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.