Gay history to become required subject in California schools

[Pliny]

Jaw-dropping conspiratorial lunacy usually is wrong, in my opinion. Perhaps there are exceptions.

You don't believe that their is any effort to curb the propogation of the species? If so, could encouraging homosexuality not be a part of the effort? There is nothing wrong with it after all.

Do you think that someone could be convinced by someone else that they are gay when they are not?

[Pliny]

You prove my point. Whether they had children or not, never mind how many, is not a part of the history requirement, nor has it been included in any history course I've ever taken.

But it would be important to know if they were gay. Right?

[bloodyminded]

You don't believe that their is any effort to curb the propogation of the species? If so, could encouraging homosexuality not be a part of the effort? There is nothing wrong with it after all.

I don't think the "temporary social aberration," as you call it, of people fighting for homosexual rights, is part of an agenda to curb the propagation of the species. It's a pretty wild claim.

And by the way, you were talking about curbing the propagation of "the white race"; which I don't think qualifies as "species"; though the remark itself perhaps qualifies as something unpleasant.

Do you think that someone could be convinced by someone else that they are gay when they are not?

Only insofar as some same-sex sexual attraction is already evident. But I'm not seeing people doing any such thing anyway, unless merely accepting homosexuality is perceived as a gateway drug.

[Bob]

I don't find it particularly strange to talk about "gay history" in public schools in the context of the development of American civil rights over time. I think it's a bit strange to distinguish itself as a topic that stands on its own, but there's certainly some important things to learn about regarding the movement for equality for homosexuals in America when learning about American history. Seems relevant to me, but it's important to see how it's approached.

[bloodyminded]

For reasons known only to himself, Bonam's OP gives us a hardcore and reactionary fundamentalist Christian opinion, admittedly and explicitly opposed to homosexuality in and of itself, to inform us of the "news" story.

Mind, I'm not opposing the inclusion of this viewpoint; just that some other sources are no doubt important here. Plus, it simply seems at odds with Bonam's usual style.

These other sites may or may not be perceived as "positive" or "endorsing" the measure (they differ somewhat one from the next, actually), but they aren't little bits of pure "journalistic" activism that the OP's link plainly and unequivocally is.

http://www.wlbt.com/story/15099438/california-schools-must-teach-gay-history

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0714/California-becomes-first-state-to-mandate-gay-history-in-curriculum

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/us/16schools.html

http://www.newsytype.com/8569-california-gay-history-bill/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-history-makes-its-way-into-california-curriculum-51905/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/15/Gay-history-bill-gains-in-California/UPI-77141302889380/

Edited July 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

In October 1934 RKO pictures releases The Gay Divorcee starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

The Film is notable for winning the very first Oscar in the Original Song Category

[M.Dancer]

In 2010, an Xbox live user had his account suspended for including his location; Fort Gay West Virginia.

http://www.katu.com/news/weird/102430904.html

[bloodyminded]

In 2010, an Xbox live user had his account suspended for including his location; Fort Gay West Virginia.

http://www.katu.com/news/weird/102430904.html

In 1992, or perhaps a couple of years earlier, the term "internet troll" was first used, albeit in a narrower sense. It has since become a boringly pervasive phenomenon that most of us tolerate with bemused contempt.

[Pliny]

I don't think the "temporary social aberration," as you call it, of people fighting for homosexual rights, is part of an agenda to curb the propagation of the species.

What rights are they fighting for?

It's a pretty wild claim.

Every little bit helps.

And by the way, you were talking about curbing the propagation of "the white race"; which I don't think qualifies as "species"; though the remark itself perhaps qualifies as something unpleasant.

No, I was talking about curbing the population of Earth. The white race is the only one that promotes homosexuality - and it seems to be working; population wise, among other programs and policies, like planned parenthood which discourages unwanted pregnancies, and a policy of abortion on demand. You see, those things need to be introduced in China and India, as well. I know Planned Parenthood works hard to even get the use of condoms accepted in as many countries as it can operate in.

Why is the thought of accepting homosexuality unpleasant when thought of in the context of population control? It could only help. There doesn't have to be any promotional activity celebrating homosexuality because it helps curb population growth, it just does. Besides homosexuals only make up about 3% of the population. That isn't very much.

