in public schools. "I think it's one thing to say that we should be tolerant," Donnelly said. "It is something else altogether to say that my children are going to be taught that this lifestyle is good." California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics. SB48 would require, as soon as the 2013-2014 school year, the California Board of Education and local school districts to adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities. The legislation leaves it to local school boards to decide how to implement the requirement. It does not specify a grade level for the instruction to begin. Opponents argued that such instruction would further burden an already crowded curriculum and expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable. Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, said the bill micromanages the classroom. "Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves," Donnelly said. The bill's author, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said he hopes Brown will sign his bill. He dismissed arguments that the bill promotes certain sexual behaviors and said it removes censorship in textbooks. "Bottom line, it's only beneficial to share with students the broad diversity of the human experience and that our democracy protects everyone," he said. Before the Assembly vote, Perez pointed to a few contributions of gay people, including Friedrich von Steuben, one of George Washington's military advisers who fled Prussia after he was hounded as a homosexual. Von Steuben is credited with being one of the fathers of the Continental Army and teaching essential military drills. He also cited Alan Turing, a mathematician who helped crack Nazi Germany's secret codes by creating the "Turing bombe," a forerunner of modern computers. Some churches and conservative family groups warned the bill will drive more parents to take their children out of public schools. "This sexual brainwashing bill would mandate that children as young as 6 years old be told falsehoods — that homosexuality is biological, when it isn't, or healthy, when it's not," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. The Assembly passed the bill on a 49-25 vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I have no problem with making certain that the accomplishments of all people, regardless of how they a classified by society or themselves, that fit the current curriculum of the social studies arc in California schools presented without bias. However, shoehorning additional achievements into an already crowded curriculum just to make certain that there are accomplishments from gays and/or lesbians seems to be lacking in judgement IMO. To me, it would clearly distort the historical perspective of any accomplishments by instituting some sort of quota system in the development of that curriculum. Shameful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The only reason kids learn any bias against race, sexuality, religion, et al is because of adults bringing it up in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 I have no problem with making certain that the accomplishments of all people, regardless of how they a classified by society or themselves, that fit the current curriculum of the social studies arc in California schools presented without bias. However, shoehorning additional achievements into an already crowded curriculum just to make certain that there are accomplishments from gays and/or lesbians seems to be lacking in judgement IMO. To me, it would clearly distort the historical perspective of any accomplishments by instituting some sort of quota system in the development of that curriculum. Shameful. That is truly the problem... There is only so much manure one can fit into a bag. What manure are they going to throw out to shovel this in? But, like you, I have no problem with highlighting worthy historical events regardless of the race, gender, religion or sexual position of an individual (so long as said person isn't Irish.) But, just make sure it is note worthy, not just some story about some ferry pioneering the "accessories for dogs" movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) What persons or subjects from the current curriculum will be deleted or appended to make room for the accomplishments of Barney Frank, Richard Simmons, and Tom Cruise? Will the contriibutions of heterosexuals be specifically noted as heterosexual contributions? It would seem only balanced to do so. What about bi or bicurious history? Edited July 6, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 What about bi or bicurious history? Maybe they'll just have to wait for college and learn this from sorority girls like the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 The only reason kids learn any bias against race, sexuality, religion, et al is because of adults bringing it up in the first place. I would argue against this somewhat. Kids can, to a pretty large degree, sense that someone/something is "different" from the "norm". Some kids rebel against or ostracize those that are "different" of their own volition and some are intrigued by it. I do agree that some biases are engendered by socialization (parents or the group of people with whom you interact) but there is no escaping the fact that children can and do develop biases on their own. With regard to homosexuality, it can be very obvious (in certain cases) that one is "ghey" due to effeminate traits. This can be very off putting to straight people of both genders. It doesn't matter whether the parents taught the child to like or dislike gheys, what matters to the child is that there is something unfamiliar or "not normal" about the person, thus they do not like said person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) I can see history class now: Kids, Teddy Roosevelt, a raging hetero btw, was the most noteworthy candidate ever fielded