Gay History To Be Included In California Education

[cdowis]

I can see why you would think that about Eagle projects, but, I see a good argument that Boy Scout service projects are not prohibited on California public school grounds because of this new Bill.

" ... a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220."

a service project so long as it is a service project and not a "proselyting" event against a group mentioned in Section 220, would be permitted by the statute.

It is also legal to mention Jesus and God in a graduation ceremony, it is legal to have a Bible club to meet on school grounds, it is legal to have a Bible history class in school..... but all of these had to be carried to the court because the school officials stopped those activities because they were "religion".

The scouts do not proselytize against anyone while doing a scout project, but .... really, honestly..... do you think that will stop school officials from giving a blanket denial. It will have to go to the court, on an individual basis, to overturn those denials.

Surely you know that already. The fact that the scout organization refuses to have gay leaders is enough. Don't play dumb with us.

[Jaybear]

I suspect that history will not look kindly at those who resorted to biblical morality to justify bigotry agaisnt gays.

I agree, and most real Christians would also agree. The Bible does not teach bigotry anymore than it taught slavery.

I think the real lesson is that one can profess to be a real Christian, and yet rationalize even the most heinous of actions. Crusades, slavery, persecution of Mormons, mountain meadow massacre, etc.

In CA, I hope they teach the children about Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore who insisted on displaying the ten commandments in his courtroom, and yet in 2002, took three children away from their lesbian mother reasoned that homosexuality was "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

That is fine as long as they teach a complete course in Christianity to put his comment into its real context, by one who understands Christianity, rather than one who hates it.

What is the real context? Moore's conduct was not inconsistent with the history of state discriminatory actions agaisnt gays in furtherance of Christian biblical morality. It was just one of the more recent ruling.

In any case, this law is basically taking all of our children from their parents because "Christianity teaches hatred and bigotry, and we will take over the teaching of values. And one of the first steps is to put a thumb in the eye of that hate filled group, the scouting program."

Seriously? You are equating a mother losing custody of her three children because she is a lesbian, with children being in taught in public school over their parents objection that its wrong to discriminate agaisnt gays.

And really, what does this legislation have to do with boy scouts? I don't see the connection.

[Jaybear]

It is relevant because the Boy Scouts of America does not allow homosexual members into troops. Thus, if a school board supported an Eagle Project (a scouting activity), they would indirectly be supporting a discriminatory bias. Thus, it would be legal for them to do such on these grounds.

The Boy Scouts don't allow gays into troops? Really? Why not?

What about atheists, or muslims? Are those boys not allowed to join either?

Please tell me you are joking.

[BCSpace]

Are you, seriously, comparing LGBT people to pedophiles?

A disproportionate amount of pedophilia is homosexual so yes, the comparison is accurate. Something like 30-40% of all pedophilia cases are homosexual compared to 1% or less of the overall population having become homosexual.

[Daniel2]

When history is taught, real history that is, it is unvarnished. In CA for example they teach both the good and ill of US policy internationally and domestically. They teach points of view, for both south and north, east and west, colonial and loyalist, and also atrocities committed on both sides.

I note that no one is teaching any "negative aspects". All I am going to say is that such teaching of "history" is typical of the overall formula used in order to indoctrinate children into thinking that the gay life style is acceptable and moral. You won't hear different points of view, you will only hear one. That isn't history, it is indoctrination.

Now there are going to be dishonest charges made, evasions in the issue, and of course dismissal of the slippery slope we are going down. I personally know the usually suspects will make the hew and cry while overlooking the gay lifestyle.

The economist

I warn you it isn't a pretty picture, but say hello to the new family that we will all be forced to call marriage.

By the way, this is the norm for the gay pride parade (actually one of the few pictures you can show). The new reality, some will embrace and use all kinds of justification for it. In stark terms I cannot.

Really, Jeff...? You post an photo of the most offensive characature of a gay couple, and expect those of us who are gay or know gay couples and their families (which are nothing like the theatrical example you post) to take you seriously?

Yes. Parades in general tend to bring out eccentric weirdos in all walks of life--especially parades like Mardi Gras or Pride, which are centered around sexuality. But one would be mistaken to judge the sexual oreintation of an entire segment of people based on scandalous and gratutitous photos cherry-picked of eccentric Parade-goers.

