THIS is "oppression" and "discrimination."

[2wet4words]

Please!

I'm in OK, and I hear you.

It goes beyond indifference, though...willful ignorance comes closer to describing it.

For me, the issue is much broader than GLBT awareness. It's one of revisionist history. The battlegrounds are TX and CA, because textbooks approved for use in those states end up being adopted by the other 48, and the prizes are the minds of an entire generation.

The issue is whether textbooks have to mention that Tchaikovsky was gay. So if a second grade class listens to the Nutcracker, the teacher has to use this as a teaching moment about homosexuality? Please!

Revisionist history involves rewriting what has already been taught. This is just about whether the schools have to go out of their way to include alternative sexuality in the classroom! And without defined age limits.

Let's not fire at the bigots until we see the red in their eyes.

Second, where do you get the idea that Texas and California lead the country in setting text book agendae? I checked the record and it isn't so. They have huge systems but the Eastern states are large enough and do their own ordering. If you PM me, I will give you the names of the publishers who service New York and Pennsylvania.

Why am I upset? because when there will be a real issue of bigotry it will be harder to motivate the majority after all these red herrings.

 

[JNaylor]

In the absence of teaching these things in schools, it would depend on how old you are, and whether or not you bother to watch/read the news.

As for this: "If your not gay why would you take the time to learn these things?" , I'm stunned that you would ask such a question. Are you suggesting that you can't be bothered to learn about anything outside of your own, narrowly defined group? Really?

No its not

 

[JNaylor]

In the absence of teaching these things in schools, it would depend on how old you are, and whether or not you bother to watch/read the news.

As for this: "If your not gay why would you take the time to learn these things?" , I'm stunned that you would ask such a question. Are you suggesting that you can't be bothered to learn about anything outside of your own, narrowly defined group? Really?

No its not

 

[CandiCame]

This law is downright stupid.

No art student is going to be able to get by without learning about DiVinchi- Curoscuro, imagry- hell, most of western art stemmed from a man who was arrested several times for taking it up the ass from Lorenzo DeMedichi (I always wondered why only bottoms were tried for sodomy...) as an art student, that's my 2 cents. Without DaVinchi, there would be no western art as we know it.

Socratic method I could do without. Always did seem kind of smart-assy, lol

Anyway, my point it, this entire argument is invalid because something this stupid could never pass anywhere, let alone California, which is an art Mecca. This is retarded.

Also, what special rights do the gays get? I just converted and I want to sign up. I hadn't heard that before- I'm from Ky, the only special right we get here is the right to get the shit beaten out of us if we can't fend off rednecks. And that's not really all that special- it happens to pretty much everyone.

 

[CandiCame]

The issue is whether textbooks have to mention that Tchaikovsky was gay. So if a second grade class listens to the Nutcracker, the teacher has to use this as a teaching moment about homosexuality? Please!

Revisionist history involves rewriting what has already been taught. This is just about whether the schools have to go out of their way to include alternative sexuality in the classroom! And without defined age limits.

Let's not fire at the bigots until we see the red in their eyes.

Second, where do you get the idea that Texas and California lead the country in setting text book agendae? I checked the record and it isn't so. They have huge systems but the Eastern states are large enough and do their own ordering. If you PM me, I will give you the names of the publishers who service New York and Pennsylvania.

Why am I upset? because when there will be a real issue of bigotry it will be harder to motivate the majority after all these red herrings.

Actually, I work in the school system ORDERING TEXTBOOKS and this is true. It may not technically be true, inasmuch as textbooks are ordered on a state-by-state basis, but the end-of-the-year federal testing is standardized, and each state is ranked. The lower ranking states are reprimanded severely by the federal government, up to and including complete government takeover, a shutdown of the school, and teachers losing their certification. For this reason, there has been an informal agreement among states to use the same books. Texas usually sets the standard because their student ratio is the highest among every SES of any state. California not so much, but every year we look to Texas. The sheer buying power of that school system pretty much sets the curriculum for the end of the year tests. No, it isn't an official law, but it is something that happens.

 

[JNaylor]

Didn't Hal Moore write "We Were Soldiers?" The reason WHY they are historical figures is the reason WHY everyone should know who they are. They aren't "Just" gay. They have had a profound impact on history and society as we know it.

Harvey Milk is the first openly gay person to be elected to public office. He was assassinated by a former police officer. The ensuing trial for his murderer is when the "Twinkie defense" was first born. (As in, the defense claimed he ate too many Twinkies and it clouded his judgment.)

Matthew Shepard was brutally tortured and murdered in a hate crime. His murderers were not charged with a hate crime because no such hate crime law existed in Wyoming at the time. His death has brought about changed to hate-crime legislation nationwide.

Hal Moore did co-write (actually it was written by Joe Galloway) we were soldiers once and young. have you read it? Its an excellent book.

 

[Safe_Bet]

No its not that I can't be bothered but it just wouldn't occur to me to investigate it. From what I understand the harvey Milk incident and the Mathew Shepard incident happened after I was out of high school. I heard about the mathew Shepard incident but I did not commit his name to memory any more than I would any other crime victim that I hear about on the news. In order for me to now get up to full speed on who the important gay rights leaders were throughout history and other important incidents involving gays I would have to conciously decide to take the time and do the reaserch. My point is that if someone is not gay and they are already out of school then it is very unlikely that they would take the time to do that because its not important to them. It doesn't mean they are anti-gay if they don't. My point is that I would not expect you to make an effort to know about or even care about whats important to me. If you did I would thank you for it but I would not be upset if you didn't.

Get over yourself, sweetie. It's not about you personally. I don't care one way or the other about your personal interests just as you shouldn't care about mine.

The FACTS of the matter are, on a societal scale, that 10 - 15% of the population is LGBTQ. We have your het culture and history jammed down our throats daily. What we would expect from YOU would be EQUALITY and that takes knowledge on your part so that you stop believe baseless BS. You digging me here, dude?

 

[JNaylor]

Get over yourself, sweetie. It's not about you personally. I don't care one way or the other about your personal interests just as you shouldn't care about mine.

The FACTS of the matter are, on a societal scale, that 10 - 15% of the population is LGBTQ. We have your het culture and history jammed down our throats daily. What we would expect from YOU would be EQUALITY and that takes knowledge on your part so that you stop believe baseless BS. You digging me here, dude?

Not sure what your problem is

 

[Stella_Omega]

By the way if LGBTQ make up 10-15% of the population it stands to reason that 85-90% of the culture would be heterosexual and perhaps thats why it is seemingly jammed down your throat..ya think?

yes-- that is what happens to ALL minorities. That's why we go out of our way to mention who was black, in history books.

Which is so interesting when you think that, eventually, so many minorites, there shouldn't be a majority at all-- but somehow, there is.

Safe_Bet expresses her anger over how gays have been treated and that makes her a pretty abrasive person to talk to. I hope you don't think that's a good reason to deny your support for basic human civil rights for gays. Civil rights have nothing to do with how nice someone is.

 

[JNaylor]

yes-- that is what happens to ALL minorities. That's why we go out of our way to mention who was black, in history books.

Which is so interesting when you think that, eventually, so many minorites, there shouldn't be a majority at all-- but somehow, there is.

Safe_Bet expresses her anger over how gays have been treated and that makes her a pretty abrasive person to talk to. I hope you don't think that's a good reason to deny your support for basic human civil rights for gays. Civil rights have nothing to do with how nice someone is.

Yeah Stella I don't put a lot of stock in the majority\minority thing. Just because there is more of one group than there is of another shouldn't make them superior in any way.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah Stella I don't put a lot of stock in the majority\minority thing. Just because there is more of one group than there is of another shouldn't make them superior in any way. Thats why our country is a republic and not a democracy otherwise you end up with mob rule. I understand where Stella is coming from and the reason why she is angry and I would not hold anything one person says against an entire group. I believe we should all have the same basic civil rights regardless of race, sex, age or sexual orientation and would never attempt to deny those rights to anyone.

My question is, though... would you ever be willing to work against the people who are denying folk these rights? Because the fact is, many people live with less rights than you have. And that is because other folk who are a lot like you are either actively trying to keep those rights from minorities, or else standing by passively doing nothing.

As you point out, 85-90% of folk are not bothered by the need to, for instance, marry someone of the same sex. That's a pretty big majority! and unless some of that 85-90% of folk can help-- the 10-15% are never going to be able to join in the pursuit of happiness that our constitution guarantees us.

If you want to know why minority folk ask for "special privileges" that's why. Because they can't get regular ones.

 

[SubmissiveBrat]

Maybe we should exclude history altogether. I mean most of us GLBT sprang from heterosexual parents and raised by them. Filthy, dirty enablers

 

[Safe_Bet]

Safe_Bet expresses her anger over how gays have been treated and that makes her a pretty abrasive person to talk to. I hope you don't think that's a good reason to deny your support for basic human civil rights for gays. Civil rights have nothing to do with how nice someone is.

Nope. Not actually trying to be abrasive here, Stella.

Dudester, just doesn't like me cuz I won't pat him on the head and tell him what a great str8, white guy he is for talking nice to us poor queers.

BTW, I know we are BOTH angry about being treated like 2nd class citizens by the str8, predominately male "entitled"ers, but the difference is I no longer believe kowtowing to them does any good. They simply do like Douchewaffle here is doing and argue every point. Then when you PROVE then wrong they get all pissy and fall back on their white, str8, maleness and get all pissy cuz they are "entitled" to the respect due them by nature of their str8, white maleness.

I've come to realize they never change until forced to. That requires fighting for rights in the courts and educating those who aren't "entitled".

 

[Stella_Omega]

yeah, you are probably right, Amy.

 

[JNaylor]

My question is, though... would you ever be willing to work against the people who are denying folk these rights? Because the fact is, many people live with less rights than you have. And that is because other folk who are a lot like you are either actively trying to keep those rights from minorities, or else standing by passively doing nothing.

As you point out, 85-90% of folk are not bothered by the need to, for instance, marry someone of the same sex. That's a pretty big majority! and unless some of that 85-90% of folk can help-- the 10-15% are never going to be able to join in the pursuit of happiness that our constitution guarantees us.

If you want to know why minority folk ask for "special privileges" that's why. Because they can't get regular ones.

Well I'm

 

[Stella_Omega]

Personally, I think you did pretty well-- for a bigot

On the subject of marriage in the religious sense, how is it okay for (heterosexual) atheists to marry? Because lots of them do, and no church ever opposes it.

 

[JNaylor]

Nope. Not actually trying to be abrasive here, Stella.

Dudester, just doesn't like me cuz I won't pat him on the head and tell him what a great str8, white guy he is for talking nice to us poor queers.

BTW, I know we are BOTH angry about being treated like 2nd class citizens by the str8, predominately male "entitled"ers, but the difference is I no longer believe kowtowing to them does any good. They simply do like Douchewaffle here is doing and argue every point. Then when you PROVE then wrong they get all pissy and fall back on their white, str8, maleness and get all pissy cuz they are "entitled" to the respect due them by nature of their str8, white maleness.

I've come to realize they never change until forced to. That requires fighting for rights in the courts and educating those who aren't "entitled".

And alas my point about you has been proven by your very own words, you are a bigot and a racist yet you demand that others not be bigoted toward you. I belive that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[JNaylor]

Personally, I think you did pretty well-- for a bigot

On the subject of marriage in the religious sense, how is it okay for (heterosexual) atheists to marry? Because lots of them do, and no church ever opposes it.

Thats a good question and one that I cannot answer. I am not expert in religious matters so I have no idea how the curch would view that. I do know that a lot of churches will not marry you if you are atheist but people can usually find one that will.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thats a good question and one that I cannot answer. I am not expert in religious matters so I have no idea how the curch would view that. I do know that a lot of churches will not marry you if you are atheist but people can usually find one that will.

But even if someone doesn't go to a church to be married at all-- if they go to the justice of the peace-- they are still called "married."

I would never expect a church to marry any couple it did not approve of. I cannot imagine a Baptist church marrying a Buddhist couple, for instance, and catholic and Jewish Orthodox alike have very strict rules about who they will marry in the eyes of their lord. Catholics believe that a divorced person cannot be married in the Catholic church.

But catholics divorce and they DO get remarried-- legally, securely, with all of the rights and privileges that marriage promises. They don't need a church to do it in.

Why do they get to go against the wishes of their OWN religion, when we cannot go against the wishes of all those religions we don't even believe in? There's something called "separation of church and state." which says that religion cannot make laws for everyone else. Marriage is one place where religion is doing something completely unconstitutional.

 

[RjThoughts]

But even if someone doesn't go to a church to be married at all-- if they go to the justice of the peace-- they are still called "married."

I would never expect a church to marry any couple it did not approve of. I cannot imagine a Baptist church marrying a Buddhist couple, for instance, and catholic and Jewish Orthodox alike have very strict rules about who they will marry in the eyes of their lord. Catholics believe that a divorced person cannot be married in the Catholic church.

But catholics divorce and they DO get remarried-- legally, securely, with all of the rights and privileges that marriage promises. They don't need a church to do it in.

Why do they get to go against the wishes of their OWN religion, when we cannot go against the wishes of all those religions we don't even believe in? There's something called "separation of church and state." which says that religion cannot make laws for everyone else. Marriage is one place where religion is doing something completely unconstitutional.

In New York, same sex couples can now LEGALLY be married. The world's not ending, cats and dogs aren't friends now, Man on dog sex isn't on tv.

Religious marriages are a quirk which I never totally understand. Religious ACCEPTED maybe; my mother was Catholic, dad wasn't, so their's wasn't accepted. My feelings have always been: ANY loving adult couple that want to be miserable, not government should deny them! The use of Biblical reference to stop the state from it should have been moot, with the seperation of church and state and all.

 

[Safe_Bet]

And alas my point about you has been proven by your very own words, you are a bigot and a racist yet you demand that others not be bigoted toward you. I belive that makes you a hypocrite.

Nope. That makes me not willing to kiss your ass.

BTW, pointing out your str8, white, males privileges does not make me a bigot or a racist. You might want to research those terms, dude. (but I don't expect you to because you "can't be bothered". )

 

[JNaylor]

But even if someone doesn't go to a church to be married at all-- if they go to the justice of the peace-- they are still called "married."

I would never expect a church to marry any couple it did not approve of. I cannot imagine a Baptist church marrying a Buddhist couple, for instance, and catholic and Jewish Orthodox alike have very strict rules about who they will marry in the eyes of their lord. Catholics believe that a divorced person cannot be married in the Catholic church.

But catholics divorce and they DO get remarried-- legally, securely, with all of the rights and privileges that marriage promises. They don't need a church to do it in.

Why do they get to go against the wishes of their OWN religion, when we cannot go against the wishes of all those religions we don't even believe in? There's something called "separation of church and state." which says that religion cannot make laws for everyone else. Marriage is one place where religion is doing something completely unconstitutional.

Well again, I'm not a religious expert and don't want to try to argue on thier behalf. I can only assume that as long as it is between a man and a woman it meets thier criteria? I don't know though to be honest. I understand your point though and I can see where it would be frustrating to you.

The seperation between church and state thing has been basterdized over the years. Its not in the constitution at all and it was originally intended to prevent states from dictating which religions were acceptable and which were not. I belive it was in massachusets (however you spell it) that there was at one time a state sponsored religion and that was the only religion allowed in that state. The seperation of church and state was to protect religious freedom not stifle it, which is the way it is being taught now days in school. Another example of history being re-written.

 

[JNaylor]

Nope. That makes me not willing to kiss your ass.

BTW, pointing out your str8, white, males privileges does not make me a bigot or a racist. You might want to research those terms, dude. (but I don't expect you to because you "can't be bothered". )

You know we might as well stop arguing were not getting anywhere with it. I can get over it if you can. No need to carry on like a couple of school kids. I say we agree to disagree and move on. Kind of pointless to keep going at each other. Were on LIT to talk about sex not argue right? What do you say?

 

[Safe_Bet]

In New York, same sex couples can now LEGALLY be married. The world's not ending, cats and dogs aren't friends now, Man on dog sex isn't on tv.

Religious marriages are a quirk which I never totally understand. Religious ACCEPTED maybe; my mother was Catholic, dad wasn't, so their's wasn't accepted. My feelings have always been: ANY loving adult couple that want to be miserable, not government should deny them! The use of Biblical reference to stop the state from it should have been moot, with the seperation of church and state and all.

What's funny is that marriage wasn't even one of the Catholics 7 Sacrements until the 16th century. Then it only came about because of the economic situation at the time. People were broke so they were reading their own bans nod the church steps instead of paying the church to do it. Gawd knows the CC wasn't gonna give up all that money so they made it an official sacrament at the Council of Trent.

P. S. They are still a bunch of greedy haters who could give axshit about anybody else to this day.

 

[RjThoughts]

What's funny is that marriage wasn't even one of the Catholics 7 Sacrements until the 16th century. Then it only came about because of the economic situation at the time. People were broke so they were reading their own bans nod the church steps instead of paying the church to do it. Gawd knows the CC wasn't gonna give up all that money so they made it an official sacrament at the Council of Trent.

P. S. They are still a bunch of greedy haters who could give axshit about anybody else to this day.

As are many other "Christians". I deal with a few daily, well, when I work in IT. Damned Born Agains telling me I'm going to hell because 1. I'm tolerant toward gay and lesbian coworkers and 2. I don't believe in tithing.