by the Bull Moose Party. He is not to be confused with Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man whose sexuality is uncertain at best. Let's put them aside for now and speak about early aviation. To begin we should note that the Wright brothers spent an inordinant amount of time secluded together, even as grown men. Their bicycle shop certainly allowed them substantial contact with children. Now as for Amelia Earhart, lets face facts. I don't even want to imagine what might be taught about LBJ or Dick Nixon. Edited July 6, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 I can see history class now: Kids, Teddy Roosevelt, a raging hetero btw, was the most noteworthy candidate ever fielded by the Bull Moose Party. He is not to be confused with Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man whose sexuality is uncertain at best. Let's put them aside for now and speak about early aviation. To begin we should note that the Wright brothers spent an inordinant amount of time secluded together, even as grown men. Their bicycle shop certainly allowed them substantial contact with children. Now as for Amelia Earhart, lets face facts. I don't even want to imagine what might be taught about LBJ or Dick Nixon. You forgot to mention Elanor Roosevelt... A bull dyke if one ever walked the face of this earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I am all for gays having every right that straight folk have, but I am pretty much against force feeding folk info on minorities just because they are minorities. If somebody did something important enough to be talked about, it should be talked about upon its own merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Walt Whitman is taught freely in most public schools. His work stands on its own. Harvey Milk is not taught because basically he was a whinney bitch of no real significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Walt Whitman is taught freely in most public schools. His work stands on its own. Harvey Milk is not taught because basically he was a whinney bitch of no real significance. It's actually interesting that you bring up Milk. I grew up in the bay area and it's not like his story happened before my time. Yet, I knew virtually nothing about him or how he died until much later. Like what I read about him when the movie was released. I'd heard about "the twinkie defense" but just that some dude killed someone and said it was because they ate twinkies. That's it. The simple fact is, Harvey Milk was a civil right's leader and we are certainly taught about them. I don't see why a guy like that doesn't deserve some time in a civics class curriculum. It would have seemed like a rather topical and worthy discussion when I was in HS a mere 5 years later. Hell, it would be interesting to know that it's not like he was even killed for being gay (which is what one might assume. That it was an MLK sort of thing). He was killed by some random nut-case who was jealous of his success. That said, I agree that we needn't go out and find a bunch of gay people to fit into curricula just to balance things out. But, if this is about not excluding important people in history because they're gay or even throwing a nod out to the fact that they were gay, I'm cool with that. Just because we don't bother to illustrate that someone was straight and white doesn't mean we should avoid mentioning when someone was a minority. It's only a double standard if you're looking for it to be. The simple fact is, most people in this country, especially through history, are straight and white. Because, for most of our history, and to a degree today, being specifically white, male, and straight gave you a leg up on others, those who have made major contributions despite not being from this class deserve to have that made mention of. Because, quite simply, there are young people who are not straight, white, or male and we owe to them to remind them of great people who were from their specific demographic. We've made a point of doing that for latinos, blacks, and girls. Why not for gay kids? And why not shock some kid who may be a bit of a homophobe by telling him that this or that person in history that they may admire happened to be gay. It may change their perspective. And how is that a bad thing? Edited July 6, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrip Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) If people could outgrow the ridiculous tendency to dislike, exclude and dismiss those who aren't the same as them we wouldn't need laws like this. Edited July 6, 2011 by mrip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 If people could outgrow the ridiculous tendency to dislike, exclude and dismiss those who aren't the same as them we wouldn't need laws like this. It is a latent, innate, trait that is genetically transferred to people at birth. It is very tough to get rid of with out programming a person throughout their life, which in essence is what is occurring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Maybe we'll finially find out who is credited with doing the wild thing with a simian to start the AIDS epidemic. Killer accomplishment there. In sports, I'm sure it will be quite an eye-opener to find out how many childhood idols were gay/lesbian. In the military, there are probably quite a few heros. Maybe even a Medal of Honor recipient. I'm not sure how blatant they have to be about presenting the material in class. Doubt we'd want an entire chapter dedicated to the cause, but a few paragraphs couldn't hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 leave Kegs Ass out of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 leave Kegs Ass out of this already tapped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I would argue against this somewhat. Kids can, to a pretty large degree, sense that someone/something is "different" from