Previous to our current social acceptance level in the west many homosexual men remained in the closet and created the facade of getting married and having children. It would help curb population if they could just be themselves and didn't have to pretend and have families they don't really want withthe added benefit that they are not likely to have children.

If over-population is a primary problem then homosexuality should be promoted that way. Why shouldn't it be? Why should homosexuals have to pretend they are heterosexual and bring unwanted children into the world in order to prove it? And if someone shows an interest in an alternative lifestyle it should be celebrated and encouraged, shouldn't it?

Why does it sound unpleasant to think homosexuality is a good way to contribute to curbing population growth? Could it be that maybe someone could mistake themselves as homosexual or the State might tell someone they are gay when they are not and they could mistakenly live their whole life that way? In order to even come up with that question you would have to have some question in your own mind whether homsexuality is a genetic thing - that people are not born gay. I think the gay community would be rather upset with you if you thought it were not genetic, but I don't know that for sure. I've only seen them argue it is a genetic thing.

Only insofar as some same-sex sexual attraction is already evident. But I'm not seeing people doing any such thing anyway, unless merely accepting homosexuality is perceived as a gateway drug.

Impossible to be swayed, right? You either are or you are not. It's a genetic thing.

[bloodyminded]

What rights are they fighting for?

Every little bit helps.

No, I was talking about curbing the population of Earth. The white race is the only one that promotes homosexuality - and it seems to be working; population wise, among other programs and policies, like planned parenthood which discourages unwanted pregnancies, and a policy of abortion on demand. You see, those things need to be introduced in China and India, as well. I know Planned Parenthood works hard to even get the use of condoms accepted in as many countries as it can operate in.

Why is the thought of accepting homosexuality unpleasant when thought of in the context of population control? It could only help. There doesn't have to be any promotional activity celebrating homosexuality because it helps curb population growth, it just does. Besides homosexuals only make up about 3% of the population. That isn't very much.

Previous to our current social acceptance level in the west many homosexual men remained in the closet and created the facade of getting married and having children. It would help curb population if they could just be themselves and didn't have to pretend and have families they don't really want withthe added benefit that they are not likely to have children.

If over-population is a primary problem then homosexuality should be promoted that way. Why shouldn't it be? Why should homosexuals have to pretend they are heterosexual and bring unwanted children into the world in order to prove it? And if someone shows an interest in an alternative lifestyle it should be celebrated and encouraged, shouldn't it?

Why does it sound unpleasant to think homosexuality is a good way to contribute to curbing population growth? Could it be that maybe someone could mistake themselves as homosexual or the State might tell someone they are gay when they are not and they could mistakenly live their whole life that way? In order to even come up with that question you would have to have some question in your own mind whether homsexuality is a genetic thing - that people are not born gay. I think the gay community would be rather upset with you if you thought it were not genetic, but I don't know that for sure. I've only seen them argue it is a genetic thing.

Impossible to be swayed, right? You either are or you are not. It's a genetic thing.

I'm afraid my view is that you aren't being serious about any of this, and that the only serious point is the undergirding...that there's something about homosexuality that doesn't quite...sit right with you.

But none of this deserves a serious response, because you aren't asking for one.

Edited July 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

I don't find it particularly strange to talk about "gay history" in public schools in the context of the development of American civil rights over time. I think it's a bit strange to distinguish itself as a topic that stands on its own, but there's certainly some important things to learn about regarding the movement for equality for homosexuals in America when learning about American history. Seems relevant to me, but it's important to see how it's approached.

If government has a hand in it you can bet it won't be simply learning about the development of American civil rights over time. It will be about the intolerances and injustices of yesterday and how today's rational society must recognize "gay rights".

[Pliny]

I'm afraid my view is that you aren't being serious about any of this, and that the only serious point is the undergirding...that there's something about homosexuality that doesn't quite...sit right with you.

But none of this deserves a serious response, because you aren't asking for one.

It isn't a logical sequence of progression?

You do see its contributing effect to the problem of over-population though, don't you?

