Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: Schwarzenegger Vetoes Bill on Gay Protections in Textbooks

  1. #61
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default

    It's nice to know that there are people out there who are big enough to apologize and actually admit they went too far. If only more people on this board and in real life could do this it would be a much more pleasant world.

  2. #62
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoDayButToday View Post
    Also, the fact that these people were homosexual often had an impact on their lives as well. I hate to use the same examples of Oscar Wilde and Tchaikovsky, but they work perfectly.

    Oscar Wilde had some VERY public legal battles affecting his credibility and success as an author that involved a gay love affair with a prominent member of society.

    It is theorized that Tchaikovsky committed suicide following rejection from his students. Also, his upset over his marriage to a woman is believed to have influenced one of his major works.

    These are things that should legitimately be taught in history (an author's reception/popularity in life, a composers influences on major works) and to exclude them simply because they are about the person being gay shortchanges the student.
    This post helped clarify this issue somewhat for me. I was struggling with why sexuality needed to be discussed in the classroom at all, regardless of orientation. I'm still not 100% clear on it. These examples give me ideas of when sexuality should legitimately be included in an historical presentation. It's just such a subjective, fine line, though & I'm not entirely convinced....

    I'm pretty comfortable saying that I don't think that sexuality needs to be explored in history class or whatever (sex education excepted) at least until high school, and then only with tact & discretion lest the whole thing become distracted by titillation. We all know what high school kids are interested in. I don't have a problem with someone's homosexual partner being mentioned in the same way that an historical husband's wife might be mentioned for example, IF the partner and IF the wife are integral parts of the story, and something fundamental would be lost in the omission.

    I didn't find out about Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings until I was an adult, and it could certainly be argued that this relationship was significant since Jefferson was a slave owner. Still, I'm not sure that it's appropriate for a junior high school classroom. College, sure. Same goes for JFK and all his womanizing. Tomes have been written about Hitler's sexual
    freakishness; I'm convinced that his sexual deviancy affected his evil decisions, which in turn affected the world, yet I don't know that they should be taught in a junior high or high school classroom.

    My point is not that homosexuality should be equated with heterosexual deviancy or misdeeds, but that there are many examples of heterosexuality significantly affecting historical outcomes. Are they pointed out? Maybe so, but I can't think of anything at the moment. Then again, I didn't pay attention to anything in class until I was in college, so who knows. If an important historical figure was persecuted for being gay, or whose historical contribution would make no sense without acknowledgment of his homosexuality, then personally, I think it's silly to pretend the information doesn't exist. Am I wobbling on the fence here? As I type this post, I think it's coming down to two things for me:

    One, age appropriateness. When is it appropriate to discuss sexuality in the classroom of school-aged children? How is it done now? Many people don't discuss homosexuality with their children, and if you start presenting it in class to the younger kids, many teachers are going have some 'splainin' to do when the questions pop up. Personally, I don't care if mine read about it in this context, but good luck convincing a bunch of other folks.

    And two, is another LAW necessary for this? I don't know.

    I just wish it weren't such a big freakin' deal, and people could just be what they naturally are, without everybody getting uptight & judgmental.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  3. #63
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pacific breeze View Post
    It's nice to know that there are people out there who are big enough to apologize and actually admit they went too far. If only more people on this board and in real life could do this it would be a much more pleasant world.
    I just really need to practice what I was preaching. Otherwise I am a total hypocrite and I don't want that. *WAILS..'Can't we all just get along?*

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia View Post
    This post helped clarify this issue somewhat for me. I was struggling with why sexuality needed to be discussed in the classroom at all, regardless of orientation. I'm still not 100% clear on it. These examples give me ideas of when sexuality should legitimately be included in an historical presentation. It's just such a subjective, fine line, though & I'm not entirely convinced....

    I'm pretty comfortable saying that I don't think that sexuality needs to be explored in history class or whatever (sex education excepted) at least until high school, and then only with tact & discretion lest the whole thing become distracted by titillation. We all know what high school kids are interested in. I don't have a problem with someone's homosexual partner being mentioned in the same way that an historical husband's wife might be mentioned for example, IF the partner and IF the wife are integral parts of the story, and something fundamental would be lost in the omission.