the "norm". Some kids rebel against or ostracize those that are "different" of their own volition and some are intrigued by it. I do agree that some biases are engendered by socialization (parents or the group of people with whom you interact) but there is no escaping the fact that children can and do develop biases on their own. With regard to homosexuality, it can be very obvious (in certain cases) that one is "ghey" due to effeminate traits. This can be very off putting to straight people of both genders. It doesn't matter whether the parents taught the child to like or dislike gheys, what matters to the child is that there is something unfamiliar or "not normal" about the person, thus they do not like said person. There is a disagreement I had with my wife and sister-in-law that still pisses me off when I think about it. The movie Brokeback Mountain came on HBO and I hadn't seen it. I knew what it was about, but I knew it was nominated for awards so I decided to watch it. I made it to the part where they are in the tent and decided it was stupid and turned it off. The movie to me was kind of pointless and boring, then suddenly the two guys are going at it, and nothing led up to that, just hey, let's have some ghey sex...I was like . If it had more of point to make about something, maybe I would have watched more of it. Did the scene turn me off, yes, but that's not why I turned it off. Sister in law likes to come off as super-enlightened, and she's one of these people that has the PC playbook down cold...didn't like Brokeback = homophobe. Next. My wife sort of looks up to her and considers her well-informed on these issues, so she's happy to follow suit. To them, it was cut and dried. Then my wife pointed out that I looked away during the gay scenes in Six Feet Under. Yes I sure did, I think it's disgusting. Doesn't mean I hated the gay characters, I just don't care to watch that. I would put my reaction in the same category as watching contestants eat live grubs and worms on Survivor...a very normal visceral reaction to something that one sees as undesirable. What brilliant argument do they come up with? They ask if I feel the same way about two lesbians kissing? What pissed me off most of all, I know damn well in a less serious moment after a few drinks, both of them would admit they also think it's disgusting, and probably say watching lesbians kiss is even worse. I can vaguely remember something with women kissing on TV and my wife wanting to turn the channel. Really unbelievable...it's not enough to support their rights to have the same legal status as married people which I do, but I have to sit there and watch them make out and pretend it doesn't turn my stomach. Screw biology, gotta appear politically correct. The hyper-sensitivity and the policing of everyone's every thought and reaction to these things are what cause more of a backlash than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Really unbelievable...it's not enough to support their rights to have the same legal status as married people which I do, but I have to sit there and watch them make out and pretend it doesn't turn my stomach. if anything it might show you as more enlightened. Its easy to accept something that doesn't bother you - its something entierly different to see why you should accept something that you find distasteful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 leave Kegs Ass out of this already tapped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yeah, that was pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 if anything it might show you as more enlightened. Its easy to accept something that doesn't bother you - its something entierly different to see why you should accept something that you find distasteful. I don't see how it makes me more or less enlightened. It's a visceral reaction, completely separate from my political views on the subject. I want them to have all the rights as everyone else. I don't think they or anyone else should be ostracized for who they are. I can't imagine how horrible it must be to have to hide who you are, and I know it's why so many homosexuals abuse drugs and alcohol and commit suicide. I think it is shameful that a family would disown a gay son or daughter. I think it's great that high schools have clubs for them to join. High school is tough when you don't feel like you fit in. Being gay in high school has got to be a complete nightmare. But, put on a show with two guys lighting candles, putting on some Barry White and going at it on the couch like two squirrels in a pillowcase, and I'll want to throw up. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 I don't see how it makes me more or less enlightened. It's a visceral reaction, completely separate from my political views on the subject. I want them to have all the rights as everyone else. I don't think they or anyone else should be ostracized for who they are. I can't imagine how horrible it must be to have to hide who you are, and I know it's why so many homosexuals abuse drugs and alcohol and commit suicide. I think it is shameful that a family would disown a gay son or daughter. I think it's great that high schools have clubs for them to join. High school is tough when you don't feel like you fit in. Being gay in high school has got to be a complete nightmare. But, put on a show with two guys lighting candles, putting on some Barry White and going at it on the couch like two squirrels in a pillowcase, and I'll want to throw up. Go figure. Now let's be fair. I have the exact same reaction when I see two hot, hard bodied, 19 YO, females going d... BRB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 already tapped That's got to be one of the best posts of the year right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The title of the thread is also pretty damn funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.