Gay history in California: naturally, a controversy

It really does baffle me the nature of controversy surrounding GLBT issue. I can understand that some parents dislike the idea of, I suppose, “promoting” the sexuality and thus aren’t entirely comfortable with it being taught in, say, health classes. What I don’t get is that so many seem to think that the entirety of GLBT history and issues can be scrubbed from the books entirely.

That’s what this jackoff from Catholics for the Common Good says, though, and he even throws out that lovely word “indoctrination”.

“The bill is not about teaching gay history. That’s what the sponsors of the bill are portraying it as. That is not the language of the bill. That is not what it does, that’s not the intent,” William B. May, head of the San Francisco-based Catholics for the Common Good, told CNA on July 15.

While the history of the gay rights movement would be covered in history books as history, he said, the bill’s curriculum standards require “bringing to the attention of students the sexuality of people in history and social studies, who happen to be gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual.”

“It also has the effect of making sure that they are portrayed in a good light,” May continued. “It’s really an indoctrination bill that is being totally misrepresented by the politicians and by the media.”

You might have to read that a couple times for it to really sink in.

See, to these people, if someone is gay or whatever, that must be hidden. Since homosexuality is a sin, mentioning it not as a mortal flaw or a terrible thing is considered “indoctrination”. These are people who believe to be gay is a bad thing, and if it must be mentioned at all then it should be pointed out that it’s a sin to the Almighty Lord, not noted in the more reasonable “hey look at the contributions this persecuted minority have made.” If they had their way, then the gay rights movement would be all that would be mentioned, and only then to highlight it as part of the downfall of mankind.

Apparently it’s not significant that, say, Alan Turing was one of the most significant scientists in recent history who, thanks to the barbaric anti-homosexuality laws of the United Kingdom, was driven to suicide at the age of 41. Or maybe it is significant, but only to the extent of “think how much more he could have done if he hadn’t been a sinful faggot.” That’s the “Catholics for the Common Good” perspective, and it’s maddening.

Why teach gay history? Because gays (and the rest) are a massively persecuted minority and it’s critical to show those growing up in the 21st century United States that throughout history these people have made important contributions to society. As it stands, alternative sexualities are painted as though they’re a side product of a free-wheeling new age decadent lifestyle, that only lives in seedy disease-ridden hovels and whose members are a plague to humanity. To show the history of GLBT’s throughout history would be to open the perspective up to children who otherwise wouldn’t know.

To those who complain that children are too young to know about sexuality, you need to separate “sexuality” from “sex”. We have no problem telling two year olds the story of Cinderella falling in love with Prince Charming, so clearly sexuality isn’t verboten. If you can’t divest the idea of a gay person from a gay guy ramming his dick into his boyfriend’s tailpipe, then I think the problem is on your end. There’s no need to explain anything beyond “some people fall in love with the same gender.” That’s it. You can explain gay without talking about rimjobs and cunnilingus. Two women sitting on a couch watching a movie together shouldn’t be offensive.

So everyone settle down. Gays are a part of history, and it should be taught. You can’t just block out history because you dislike it.

Advertisements

6 responses to “Gay history in California: naturally, a controversy

  1. “To those who complain that children are too young to know about
    sexuality, you need to separate “sexuality” from “sex”. We have no
    problem telling two year olds the story of Cinderella falling in love
    with Prince Charming, so clearly sexuality isn’t verboten. If you can’t
    divest the idea of a gay person from a gay guy ramming his dick into his
    boyfriend’s tailpipe, then I think the problem is on your end.
    There’s no need to explain anything beyond “some people fall in love
    with the same gender.” That’s it. You can explain gay without talking
    about rimjobs and cunnilingus. Two women sitting on a couch watching a
    movie together shouldn’t be offensive.”

    This.  Thank you; this sums up everything pretty much in a nutshell.

  2. Disagreed. Who gives a shit whether someone was gay? I agree there’s no reason to omit anyone of historical significance for being gay, but why should someone’s other accomplishments have a special asterisk next to them, “*Gay”?  Is there really a big problem with people not knowing “gays can do stuff like everyone else” that needs to be overcome?  Seriously???
     
    Do you think Turing would want it taught that he was gay? Gonna turn it into a source of pride posthumously now, are ya?
     
    Also, what’s the purpose of teaching “gay history” to five year olds?  When I was five, I didn’t even know what homosexuality was — and neither did my kids.  At five, gay kids don’t even know they’re gay.
     
    Finally, what’s “gay history”?  Straight people don’t understand it, and they never will.  “Gay history” is just “famous people who were gay — whether they’d want you to know it or not.”  Complete PC bullcrap.

    • “gay history” is the same as “black history” or “women’s history”. The arguments you put up above would be just as reasonable to suggest we not mention anyone’s gender or ethnicity in history books. If you don’t give a shit if someone’s gay, what’s the harm in mentioning it?

      Again, as I said, homosexuality is currently treated with a massive stigma as a point of shame that must be hidden from the public eye. This is a good idea to pull the curtain back and say “hey look, gay people have been doing awesome stuff all through history, even people that you might already know about!” Furthermore, do you think Turing would want it ignored that his suicide was the result of British persecution due to his sexuality? You don’t think that’s a VASTLY significant thing?Or, how about Harvey Milk? Should he just not exist? What about Matthew Shepherd and all the other actually gay-specific landmarks that have happened lately? Just ignore ’em? Pretend they don’t exist? Omit huge chunks of peoples’ lives because five year olds would get “confused” for no affixed reason than parents are too fucking Victorian to be able to say “sometimes men love men, too.”

      If a five year old is bright enough to understand that mommy and daddy love each other, a five year old is capable of understanding that daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy love each other. Quit trying to mask anti-gay crap as forward-thinking or “protecting the kids.”

      • “”Quit trying to mask anti-gay crap as forward-thinking or “protecting the kids.””

        The “protect the kids” thing is absolute BS and while the anti-gay people rail on gays for trying to “push an agenda” onto their oh so innocent kids, how about teaching the kids tolerance and human decency and that love is no matter what your religion, race or, yes, sex.

        IMO, it’s the anti-gay’s who make everything worse.  Why?  Because it’s not about everything ELSE being gay is about, it’s just about the sex and how that sex is OMGBAD!  Get your heads out of the bedsheets, please, and stop peeping tom the gays.  Being gay is not just about the sex, its about loving who you love, equality, fairness, happiness, life.

        Kind’a like what straight’s are all about.

        FYI – gay history is history, what’s so hard to understand about that?  If you want to be that obtuse, what’s “straight” history?  What’s “Black” history?  Native American?  You can put any label in that question and it’d be the same darn thing.

        I think the point is, mentioning someone in history who did something, gee, I don’t know, historical, is great.  But they shouldn’t be chosen based on their sex.  If they were gay, so what?  Omitting them because of their being gay is what’s wrong about this, not that they can’t have the fact they were gay mentioned.

      • “Quit trying to mask anti-gay crap as forward-thinking or “protecting the kids.””

        Quite trying to mask common sense as anti-gay crap.  Sexual orientation is not an attribute of a person’s life that merits any particular recognition from others.

  3. Bravo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s