    I didn't find out about Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings until I was an adult, and it could certainly be argued that this relationship was significant since Jefferson was a slave owner. Still, I'm not sure that it's appropriate for a junior high school classroom. College, sure. Same goes for JFK and all his womanizing. Tomes have been written about Hitler's sexual
    freakishness; I'm convinced that his sexual deviancy affected his evil decisions, which in turn affected the world, yet I don't know that they should be taught in a junior high or high school classroom.

    My point is not that homosexuality should be equated with heterosexual deviancy or misdeeds, but that there are many examples of heterosexuality significantly affecting historical outcomes. Are they pointed out? Maybe so, but I can't think of anything at the moment. Then again, I didn't pay attention to anything in class until I was in college, so who knows. If an important historical figure was persecuted for being gay, or whose historical contribution would make no sense without acknowledgment of his homosexuality, then personally, I think it's silly to pretend the information doesn't exist. Am I wobbling on the fence here? As I type this post, I think it's coming down to two things for me:

    One, age appropriateness. When is it appropriate to discuss sexuality in the classroom of school-aged children? How is it done now? Many people don't discuss homosexuality with their children, and if you start presenting it in class to the younger kids, many teachers are going have some 'splainin' to do when the questions pop up. Personally, I don't care if mine read about it in this context, but good luck convincing a bunch of other folks.

    And two, is another LAW necessary for this? I don't know.

    I just wish it weren't such a big freakin' deal, and people could just be what they naturally are, without everybody getting uptight & judgmental.
    Well what about race? If it is not apparently connected to what the person did, then is it appropriate to mention that a person was black? Is there a difference with mentioning race vs mentioning sexual orientation? If so..why? Is it only age-appropriateness? Is age-appropriateness being used just to cover up basic old-fashioned discrimination and bigotry?

  4. #64
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    Well, sexuality IS a delicate topic to present to children, don't you think?
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  5. #65
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia View Post
    Well, sexuality IS a delicate topic to present to children, don't you think?
    Yes. I agree. I would think that elementary school would not be an appropriate place or time..maybe junior high/middle school? Sex and sexual identity are not really such an issue in elementary school..but really starts to heat up in middle school..that is when sex becomes an issue really..don't you think? That is when it becomes appropriate to talk to children about sex anyway..cause they are sexually developing/hitting puberty and may be already experimenting and have many sexually-related question. I would say elementary school children would be too young to be taught anything about human sexuality.

  6. #66
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    That's what I think, too. And really, as I typed that, I realized more about how I really feel about this subject. It's hard to explain. I start to type a sentence, and then think it sounds wrong or misleading so I erase it & start over. Maybe it's too late for me to think clearly.

    I have an idealistic wish, which is that I wish that the existance of homosexuality didn't put people into such a tizzy, and that it would just be yet another facet of life. I wish that a little kid with 2 mommies or 2 daddies was just another kid in just another family, and that the kid could openly talk about his family at school. I really wish that the mention of homosexuality in a history book wasn't a big deal.

    I just think my wish would be difficult to legislate appropriately.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  7. #67
    Elite Member cynic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    I cannot satisfy Mrs. D's request for a direct quote from school textbooks because my memory just doesn't go back that far. But I graduated from high school in the mid 70's. If I had gone by anything that I had read or been taught in high school, I would never have known homosexuality even existed. Like feminism, it was a subject that was not discussed. Women did nothing and homosexuals did nothing.

    Everyone seemed to accept that as normal thinking because it was obviously not important enough to discuss. White, heterosexual men have done everything in the world worth doing....or so my textbooks told me by not mentioning the accomplishments of anyone of color or homosexuals or women.

    I know how it made me feel, I can only imagine how it made others in the "minority" positions feel when no mention is made of any accomplishments made by people who "looked, acted, or felt" like them.

