The Grim Milestone of Blogs "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational" - Prince Charles "Nuts" - Gen McAuliffe America: Saving idiots from themselves since WWI

Friday, April 07, 2006

Get a Room!

California faces battle over gays in textbooks
I have no problem with consenting adults doing whatever it is they do in the privacy of their homes. But, really, doing it in textbooks isn't sanitary. It's just not right!
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California school textbooks would highlight the role gays have played in the history of the nation's most populous state if a new proposal that has angered conservatives passes the state Legislature.

History books record contributions by gays but their sexual orientation is often ignored, a situation gay activists say is inexcusable in California, home to a large gay population in San Francisco, a city that briefly made history in 2004 by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The proposed bill would require school textbooks to include lessons on how gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons have helped California develop.

Oh, never mind.

I'm straight, boring, and proud! Would you like to hear all about my struggles as a heterosexual man? Yeah, me neither. The only problem I have with the neverending stream of gay issues is trying to stay awake. Is it necessary to discuss sexual orientation when writing history? Usually the historical figure has a SO of some kind, often mentioned in passing. In California politics, sexual orientation becomes obvious through public statements or actions.

Which reminds me, what would it mean for someone to be "openly" gay in the military? Maybe I have an overactive imagination but I'm seeing that guy with the leather hat in the Village People throwing beads off an M1A2 Abrams.

"We're going to have a fabulous occupation! But this place needs some color!"

UPDATE: For Al
The point of this post is really to be funny. Not one "LOL" so I'm tempted to delete it. But I won't because I'm proud of four comments, only one being mine. Yes, that's a very small victory. Please, don't ruin it for me by pointing out other blogs. *sob*

But if there is a serious point, it's trying to figure out what's really going on in California. Is the idea to add gay activists to textbooks?

If so, I suggest we nail down who was president during the Civil War and whether or not the Germans won that one before we move on to teaching our kids who formed ACT UP or Queers for Palestine. Who, by the way, should steer clear of the actual "Palestine" or risk being "killed in the worst ways possible." That's a quote from "Red" Ken Livingstone's favorite moderate cleric.

8 comments:

Jordan said...

Israel has had openly gay military generals for years! And I don't think I have to remind you how tough Israel's military is... which is especially impressive considering us Jews are not exactly known for our brute strength :)

Personally, I think this is fine. Homosexuality is not a threat to America, and just want a little acceptance. If anything, the fact that terrorists hate them so much should make them natural alies to us straight boring types!

Chip said...

Jordan,

Good points. I should have gone on to explain that "open" sexuality of any kind, and the military, don't fit in my mind. If it's off-base, off-duty, it's nobody's business, IMO.

I apply the "get a room" standard to any sort of "open" sexuality, including teenagers giving each other tonsil examinations while waiting in line for a movie.

Maybe I'm a prude, but I don't think so. I'm not a bonobo either.

Jordan said...

I respect your point of view chip, its a perfectly valid position.

I kinda feel bad, even at the age of 27 I still embarrass myself with public affection with my gf.

What can I say... my mom was a woostock hippie! It rubs off :)

Al said...

What does "open sexuality" have to do with recognizing contributions by an often ignored segment of the community?

Your original point if I am reading it correctly, questions why it is neccessary for ones orientation to be included in historical references. I would agree that in a perfect world it would not be required. However we are far from a perfect world.

Americas cultural acceptance of homosexuality has a long way to go until gays and lesbians are treated as equal to their straight counterparts. Because that is currently not the case, invisibility then denies the contributions based on exactly what shouldn't matter ~ orientation.

Anonymous said...

chip, it's 9:20 pm EST April 11. Please go back to LGF and read my post here.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20056#c0090

Then read post #98 from buckeye abroad. He's in Germany

Anonymous said...

oops. should have signed that anon post.

it's grayp

forsoothsayer said...

i have to agree with AI. you should not be comparing gays to straights, but to other minority groups who are discriminated against on the basis of an immutable characteristic (stupid law school training). as such, they are comparable to black people, women and such. the idea is that kids look in books and ask "What did people like me do for this country?" and if they're gay, they can find now out. nobody asks, though, "What did straight white men like me do for this country?" cos that's already covered.

Chip said...

I shouldn't compare one form of sexuality to another, but dig for less apposite examples?

That's an interesting theory.

I'm still trying to figure out if California is really pushing for gay activism in textbooks which will further degrade public education in the United States. By that I mean public high school kids are the sort of people you see on Jay Leno's street interviews.

I think one should be able to find Russia on a map before putting even more political indoctrination into the schools.

I already made it clear that in the ordinary course of writing history sexual orientation should be clear, "SO, or public statements."

It looks to me like California plans to drop what's probably already a two-page section on WWII to satisfy yet another special interest group.

Really, is there any shortage of information about homosexuality in California? Is it that backwards and repressive? I'm not referring to conservative voices or military recruiters, mind you.