There are plenty more photos of LGBT couples and their families that are far more representative of the vast majority of our reality:

http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/09/24/gay-parents-triumphs-and-struggles-a-family-album.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/06/15/LVLU114PGJ.DTL&object=%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2008%2F05%2F25%2Fed-edletters28a_ph_421643850.jpg

http://www.gfergphoto.com/gay-dads-photo-exhibition/first-album.html

http://www.mercurypress.com/human/ourfamilies/index.htm

Honestly, Jeff... from my perspective, whether one is atteming to demonize a group based on religion, race, national origin, or sexual orientation, I think those who are willing to portray the worst and most sensational as the norm are walking a dangerously bigoted path (a word I normally cringe from using) based on obtusely exaggerated--and perhaps knowing?--distortions of the broader reality.

Daniel2

[Doctor Ninja]

I always find these threads fascinating.

Before I am accused as a "homophobe", this is a serious question: why does the majority of homosexuals/bisexuals define themselves and revolve their entire lives around their sexual preferences?

The small exceptions, like my gay family member and a few friends do not do this, but why do we have this need to distinguish ourselves from each other? Aren't we all Americans, brother and sisters on the grand scheme of things?

[Daniel2]

A disproportionate amount of pedophilia is homosexual so yes, the comparison is accurate. Something like 30-40% of all pedophilia cases are homosexual compared to 1% or less of the overall population having become homosexual.

"Homosexual" is not the same thing as "same-sex." That is, pedophilic acts that are committed against a child of the same-sex are not necessarily reflective of a homosexual orientation.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

It is relevant because the Boy Scouts of America does not allow homosexual members into troops. Thus, if a school board supported an Eagle Project (a scouting activity), they would indirectly be supporting a discriminatory bias. Thus, it would be legal for them to do such on these grounds.

well there you go, you were able to articulate your concerns based. Thanks.

-------------------------

The Boy Scouts don't allow gays into troops? Really? Why not?

What about atheists, or muslims? Are those boys not allowed to join either?

Please tell me you are joking.

Those unwilling to make an oath to God (not sure which God) are not permitted in the Boy Scouts of America, according to a Federal Judge Napoleon A. Jones, the Boy Scouts admitted to being a religious organization. And before anyone asks I am working on finding the exact quote from Judge Jones. I have thus far only found reports that claim the finding.

Judge Napoleon A Jones quote about BSA being a religious organization can be found at the citation below:

The In the July 31. 2003 Order, the Court already concluded that the BSA-DPC is II religious organization and that the City's lease of public parkland to a religious organization raises Establishment Clause concerns. Barnes-Wallace:, 275 F. Supp. 2d at 1270-73.

from wnd

A federal judge in San Diego granted the summary judgment to the agnostics, finding that the Boy Scouts are a "religion" because of the Boy Scout Oath, which includes doing one's duty to "God and my country," and the Boy Scout Law, which includes "reverence" as one of 12 precepts. Also, the Scouts require a belief in God as a condition of membership.

[Daniel2]

I always find these threads fascinating.

Before I am accused as a "homophobe", this is a serious question: why does the majority of homosexuals/bisexuals define themselves and revolve their entire lives around their sexual preferences?

The small exceptions, like my gay family member and a few friends do not do this, but why do we have this need to distinguish ourselves from each other? Aren't we all Americans, brother and sisters on the grand scheme of things?

Thats a great question, Doctor Ninja.

Speaking as a formerly LDS man who fought my own sexual orientation for many years, I would say that all of us define ourselves by our sexuality--but if or when one is part of the hetersexual majority, it isn't transparent that one does so every day. The concept of "heteronormativity" suggests that most straight people DO "define" themselves by their sexuality without even realizing that they do. Every time a Disney princess wishes for her prince; every time a husband places a photo of his wife and kids on his desk; every time a newly-engaged couple enthusiastically share the news of their engagement; anytime a couple strolls through the park, hand-in-hand; or any other millions of small, unassuming gestures of love or affection to the husband or wife of one's choice, one is "defining" one's self by one's sexual orientation.

Frequently, for those caught up in their "heteronormative" lifestyle, it only seems jolting to their sensibilities when they see someone that falls "outside" their reality--such as a same-sex couple engaging in the same behaviors. For those of us who are gay, however, we frequently spend vast amounts of energy being conscious of the fact that we are inhabiting a space where we aren't simply "free" to spontaneously reach out and kiss our significant other, or hold their hand, or snuggle up to them. Historically, we haven't always seen the type of love (and it's accompanying joys, challenges, or pains) portrayed in the media, or by those around us.

Truly, I agree with you, Doctor Ninja. It would be wonderful to live in a society where we don't have to distinguish ourselves from one another over our sexual orientation--one of the reasons why it makes sense to avoid labels like "civil union" (for gay couples) vs. "civil marriage" for straight couples, making "marriage" the singular standard of legal recognition for both. Just as Martin Luther King, Jr. longed to live in a "color-blind" society, when citizens would be judged for the content of their character, instead of the color of their skin, so do I hope and work towards the day when we live in a sexually-orientationally-blind society; when we appreciate both straight and gay relationships for the content and quality of their love, not by the gender of one's spouse; when both straight and gay couples can walk through a park, lost in the joys of the love they feel for one another, rather than worry or notice that other couples "aren't normal, like them."

Even when that day arrives, however, I believe we'll all continue to define ourselves by who and how we love, even if we no longer feel the need to vocalize it.

My view,

Daniel2

[Mordecai]

All the more reason to support the secession from California movement.

[Jeff K.]

Really, Jeff...? You post an photo of the most offensive characature of a gay couple, and expect those of us who are gay or know gay couples and their families (which are nothing like the theatrical example you post) to take you seriously?

Yes. Parades in general tend to bring out eccentric weirdos in all walks of life--especially parades like Mardi Gras or Pride, which are centered around sexuality. But one would be mistaken to judge the sexual oreintation of an entire segment of people based on scandalous and gratutitous photos cherry-picked of eccentric Parade-goers.

There are plenty more photos of LGBT couples and their families that are far more representative of the vast majority of our reality:

http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/09/24/gay-parents-triumphs-and-struggles-a-family-album.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/06/15/LVLU114PGJ.DTL&object=%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2008%2F05%2F25%2Fed-edletters28a_ph_421643850.jpg

http://www.gfergphoto.com/gay-dads-photo-exhibition/first-album.html

http://www.mercurypress.com/human/ourfamilies/index.htm

Honestly, Jeff... from my perspective, whether one is atteming to demonize a group based on religion, race, national origin, or sexual orientation, I think those who are willing to portray the worst and most sensational as the norm are walking a dangerously bigoted path (a word I normally cringe from using) based on obtusely exaggerated--and perhaps knowing?--distortions of the broader reality.

Daniel2

The photo is the truth, it is a candid shot of the gay lifestyle, it is what you will call marriage. Though I agree, gay marriage is an offensive cariacature of true marriage.

I wish the gay community would be more honest in its true intent, and more honest and open in their depravity. Less people would be lulled into believing that they want marriage similar to what it should be. I wonder when the gay community will be honest? I haven't seen it yet.

Yes. Parades in general tend to bring out eccentric weirdos in all walks of life--especially parades like Mardi Gras or Pride, which are centered around sexuality. But one would be mistaken to judge the sexual oreintation of an entire segment of people based on scandalous and gratutitous photos cherry-picked of eccentric Parade-goers.

No, parades don't, but certain kinds of parades do. Gay community parades certainly do. Excess like Mardi Gras are to be condemned. I certainly don't see the depravity in Thanksgiving Day parades. Pioneer Day parades, Christmas parades. Parades that real families take part in. Parades where you don't have to worry about what you see next. But gay "pride" parades, definately a reflection of the community that spawns them. Or is there some outside influence we should be aware of?

[Daniel2]

No, parades don't, but certain kinds of parades do. Gay community parades certainly do. Excess like Mardi Gras are to be condemned. I certainly don't see the depravity in Thanksgiving Day parades. Pioneer Day parades, Christmas parades. Parades that real families take part in. Parades where you don't have to worry about what you see next. But gay "pride" parades, definately a reflection of the community that spawns them. Or is there some outside influence we should be aware of?

Are you suggesting that gay families don't attend Thanksgiving Day parades? Or Pioneer Day Parades, Christmas Parades or other holiday parades...?? You actually think that gays and lesbians and their families only come out for Pride.....??? And that the majority of gay couples look like the photo of the one you posted???????

It's inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest that the depravity on display during Gay Pride is representative of the majority of gay families, while the lack of depravity what one sees in a Thanksgiving Parade is representative of the majority of straight families. Gay Pride is comperable to Mardi Gras. The fact that wanton sexuality is on display in both is not representative of the majority of entire classifications based on sexual orientation.

Oh--and Thanksgiving (or a Thanksgiving parade) isn't any more a "straight" holiday than the Yuletide is exclusively "gay."

I wish the gay community would be more honest in its true intent, and more honest and open in their depravity. Less people would be lulled into believing that they want marriage similar to what it should be. I wonder when the gay community will be honest? I haven't seen it yet.