[bloodyminded]

It isn't a logical sequence of progression?

You do see its contributing effect to the problem of over-population though, don't you?

No. First of all, I have posted exactly--to the letter--zero remarks about overpopulation, on any thread and in any context.

Second, your "modest proposal," mocking the notion of population concerns by supporting homosexuality (which you don't really seem to much like, presumably for the religious reasons which you will quickly deny), also tries to take into account that the homosexual population is too small to make a difference....setting up your straw man to knock it down, I suppose.

Perhaps you believe you're cleverly mocking my own views, rather than speaking in mysterious code. I"m happy to disabuse you of this delusion.

To me, any issues about homosexuality is completely irrelevant to notions of population control, good or bad. "White race" notwithstanding.

Edited July 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[g_bambino]

I do view homosexuality as a defect.

Then the vast majority of humanity is defected.

[Bonam]

For reasons known only to himself, Bonam's OP gives us a hardcore and reactionary fundamentalist Christian opinion, admittedly and explicitly opposed to homosexuality in and of itself, to inform us of the "news" story.

Mind, I'm not opposing the inclusion of this viewpoint; just that some other sources are no doubt important here. Plus, it simply seems at odds with Bonam's usual style.

Just happened to be the first source that I saw the article on. My google front page gives me news stories from thousands of different sources, seemingly at random. I thought about finding another source that would not elicit complaints of bias here but was too lazy to spend the 30 seconds required.

[Sir Bandelot]

it simply seems at odds with Bonam's usual style.

I immediately thought the same thing, and for a moment was considering to make my first post- there is some hope for Bonam after all!

[Sir Bandelot]

Then the vast majority of humanity is defected.

Considering the state that the world is in, I believe this to be true. But it is surely not the fault of homosexuals.

The human being is sadly psychotic, selfish and unwise. And all the things in life that distract us from devoping to our true potential add to the problem. That's why discipline and guidance, and yes some kind of code of morality are so important. A young mind needs rules and boundaries, else we fall to chaos from our unchecked animal instincts.

[g_bambino]

Considering the state that the world is in, I believe this to be true. But it is surely not the fault of homosexuals.

The human being is sadly psychotic, selfish and unwise. And all the things in life that distract us from devoping to our true potential add to the problem. That's why discipline and guidance, and yes some kind of code of morality are so important. A young mind needs rules and boundaries, else we fall to chaos from our unchecked animal instincts.

It's not really the fault of anybody. Homosexuality is present in every human being, as well as beyond the human species. What happens with each individual is, of course, subject to factors within and beyond their control; and, yes, codes and strictures are important. However, since, as I said, everyone is capable of homosexual behaviour (and millions upon millions of people, all around the world - even those who profess on the outside to be completely "straight" - engage in it, in one way or another, at some point or points in their lives), it is not, as you said, a defect.

[c/e]

Edited July 20, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 19 July 2011 - 04:30 PM, said: You prove my point. Whether they had children or not, never mind how many, is not a part of the history requirement, nor has it been included in any history course I've ever taken.

But it would be important to know if they were gay. Right?

No, it wouldn't be important to know if they were gay. Why would it be important to know that?

[Sir Bandelot]

it is not, as you said, a defect.

In your opinion.

Millions engage in criminal behaviour too. And have mental diseases, and get cancer. The fact that a particular issue, behaviour, or tendency is common worldwide, even normal, does not make it unobjectionable.

[g_bambino]

Millions engage in criminal behaviour too. And have mental diseases, and get cancer. The fact that a particular issue, behaviour, or tendency is common worldwide, even normal, does not make it unobjectionable.

You didn't say homosexuality is "objectionable". You said it is a "defect". The two are entirely different, and evidence shows the latter to be quite incorrect. The opinion that allowing one's self to engage in homosexual activity is a sign of defective thinking does not equate with homosexuality being a natural defect.

[c/e]

Edited July 20, 2011 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

You didn't say homosexuality is "objectionable". You said it is a "defect". The two are entirely different, and evidence shows the latter to be quite incorrect. The opinion that allowing one's self to engage in homosexual activity is a sign of defective thinking does not equate with homosexuality being a natural defect.