    And there were several suicides of young people in my high school graduation class of over 2,000 who it was whispered (yes, and only whispered) enjoyed "deviant" behavior. The high school quarterback was one such sad suicide, imagine the shock and horror by the bigots!!!!! As, they considered him to be "one of their own," and not "one of ours."

    Education can open closed minds. Arnold has none. He is the typical Republican lapdog.

  8. #68
    Elite Member Mr. Authority's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Royal Oak,MI
    Posts
    4,631

    Default

    I have an idealistic wish, which is that I wish that the existance of homosexuality didn't put people into such a tizzy, and that it would just be yet another facet of life. I wish that a little kid with 2 mommies or 2 daddies was just another kid in just another family, and that the kid could openly talk about his family at school. I really wish that the mention of homosexuality in a history book wasn't a big deal.
    With time I think homosexuality will be much more accepted, just like with interracial couples and civil rights were accepted. The only thing holding us back are the zealots and bigots who are desperately trying to keep younger generations from being open-minded and liberal.

    I do think that it's important that homosexuals are included within textbooks though because it's a step in the right direction in terms of gay contributions to society. A public first step will lead into societal acceptance someday.

  9. #69
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Oh there's no reason to have protections for gays, just like blacks, hispanics, women, or anybody else eh.

    We dont want SPECIAL treatment. We want equal treatment. We're a minority, get fucking used to it.

    It was OBVIOUSLY tabled because such language WAS found, or needed to be controlled in the future.

    Then again, some people prefer living in the days when nigger/spic/faggot and every other colorful metaphor was fair game as long as you were a white middle class freak living the beaver cleaver life and looked down on everyone else.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #70
    Gold Member Delphinium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Land of the Free, Home of the Brave
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    I apologize to Delphinium for this remark.
    I just now read this, and thanks for your apology Sojiita. I didn't take any offense to it at the time though, I could tell it was written in haste. That's why I didn't say anything about it.

    And you are right, I don't hate gays (or anyone else for that matter, except maybe certain Jerry Springer guests lol). And this forum is much more enjoyable when we can all discuss and debate with lots of feelings without hating each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    It was OBVIOUSLY tabled because such language WAS found, or needed to be controlled in the future.

    Then again, some people prefer living in the days when nigger/spic/faggot and every other colorful metaphor was fair game as long as you were a white middle class freak living the beaver cleaver life and looked down on everyone else.
    It may not have been because someone found it, (if it had I'm sure it would be all over this forum and the internet as many have been actively looking for a provable high school textbook quote).

    It has the odor of special interests written all over it. AND you fail to see that we in California already have anti-discrimination laws all over the books, there is no reason to focus on any miniority group in particular to the detriment of any other.

    And no, most people do NOT relish the idea of people being able to use "colorful metaphors" about others. I think most are just sick of all the "PC" over-the-top junk that is so vogue nowadays.

    Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

  11. #71
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    LOL how is affording actual TO THE LETTER protection for a minority group which doesn't have the advantage of enjoying widespread support in the nation, and is not as visible or well represented as others catering to a special interest group?

    You want to talk about special interest groups? How about all the religious reich christofascist, "Association for Family Protection" or somesuch retardation that is being pandered too across the board? Cry me some crocodile tears.

    Plus, you're in the massive whitebread majority. Wtf do you care? Like this affects you at all, and like you give a shit about actual minorities. You'd like to see your entire GENDER relegated to being barefoot in the kitchen to please its man.

    You just want to thump the anti-gay drum while not looking like a complete bigot.

    Nice try, but come on. So transparent.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 20th, 2006, 03:11 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 26th, 2006, 08:37 PM
  3. Schwarzenegger doesn't have motorcycle license...
    By buttmunch in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 12th, 2006, 05:11 AM
  4. Schwarzenegger returning to acting
    By muchlove in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 11th, 2005, 11:01 PM
  5. Recall campaign against Schwarzenegger
    By muchlove in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 10th, 2005, 11:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •