THIS is "oppression" and "discrimination."

[Stella_Omega]

Dear Stella,

First they passed Prop 8 to ban love between same-sex couples. Now the same crowd is trying to ban LGBT people -- from our history books, that is. If they get their way, a new referendum here in California would ban teaching about people like Harvey Milk, Bayard Rustin, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Billie Jean King, and Walt Whitman (seen at right).
So not only do they want to keep committed same-sex couples from getting married, they also want kids to grow up thinking gay people have never contributed to society at all. Well, we at Courage Campaign have had enough.

Will you join us in a campaign to keep this demeaning referendum off the ballot?

The FAIR Education Act, which is the law that the right-wingers are trying to overturn, makes sure the contributions of important historical figures who happen to be gay (like Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams and even J. Edgar Hoover) are taught. But because they happen to be gay, that's too much for the Prop 8 crowd. They want kids to grow up thinking gay people never existed, and pretend everyone is born straight.

If you're sick of your family, friends and community being targeted, sign up here to help keep this shameful garbage off the ballot.

The clock has started ticking on our opposition. They have to collect over 500,000 signatures by October 12, 2011, to get this referendum on the ballot.

We know that if our opponents successfully gather enough signatures that we can expect a dirty campaign filled with hateful messages about “teaching homosexuality to kids," just like during the Prop 8 campaign. And we know that’s not what the FAIR Education Act is about. Teachers, students and nurses across California understand how dangerous it is to ban our children from learning about important historical figures who have shaped our state. That's why the California Federation of Teachers, California Nurses Association, Equality California, the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, and the UC Academic Student Employees Union oppose this divisive referendum.

Join Courage Campaign and our allies across the state to help educate the public, and run a decline-to-sign campaign to keep this off the ballot.

Thanks for standing up with us,

-- Arisha, Anthony, Sarah, Rick and the rest of the team at the Courage Campaign

 

[Stella_Omega]

My dears; someone who doesn't want to fuck you? Is discriminating, but that's NOT "Discrimination."

 

[eastern sun]

I'm curious, Stella. Is the referendum about banning the mention of the people altogether, or just the nature of their sexuality?

 

[JNaylor]

I'm curious, Stella. Is the referendum about banning the mention of the people altogether, or just the nature of their sexuality?

Yeah I wonder the same thing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Do we pretend that George Washington Carver was white? Do we never mention Luther Burbank's color at all?

(I really hope you all aren't asking "who?")

Being gay isn't only about a person's sexual desires. Very often it's the fact that explains how they were treated by the people around them. in Hoover's case, his being gay explains a whole lot of why he went out of his way to prosecute "fairies."

The point of the fair education act is to show that many colors and types of minority folk have contributed to our society. The problem with not being explicit about their identity is that we simply assume the norm prevails-- as Jnaylor shows when he comments that nobody talks about how Henry Ford was straight. Nobody mentions that he was white, either. There is no need to.

But supposing that henry ford was gay? All your lives you figured your car was invented by a straight mind... it would never occur to you to think anything else.

 

[RjThoughts]

It's a BAN of the people BECAUSE of the sexuality, not being taught, period!! It's the same thinking that Texas has of Thomas Jefferson, because he fathered children with his African-American lover, because he was a major proppent of the seperation of Church and State.

A person's sexuality should have NO bearing on whether or not they are taught in schools. "Teaching about them will put forth their lifestyle," I've heard that before. And if that was true, we'd have an entire military full of dumbasses, because Custer was taught in schools!! But we know better.

 

[JNaylor]

Do we pretend that George Washington Carver was white? Do we never mention Luther Burbank's color at all?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I wish your opinion was shared by more people, J. But the fact is, many many folk think the opposite. And they want to pass laws to enforce their thinking.

As a straight man it's your privilege to never have to defend your sexual and romantic preference for women from lawmakers and church pulpits. You will never be ostracized from society for choosing an opposite-sex partner. You will never be barred from her hospital bed if you are her husband.

it's just fine if you choose to never judge someone for their love preferences. But pretending those preferences don't exist is in itself a form of judgement. And one of the many ways in which those wanna-be- moral arbiters enforce their desire to diminish other people is by making them invisible.

This issue really is not about what you, personally think, it's about what a bunch of other people are trying to do to make you think like them. They want to pass a law that will make you think like them.

And of course:

to me it would make no difference wether Henry Ford was gay or straight. It would not matter at all if my car had been invented by a gay mind.

If that's true-- it would be no skin off of your nose to acknowledge it, either.

You can probably imagine that a boy who has been told all his short life that he was a useless faggot and no real man-- HE might like to know that one of them "useless faggots" had done something so important.

 

[JNaylor]

I wish your opinion was shared by more people, J. But the fact is, many many folk think the opposite. And they want to pass laws to enforce their thinking.

As a straight man it's your privilege to never have to defend your sexual and romantic preference for women from lawmakers and church pulpits. You will never be ostracized from society for choosing an opposite-sex partner. You will never be barred from her hospital bed if you are her husband.

it's just fine if you choose to never judge someone for their love preferences. But pretending those preferences don't exist is in itself a form of judgement. And one of the many ways in which those wanna-be- moral arbiters enforce their desire to diminish other people is by making them invisible.

This issue really is not about what you, personally think, it's about what a bunch of other people are trying to do to make you think like them. They want to pass a law that will make you think like them.

You make a good point stella. I don't know what it is like to be gay or to be exposed to the discrimination that you face, although we all face one form of discrimination or other, it is probably much worse for Gays. I have seen the darker side of that discrimination, and if I'm being honest, engaged in some of it when I was a teenager and feel a lot of regret about it today.

I think you make a good case. Every one is biased in some way and will try to influence others to think like them. It is even true among the gay community. For example every television show or movie and now even commercials have an actor portraying a gay character. Home and garden television is almost 100% gay content. In reality I can count on one hand the number of people I know that are openly gay but if my only frame of reference was the media I would think that 75% of the people in the USA were Gay and thats just not true.

As for the government trying to force you to think like them that is true in so many ways and I, like you, have had my fill of it. I wish you well in your quest. I hope I didn't come accross as judgemental because I am not. Just thought I would share my perspective.

 

[Stella_Omega]

For example every television show or movie and now even commercials have an actor portraying a gay character.

That is absolutely not true.

Isn't that interesting? YOU have noticed one or two gay characters, and your mind tells you that you've seen one in every show.

If you watch H&G, yeah-- that channel's unusual in that respect. But H&G isn't prime time entertainment. There's hardly any action or adventure going on for most people.

So, I'm curious--what message do you think the gay community is trying to get across?

ETA:

if my only frame of reference was the media I would think that 75% of the people in the USA were Gay

wait-- if your average TV show or commercial has say, five main characters and one of those people is gay, how does that make 75%?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yeah I wonder the same thing. Not sure why we need to talk about someones sexuality to school kids. If someone has contributed to society and is worthy of mention in history books then it should be based on the merits of their achivement and not who they liked to have sex with. We don't refer to people like Henry Ford for example as a heterosexual so why do we need to identify others as gay or lesbian. I am straight, so maybe I'm missing something?

Then how do you propose to explain about Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights without mentioning "gay" or his orientation? How do you propose teaching about the murder of Mathew Shepard and the history of hate crimes without mention that he was killed for being gay?

You ever hear the quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."? You can't remember what you're not taught. Same goes if you don't teach the WHOLE past.

 

[RjThoughts]

Then how do you propose to explain about Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights without mentioning "gay" or his orientation? How do you propose teaching about the murder of Mathew Shepard and the history of hate crimes without mention that he was killed for being gay?

You ever hear the quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."? You can't remember what you're not taught. Same goes if you don't teach the WHOLE past.

That is why people don't understand why the Washington NFL club's nickname is racist and insensitive: They just aren't taught.

 

[JNaylor]

That is absolutely not true.

Isn't that interesting? YOU have noticed one or two gay characters, and your mind tells you that you've seen one in every show.

If you watch H&G, yeah-- that channel's unusual in that respect. But H&G isn't prime time entertainment. There's hardly any action or adventure going on for most people.

So, I'm curious--what message do you think the gay community is trying to get across?

ETA:

wait-- if your average TV show or commercial has say, five main characters and one of those people is gay, how does that make 75%?

I don't think they have any particular message I just think the media is going out of their way to portray more people as gay. It doesn't offend me because I am straight but either they are trying to go out of thier way not to offend the gay community for fear of reprisal or they are pushing a gay agenda. 75% may not be accurate (I haven't actually done the math) but its out there. Even childrens cartoons have gay characters nowadays. Again this does not offend me I am simply pointing out that everyone has their own ideas that they want to push on others, and the gay community is not exempt. Some examples of primetime shows with Gay characters: House, Grays anatomy, ER, Glee and many more.

 

[JNaylor]

Then how do you propose to explain about Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights without mentioning "gay" or his orientation? How do you propose teaching about the murder of Mathew Shepard and the history of hate crimes without mention that he was killed for being gay?

You ever hear the quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."? You can't remember what you're not taught. Same goes if you don't teach the WHOLE past.

Thats a fair statement. I would accept that argument. I have to admit that I don't know who Harvey Milk is or Mathew shepard but if they are historical figures because they are gay then absolutely you would have to mention that they were gay and if they advanced gay rights then they deserve mention in the history books.

 

[JNaylor]

Then how do you propose to explain about Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights without mentioning "gay" or his orientation? How do you propose teaching about the murder of Mathew Shepard and the history of hate crimes without mention that he was killed for being gay?

You ever hear the quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."? You can't remember what you're not taught. Same goes if you don't teach the WHOLE past.

Thats a fair statement. I would accept that argument. I have to admit that I don't know who Harvey Milk is or Mathew shepard but if they are historical figures because they are gay then absolutely you would have to mention that they were gay and if they advanced gay rights then they deserve mention in the history books.

 

[JNaylor]

Then how do you propose to explain about Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights without mentioning "gay" or his orientation? How do you propose teaching about the murder of Mathew Shepard and the history of hate crimes without mention that he was killed for being gay?

You ever hear the quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."? You can't remember what you're not taught. Same goes if you don't teach the WHOLE past.

While

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think they have any particular message I just think the media is going out of their way to portray more people as gay. It doesn't offend me because I am straight but either they are trying to go out of thier way not to offend the gay community for fear of reprisal or they are pushing a gay agenda. 75% may not be accurate (I haven't actually done the math) but its out there. Even childrens cartoons have gay characters nowadays. Again this does not offend me I am simply pointing out that everyone has their own ideas that they want to push on others, and the gay community is not exempt. Some examples of primetime shows with Gay characters: House, Grays anatomy, ER, Glee and many more.

But if some people ARE gay, how is portraying more (as opposed to none) that way "going out of their way?"

What is the idea that the gay community wants to push?

What is the gay agenda?

Thats a fair statement. I would accept that argument. I have to admit that I don't know who Harvey Milk is or Mathew shepard but if they are historical figures because they are gay then absolutely you would have to mention that they were gay and if they advanced gay rights then they deserve mention in the history books.

harvey Milk was an openly gay man who was elected to the San Fransico City council. He was able to bring about the most comprehensive civil rights bills for the city. he was hugely popular, and impeccably honest.

He was murdered, along with the mayor at the time, George Moscone-- by another council member who opposed his liberal values, and was convicted of manslaughter instead of first degree murder via the now-famous "Twinkie Defense."

Matthew Shepard was a gay teenager who was abducted, tortured, and murdered because he was gay.

J. Edgar Hoover spent unbelievable amounts of public money and man-hours trying to purge the "fairies" from every part of public life. He even tried to go after Eleanor Roosevelt. It's possible that he was in
fact, gay himself.

Michelangelo was a painter in the Renaissance era. He is famous for creating some of the most brilliant, enduring and true depictions of religious love and piety in the history of Christianity. And frankly, his depictions of the male characters-- God, Christ, the male saints-- are hugely more immediate and appealing because men are what he loved. After the renaissance was when women began to lose status as human beings and as religious people.

That's pretty subtle for highschool students, of course. But Michelangelo's sexual preferences colored what he did. it would be pretty helpful to know that.

While you make an excellent argument again I would like to point out that there are many subjects and characters, straight and gay, that are no longer taught or the entire subject is not taught or the history has been re-written. It's not exclusive to the gay community. History should be what it is not what people want it to be.

Sweetie, "gay" subjects have NEVER been taught.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Thats a fair statement. I would accept that argument. I have to admit that I don't know who Harvey Milk is or Mathew shepard but if they are historical figures because they are gay then absolutely you would have to mention that they were gay and if they advanced gay rights then they deserve mention in the history books.

The fact that you don't know who Harvey Milk or Mathew Shepard are scares me probably more then anything else in this thread.

It also is proof in point of what we've been saying about what is being taught in schools.



Regarding your other subject on how many gays are on television now days, do you realize that 10 - 15% of the polulation is LGBTQ? Do you honestly believe that 10 - 15% of every television show character is portrayed as LGBTQ? SERIOUSLY?

SURPRISE!!!!! GLAAD did a study and it's not 10 - 15% to reflect the general population, but is ONLY 3.9%!

See how skewed your straight views of "gay" are, dude?

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/record-high-for-gay-characters-on-tv-study-says/

 

[JNaylor]

But if some people ARE gay, how is portraying more (as opposed to none) that way "going out of their way?"

Thats a good point Stella.

What is the idea that the gay community wants to push?

Not sure what their ideas are. I'm guessing acceptance, but for the most part gays are already accepted with the exception of a few who will always be intolerant no matter what. There will always be people who dislike you for who or what you are. You'll never change everyone.

What is the gay agenda? The gay agenda from my perspective is to attain more rights for gay couples such as legalized marriage and some of the other rights you mentioned earlier. There is nothing wrong with having an agenda, we all have one. They are just suited to our individual needs.



harvey Milk was an openly gay man who was elected to the San Fransico City council. He was able to bring about the most comprehensive civil rights bills for the city. he was hugely popular, and impeccably honest.

He was murdered, along with the mayor at the time, George Moscone-- by another council member who opposed his liberal values, and was convicted of manslaughter instead of first degree murder via the now-famous "Twinkie Defense."

Matthew Shepard was a gay teenager who was abducted, tortured, and murdered because he was gay.

J. Edgar Hoover spent unbelievable amounts of public money and man-hours trying to purge the "fairies" from every part of public life. He even tried to go after Eleanor Roosevelt. It's possible that he was in
fact, gay himself.

Michelangelo was a painter in the Renaissance era. He is famous for creating some of the most brilliant, enduring and true depictions of religious love and piety in the history of Christianity. And frankly, his depictions of the male characters-- God, Christ, the male saints-- are hugely more immediate and appealing because men are what he loved. After the renaissance was when women began to lose status as human beings and as religious people.

That's pretty subtle for highschool students, of course. But Michelangelo's sexual preferences colored what he did. it would be pretty helpful to know that.

Sweetie, "gay" subjects have NEVER been taught.

Thank you for the information.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not sure what their ideas are. I'm guessing acceptance, but for the most part gays are already accepted with the exception of a few who will always be intolerant no matter what. There will always be people who dislike you for who or what you are. You'll never change everyone.

Since Prop8 actually passed in California, does it really seem like "for the most part" gays are accepted?

This is not about how many people like gays. The message is, simply, that gays exist.

What is the gay agenda? The gay agenda from my perspective is to attain more rights for gay couples such as legalized marriage and some of the other rights you mentioned earlier. There is nothing wrong with having an agenda, we all have one. They are just suited to our individual needs.

And... Do you feel that is a just, and possibly righteous agenda?

Do you think gays are wrong to feel that way, and wrong to try to live that way?

Is there anything in that agenda that interferes with you and your life, your rights?

 

[JNaylor]

The fact that you don't know who Harvey Milk or Mathew Shepard are scares me probably more then anything else in this thread.

It also is proof in point of what we've been saying about what is being taught in schools.



Regarding your other subject on how many gays are on television now days, do you realize that 10 - 15% of the polulation is LGBTQ? Do you honestly believe that 10 - 15% of every television show character is portrayed as LGBTQ? SERIOUSLY?

SURPRISE!!!!! GLAAD did a study and it's not 10 - 15% to reflect the general population, but is ONLY 3.9%!

See how skewed your straight views of "gay" are, dude?

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/record-high-for-gay-characters-on-tv-study-says/

I have enjoyed a very good conversation with Stella

 

[JNaylor]

Since Prop8 actually passed in California, does it really seem like "for the most part" gays are accepted?

There are levels of acceptance and I would say compared to 1975 gays are far more acceped than they were back then. People are no longer shocked by gay couples the way they were in the 70's and 80's. Now its common for boy's to date each other in high school. When I was a kid they would have gotten the crap beaten out of them if they did.

This is not about how many people like gays. The message is, simply, that gays exist. And... Do you feel that is a just, and possibly righteous agenda?

I have no problem with their agenda, my point is that they, like everyone else, have an agenda.

Do you think gays are wrong to feel that way, and wrong to try to live that way?

I don't think its wrong to feel that way. Its not for me but I don't want to meddle in any one elses sex life or love life.

Is there anything in that agenda that interferes with you and your life, your rights?

No there is nothing that interferes with my life or my rights.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There are levels of acceptance and I would say compared to 1975 gays are far more acceped than they were back then. People are no longer shocked by gay couples the way they were in the 70's and 80's. Now its common for boy's to date each other in high school. When I was a kid they would have gotten the crap beaten out of them if they did.

Matthew Shpard was beaten to death ten years ago.

In 2008, a boy shot another one for being gay, IN school, in oxnard Ca.

I have a scar on my head that i got when someone threw stuff at the two men who were walking nearby me, in the "boystown" area of Chicago, 1999.

last year, eight different young men committed suicide after being harrassed and bullied in highschools and colleges.

No there is nothing that interferes with my life or my rights. I am all for equal rights just not additonal rights. I think gays and straight people should all have equal rights. I don't think that either group should recive additional rights based on their sexual orientation, and Im not saying that gays are seeking additional rights, or their gender or thier race.

What additional rights would someone be trying to get?

 

[JNaylor]

What additional rights would someone be trying to get?

People are

 

[Safe_Bet]

I have enjoyed a very good conversation with Stella and actually learned some things I didn't know about gays and thier history and have been enlightened by the conversation. But with you I sense a hostility toward me because I am straight. (your use of caps and the word dude). I find it interesting that you obviously seek acceptance of gays by straight people, however you seem to be, and I may be wrong, intolerant toward staright people. It is possible to take opposing views in a debate and still remain civil toward one another. I have said nothing offensive toward gays nor would I. Just because I don't know who Harvey Milk is does not make me ignorant or a gay basher. I assure you I know many things that you do not.

Nope. Not gonna let you make a BUNCH of unfounded assumptions and allegations, DUDE! You have nothing to base your opinions on other then my use of CAPITALS and the use of the word "dude" (which I call everyone), so I can only guess that what really offends you is having a strong, lesbian woman correct your misconceptions.

That's all good, though. You see when I see a straight guy rhetorically arguing in "opposition" to me, mine and or our human rights, civilly or not, I get offended. SERIOUSLY!