| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Bill Introduced In CA Senate On Gay History; Is sexual historically relevant? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 14 2006, 09:07 PM (191 Views) | |
| tomdrobin | May 14 2006, 09:07 PM Post #1 |
|
Member
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14gay...r=1&oref=slogin quote from link: "Ms. Kuehl says she traces her quest to include material on gay figures in textbooks to her days as a student in Los Angeles public schools in the late 1940's and early 50's. "When I was a kid, there were no women in the textbooks, no black people, no Latinos," she said. "As far as I knew, the only people who ever did anything worthwhile were white men." Ms. Kuehl said the practical applications of the law would be limited to including the accomplishments of gay figures in textbooks and class studies alongside those of other social and ethnic groups. For example, a teacher talking about Langston Hughes would not only mention the fact that he was a black poet, but also mention his sexuality, Ms. Kuehl said." I don't agree that sexual orientation is in the same catagory as race, gender and ethnicity with regards to promoting knowledge of their accomplishments. And, were I a member one of the aforementioned minority groups, it would concern me regarding the erosion of certain minority preferences and protections. What next? Full minority status, with preferential treatment in University admissions etc. for gays, with the intent of diversity? What do you think? |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 15 2006, 05:49 AM Post #2 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Equal opportunity, OK, fine. Equal results via preferential treatment is discrimination. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 15 2006, 10:19 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Ditto! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 15 2006, 10:56 AM Post #4 |
|
Member
|
What about Dolly Madison, Betsy Ross, Marie Antonette, Sacagawea to name a few? How about George Washington Carver, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Lucretia Mott, to name a few? How about General Santa Anna, and Emperor Maximillion? As for homosexuals, since the closet was the accepted place, we only know about Voltare. These people did have a place in history, and were in the history books when I was a kid. Wasn't she paying attention in history class? |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 15 2006, 09:00 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
|
Apparently not! This is just another attempt to politicize sexual preference. With the attempt at getting "abnormal" behavior and preferences accepted as normal. Those outside of "normal" hetrosexuality seem to have this need to not only be accepted and not be discriminated against. But, also be accepted as a normal. I don't think most are ready for that. Any more than they are willing to call a whole lot of other wierd sexual preferences normal. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 16 2006, 07:06 AM Post #6 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Isn't that a personal judgment on your part, Tom, that gays are abnormal? Are the minority that writes left-handed abnormal too? Is popularity the determinant of truth? My take on the problem with education is the problem in large part is special interest groups. Here's a perfect illustration of that: PC textbooks full of skewed history
Well, it goes on with more, but you get the point. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Newarts | May 16 2006, 07:39 AM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
I dislike mandating inclusion of irrelevant material in any instructional context. It is entirely reasonable to include the homosexuality of Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde into a discussion of their lives and impact on the world because it played an important public and private role. It is relevance that's important. Alan Turing's homosexuality was certainly secondary to the breaking of the Enigma code; it is reasonable to mention that had he been outed earlier we might all be eating sauerkraut rather than Big Macs, but that has little to do with computational theory itself. Pathagoras' impact on mathematics was independent of gender. Maybe he was a flaming Queer, maybe not; I have no idea. That detail might have been relavent to his life in some social context but it has damn little to do with the distance between two points. Dave |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 17 2006, 09:32 PM Post #8 |
|
Member
|
Chris Lefties are still using their hand to write etc., even though their hand preference is in a minority. What if for the sake of illustration of my point we hypothetically say there could be someone who writes and throws a ball with their foot. Now, wouldn't that be abnormal? Wouldn't someone born without legs be abnormal? So, it's not a question of popular choice. But, a case of significant deviation from the majority. Another point on the left handers comparison. Other than perhaps sports, where it would be relevant. Why would left handers want to have all the significant contributions of lefties be mentioned in chorus with their dominant hand preference. Sounds silly to me, and so does the tagging of the sexual orientation of historically significant people, unless their contribution had someting directly related to that orientation. It is IMO, just another attempt to gain minority status, on par with race, ethnicity etc. and I don't think there is enough of a parrallel to warrant that. |
![]() |
|
| bikemanb | May 18 2006, 05:46 AM Post #9 |
|
Liberal Conservative
|
To include or exclude a historical figure because of their sexual orientation is foolish, equally foolish is to emphasize that orientation unless it is germane to their historical impact in some way. |
|
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. Benjamin Franklin | |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 18 2006, 10:41 AM Post #10 |
|
Member
|
Gender should not matter. It does not matter to me whether someone brilliant has whatever chomosone -- only their ideas. Do I care of what gender Elizabeth Kubler-Ross was when she wrote the book on grief that is now the standard? Do I care that when Eleanor Rosevelt had such an impact on the lives of children, that she was a woman, a Democrat, or a repubican? of course not. Do I care whether Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or anyone else is male or female? It is just a chomosone, after all. What they did was extraordinary and amazing. Why would I care about their gender? |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 18 2006, 11:50 AM Post #11 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Tom "Lefties are still using their hand to write etc., even though their hand preference is in a minority. " Gays are still living, breathing human beings, even though their sexual orientation is in a minority. "What if for the sake of illustration of my point we hypothetically say there could be someone who writes and throws a ball with their foot. Now, wouldn't that be abnormal? Wouldn't someone born without legs be abnormal?" One is different. One is handicapped. Neither "abnormal". I don't think the analogy carries from physical normas to social norms. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 18 2006, 09:55 PM Post #12 |
|
Member
|
I just have a real problem classifying someone as a "minority" in the generally accepted definition on the basis of their sexual orientation. What about someone who is asexual? I believe that is someone who has no interest in sex with anyone or anything. They certainly would be a minority when speaking about sex. But, would it be noteworthy in text books to identify those historical figures that were asexual? |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 19 2006, 05:04 AM Post #13 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
No argument that you can isolate some attributes and classify people as in the minority. No argument that they should then get special treatment. Equal access, not equal results. A handicapped person is in a minority. A crippled war vetaran is as well. I think we should do things that give them equal access to the choices we in the majority have, but, again, not equal results. Let's just say I'm hung up on the word abnormal and its connotations of wrongness. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 19 2006, 10:03 PM Post #14 |
|
Member
|
I think we can agree that abnormal does not necessarily mean wrongness. That is a moral judgement based on current local social mores, not an absolute. The current trend for most is to view homosexual activity as morally wrong from some religous perspectives, and accepatable by secular law. That doesn't alter the fact that it isn't normal, from a physical perspective. My point is even acceptable abnormality shouldn't automatically qualify for minority status. |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 20 2006, 12:13 AM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
It is interesting that roughly the same percentage of humans are born gay as are born left-handed. It is interesting that we focus on the "handedness" of these folks. That is actually a minor issue. Everything in the way their brains are configured is different. This is serious stuff. Left-brain, right-brain stuff is reversed. I don't really care whether someone is gay, left-handed, or whatever. I don't really care if they are black, white, pink, or blue. When I was born, I could not control whether I was to be male or female. Could you? I wasn't given the choice of whether I was to be gay or straight. Gender, at birth, is an interesting topic these days. It seems that what we thought we knew might not be a given. You won't need to look far to find interesting things to make you say, "hmmmmm". |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









1:03 PM Jul 11