[c/e]

It is either created by nature thus natural but still by the norm a mutation. As for it being a defect - by the standard of normalacy or the majority it is a defect....so is sadistic sexual behavour - sex by it's true nature is a reproductive creative act - it is creational and re-creational in it's secondary purpose - For instance in very old people it is purely re-creatioal...odd how nature leaves the sex organs in tact in old age to give pleasure, bonding and fun to the almost dead - if the spirit and flesh are willing.

The only type of sexuality that I consider truely deviant and objectionable is homo errotic behaviour in people that are not true homosexuals - yes this does exist and I call it debached...it's lazy and convenient to some...but objectionable..but to this new generation this type of experimental sexuality is considered fashionable - but I guess historically - homosexual behavoiur has always been trendy especially around the rich and privledged who are bored seeking a shocking experience....The promotion of homosexuality for all - IS the begining of the fall of all empires.

[g_bambino]

The only type of sexuality that I consider truely deviant and objectionable is homo errotic behaviour in people that are not true homosexuals - yes this does exist and I call it debached...it's lazy and convenient to some...

Putting aside the mystery of what "true homosexuals" are, I think there are some in the world who are glad for the convenience of homosexual sex. In Islamic cultures, for instance, sex with women isn't as convenient as it is for you (in your youth, anyway; or, so you say) and I here. In the more tolerant, but still somewhat strict societies (like in Egypt), young men therefore form quite close relationships (it's common there to see men walking hand in hand in public) and it's an accepted, though not blatantly open, fact that they will, well... satisfy each other from time to time in the years before they're married. It happens, it's casual, and nobody really cares (so long as these men still act in the accepted masculine fashion). I don't know, but I imagine it's the same for the women.

It's not as easy for everyone on Earth to be as righteous and principled as you.

[c/e]

Edited July 20, 2011 by g_bambino

[Sir Bandelot]

In the more tolerant, but still somewhat strict societies (like in Egypt), young men therefore form quite close relationships (it's common there to see men walking hand in hand in public) and it's an accepted, though not blatantly open, fact that they will, well... satisfy each other from time to time in the years before they're married. It happens, it's casual, and nobody really cares (so long as these men still act in the accepted masculine fashion). I don't know, but I imagine it's the same for the women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt

Yes I know it's a Wikipedia link, but still. Garish, cruel, barbaric is a better description of the attitude towards homosexuality there. It doesn't sound at all like you describe. I suggest, you are talking us for a little hand-holding walk here yourself.

By the way, do not confuse Arab customs such as hand holding and even, kissing amongst men as xpressions of sexual desire. Lest we forget, when GB was President he too had to hold a few hands. And far as I know, he ain't no queer boy.

It's not as easy for everyone on Earth to be as righteous and principled as you.

Despite that, what's right is right. Not- relativity!

Although I cannot speak for Oleg let me say that I believe there is a finite, fixed thing we can call 'right'. There is a right principle! Being right is something we might spend our lives aspiring toward, but frequently fail at. Forgiveness of that failure, in all of us, is a whole other matter but does not negate what is "right". So lets call it like it is.

[g_bambino]

Yes I know it's a Wikipedia link, but still. Garish, cruel, barbaric is a better description of the attitude towards homosexuality there.

As I said, there's a difference in their culture between living a gay lifestyle and men having sex with men before they get married and are able to have sex with a woman. The article focuses on the former, and I also said very specifically and purposefully that the latter wasn't a blatantly open practice; it's known it goes on, it's known it's common, it's known why it happens, but there's no annual parade. And, again, behaviour in public is important; I don't know the details of any of the cases cited in that article, but if the supposedly gay people being spoken of were acting effeminite or liscivious in public, then they would likely not be tolerated; it's an unspoken acceptance of sexual contact between men, so long as it's before they're married, in private, and everyone still acts as a men are commonly expected to act.

Even then, in places like Afghanistan, the bacchá bazi are quite popular. With those in power, of course.

------

It's horribly written, but some of what I'm talking about is covered here. I'm not sure the pederasty is practiced in urban areas so much, though.

[+]

Edited July 21, 2011 by g_bambino