And I wish the LDS community would be more honest in their true intent, and more honest and open in their bigotry... I wonder when the LDS community will be honest? I haven't seen it yet. [Please note: The preceeding statement is an ironic paraphrase of Jeff's previous and uncalled for hyperbole accusing the gay community of "dishonesty" and "depravity," and is made with my tonuge firmly planted in my cheek].

Clearly, more education about LGBT couples and their families is required, Jeff, not less.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 July 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

No, parades don't, but certain kinds of parades do. Gay community parades certainly do. Excess like Mardi Gras are to be condemned. I certainly don't see the depravity in Thanksgiving Day parades. Pioneer Day parades, Christmas parades. Parades that real families take part in. Parades where you don't have to worry about what you see next. But gay "pride" parades, definately a reflection of the community that spawns them. Or is there some outside influence we should be aware of?

Are you suggesting that gay families don't attend Thanksgiving Day parades? Or Pioneer Day Parades, Christmas Parades or other holiday parades...?? You actually think that gays and lesbians and their families only come out for Pride.....??? And that the majority of gay couples look like the photo of the one you posted???????

It's inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest that the depravity on display during Gay Pride is representative of the majority of gay families, while the lack of depravity what one sees in a Thanksgiving Parade is representative of the majority of straight families. Gay Pride is comperable to Mardi Gras. The fact that wanton sexuality is on display in both is not representative of the majority of entire classifications based on sexual orientation.

Oh--and Thanksgiving (or a Thanksgiving parade) isn't any more a "straight" holiday than the Yuletide is exclusively "gay

."

Let us see, it is a parade specifically for and by the gay community. Are you telling me that the parade that is made specifically for and by the gay community, is not heavily influenced by the gay community to reflect exactly who they are and what they do? It is neither disengenuous nor inaccurate to state that the gay community is indeed reflected in the parade that bears their name, and it is a community which is produces this parade to reflect their "pride", or what they are proud of.

I would say the only one being disengenuous is the person who refuses to acknowledge what is fairly plain to see. The gay community showing what it celebrates, "with pride". And that community wants us to define marriage as they define parades. No, the gay community is more than a little dishonest when it has these parades and then tells us that they are just like us.

Again, are you stating that the gay community is being influenced by something else when they have these parades, or is it merely the true reflection of how gay men and women view relationships? From all we know, it is definately the latter. Now gay couples can put little Timmy to bed while they proudly take a "break" from their relationships which they want to call marriage, and engage in anonymous coupling. How very marriage like.

Since when do we make shams the equivalent of marriage?

[Libs]

A disproportionate amount of pedophilia is homosexual so yes, the comparison is accurate. Something like 30-40% of all pedophilia cases are homosexual compared to 1% or less of the overall population having become homosexual.

There is absolutely no comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. Not anymore so than there is a comparison between heterosexuality and pedophilia. Apples and oranges.

[Zeta-Flux]

There is absolutely no comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. Not anymore so than there is a comparison between heterosexuality and pedophilia. Apples and oranges.

There may not be a direct *comparison*, but one can ask if there is a *relationship* between them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756 : The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study.

(This was one of the first articles I found when googling.)

On the other hand, scientists can and do *compare* the two. It is the lack of some of the markers present in pedophilia with respect to androphilia that helps them justify the removal of homosexuality from mental illnesses.

[Jeff K.]

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'

The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."

In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."

Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."

In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14

Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

World Net Daily is a conservative source of information. But the information is what the information is. How will gay men and women respond to such issues by the "Advocate", denial? But it is there, they did publish it. And this is what we want marriage to be redifined to include?

If a heterosexual magazine, even one with sexual overtones, would it not be roundly condemned by the heterosexual community? What is the gay community seeing differently than the heterosexual community in regard to these popular venues that allows them to not issue any protest?

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

Just a coincidence? No cause and effect? Is perhaps the information incorrect?

[Hestia]

Don't play dumb with us.

Stop the personal jabs.

[Ron Beron]

I suspect that history will not look kindly at those who resorted to biblical morality to justify bigotry agaisnt gays.

In CA, I hope they teach the children about Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore who insisted on displaying the ten commandments in his courtroom, and yet in 2002, took three children away from their lesbian mother reasoned that homosexuality was "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Why would history look negatively or positively on any aspect of events that transpire today? These events for the all the seriousness they seem to present to us now will simply be a footnote in the future. People today do not look kindly upon the bible either because it does teach that homosexuality is an abomination, but so is drunkenness et al. People have resorted to the Bible for all kinds of abhorrent behavior, but it doesn't make it right. What is right is the way we should be treating people on a personal level. Is it fair that gays are not allowed to be married to each other? Probably not. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, absolutely! Is it equally wrong to have a gay agenda singled out as a adjunct to the curriculum in California? Again, yes! Absolutely. I have taught in California for the last 30+ years and have had to put up with all kind of "feel good" multi-culturalism. In my book the kids coming away not knowing much of anything, but social issues. They know little of history as it regards America and the unique promise and position we have. If we want to accept gays and other minorities in the U.S. we need to incorporate them into the general framework of American history, not singling them out for their peculiatities, proclivities, or peccadilloes, but highlighting what they have done for American history.

Roy Moore was an extremist and not suited to be a jurist based on his obvious bias in favor of religion. He was ultimately removed. Not the best example and not real germane.

[Daniel2]

Let us see, it is a parade specifically for and by the gay community. Are you telling me that the parade that is made specifically for and by the gay community, is not heavily influenced by the gay community to reflect exactly who they are and what they do? It is neither disengenuous nor inaccurate to state that the gay community is indeed reflected in the parade that bears their name, and it is a community which is produces this parade to reflect their "pride", or what they are proud of.

Parades are reflections of those that produce them. Pride parades clearly reflect many different facets of the LGBT community. Given that you've said you've attended Pride parades, I assume you understand and have experienced that Pride parades (like many parades) have various entries and are comprised of many different organizations within the community that's particiapting in the parade, itself. Some floats are outrageous. Some are conservative. Not all are sexually suggestive. This year, for example, the Utah Pride parade awarded "Best New Entry" to the Utah Gay Father's Association, which was comprised of a group of gay dads walking in the parade, some of them with their children and former (yet still supportive) wives. There are other organizations that march in Pride that are health-based (i.e. HIV treatment and prevention organizations, business, real estate agents, banks, politicians, recreational groups, rodeo organizations, etc).

Many of us who belong to this nebulous "gay community" you keep referring to do not participate in gay Pride parades. As such, it cannot be justly claimed that the parades are accurate reflections of those of us who decline to participate. It would be irrational and unjust to assert that the Pride parades are a reflection of people who do not participate and do not share the goals, message, or means of those that put on the parade. How can one assert that a parade is a genuine reflection of someone who refuses to participate...?

I would say the only one being disengenuous is the person who refuses to acknowledge what is fairly plain to see. The gay community showing what it celebrates, "with pride". And that community wants us to define marriage as they define parades. No, the gay community is more than a little dishonest when it has these parades and then tells us that they are just like us.

I agree: the only one here being disingenuous is the person who refuses to acknowledge what is fairly plain to see: Pride parades are reflections of those that produce and participate in such parades; an entire class of people who share the same sexual orientation should not be demonized merely because of what is paraded around in the name of what some gays and lesbians wish to "take Pride" in. The straight community is more than a little dishonest when it sees some gay people putting on a parade and then tells the rest of us that we are just like them.

Again, are you stating that the gay community is being influenced by something else when they have these parades, or is it merely the true reflection of how gay men and women view relationships? From all we know, it is definately the latter. Now gay couples can put little Timmy to bed while they proudly take a "break" from their relationships which they want to call marriage, and engage in anonymous coupling. How very marriage like.

I don't presume to speak for what those members of the gay community who participate in gay Pride parades are influenced by--I am not them, and they are not me. The fact that there are many of us who share a homosexual orientation does not mean that those of us who don't participate understand or can speak to what motivates those that do.

I imagine your desparaging, patronizing, and fear-mongering comment about gay fathers and "little Timmy" is an affront to many of us who are parents and strive to raise healthy, happy, well-adjusted children, especially in a climate that is openly contemptuous towards our families.

Since when do we make shams the equivalent of marriage?

Our society made shames the equivalent of marriage the moment we began recognizing "no fault" divorce, shot-gun weddings, and Vegas-style Drive Through Wedding Chapels. Same-sex couples had nothing to do with it.

My view,

Daniel2

[Ares]

This thread is purely political and not necessarily related to the LDS Church. Unfortunately these threads can devolove into a free-for-all political and social debate which is not sensitive to gay or straight Saints and their families. For this reason I'm closing this thread.

If a thread has to do with the LDS Church, gays and their families in the LDS Church and is discussed in a sensitive manner you can post it.

For political and social discussions about homosexuality please visit any one of the thousands of web sites that allow political discussion.

Thanks,

Ares

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Political

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff