# Should you study culture according to the colour of your skin or sexual preferences?



## heidita

This is about a weird piece of news I heard on The Tonight Show: 

From now on the students will have to study *"gay culture"* as a subject.

I thought this must be a joke, but it is obviously true. Do you believe in this? Will we have children study items like homosexual culture opposed to heterosexual culture?

I think it is outrageous to make a distinction like this. What are your opinions.


----------



## ireney

The title sure confused me!


The whole subject is a bit confusing too (for me)
What did they mean by "gay culture"? This might help clarify things for me a bit.


----------



## adverus-1

*Wow, that really looks like a joke. This is insane. Gay Culture...what's that? Why are kids supposed to know about "Gay Culture"? I belive kids should be taught to respect people independently of their sexuality....but not "Gay Culture" lessons...come on!!!!*


----------



## ElaineG

Without context, this story is almost meaningless. Which students? Where? What?

The truth is that most of what we were taught in school (when I was there) was the history and culture of white heterosexual males of European heritage -- for example, my high school had two years of European history and two years of American (U.S.) history, no African, Asian or Latin American history included.

Within those studies, the roles and contributions of women and minorities in history were basically ignored, and you can be sure that the existence (to say nothing of the culture) of gay men and lesbians was never even mentioned. Despite the enormous importance of African-Americans in the United States in general (and New York in particular), our studies in that department were limited to learning about the Emancipation Proclamation, a few lines about Booker T. Washington and a nod to Martin Luther King, Jr. Hispanics? Forget about it! I remember we had one book in my elementary school about Cesar Chavez. That''s it.

If education today gives a broader perspective of society and history -- not only the view from the dominant class -- I think that's incredibly useful. Part of the richness and diversity of our heritage is a richness and diversity of sexual preference -- studying the history of Stonewall, AIDS, and the current controversy over marriage (to give a completely reductionist overview of recent gay history) can only make better informed and educated students and citizens.

In our country at the moment, anti-gay legislation is the rallying cry of one political party and the straw that they are clutching at to save them from defeat in November. If people are going to cast votes that deprive one segment of our population of rights held by other segments, can it really hurt to ask that they know something of the culture of those they cast a vote against?

However, the vast majority of American students will never learn anything about gay culture. In vast swathes of this country, the teaching of simple birth control techniques is prohibited -- it will be a long time before the history of Hitler's pink triangle or the rainbow flag is taught in those schools!


----------



## ireney

What exactly are we talking when we say "gay culture"? I think I am the only one that doesn't get it 

I mean, talking about homosexuality and/or bisexuality throughout the ages ( I am thinking of ancient Greeks) and of what women have achieved and why women are depicted that way etc or about the contribution of all different cultures is something I think (or rather hope ) we will all agree on.

What I can't understand is what "gay culture" is since the way I see it, it refers to a culture that is global and shared by all gay people around the world.


----------



## heidita

Actually they were talking about the States, so I presumed that the gay studying item had to be in the USA. Possibly they are _talking _about it still, but in any case I find your argument in favour confusing, as I think it is completely irrelevant whether García Lorca was homosexual to read and study his poems.


----------



## ElaineG

> What exactly are we talking when we say "gay culture"? I think I am the only one that doesn't get it


 
You are not the only one that doesn't get it. The story as reported lacks all context and detail, and as such, reminds me of the inflammatory propaganda that is regularly used by the right wing in this country. They regularly try to create hysteria by claiming that such and such a school system is requiring children to read "Heather has Two Mommies" or the like. 

(I'm not blaming Heidita for that, the vagueness likely comes from her source).


----------



## timpeac

They probably mean the collective experiences of gay people of the ages and specifics to them of life now.

It is rather an unhelpful concept - this xxxx culture business, but it's quite common to talk of "black culture" and "deaf culture" isn't it? By that people just mean specifics in history and the present relating to those people. As an example of this last - I believe there is a group of deaf people who are against operations which might give hearing to people who have been deaf since birth, since they view that as an "attack" on their people.

As I say - I find such distinctions generally unhelpful, but it's not an alien concept, is it?


----------



## ireney

ah! thanks for that timpeac. I should put my lack of understanding down to cultural differences then (we never use the word culture that way)


----------



## ElaineG

heidita said:
			
		

> Actually they were talking about the States, so I presumed that the gay studying item had to be in the USA. Possibly they are _talking _about it still, but in any case I find your argument in favour confusing, as I think it is completely irrelevant whether García Lorca was homosexual to read and study his poems.


 
Yes, but where? At what level of education? We're a big country and every town, village, subdivision, university, juco, etc. sets its own educational standards. 

To imagine that there is some sort of nationwide initiative for the study of gay culture is to be living completely out of touch with contemporary American politics and society, and to fall victim to the sensationalism of the media.

I am not sure who you are referring to with "your argument in favor", but if it was to me (the only person who has posted in favor so far), I gather that you didn't really read my post, as I made absolutely no points relating to identity politics and authorship.


----------



## timpeac

heidita said:
			
		

> Actually they were talking about the States, so I presumed that the gay studying item had to be in the USA. Possibly they are _talking _about it still, but in any case I find your argument in favour confusing, as I think it is completely irrelevant whether García Lorca was homosexual to read and study his poems.


 
I don't - I think it is absolutely vital to know this to understand his work! I must say I don't understand your position on that at all. Is it relevant that a writer is black? Is it relevant that a poet is Jewish? If not does it become more relevant if you learn they lived through the holocaust? Any vitally important part of an artist's life is key to understanding their work, in my opinion.


----------



## heidita

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Without context, this story is almost meaningless. Which students? Where? What?
> 
> The truth is that most of what we were taught in school (when I was there) was the history and culture of white heterosexual males of European heritage -- for example, my high school had two years of European history and two years of American (U.S.) history, no African, Asian or Latin American history included.
> 
> Within those studies, the roles and contributions of women and minorities in history were basically ignored, and you can be sure that the existence (to say nothing of the culture) of gay men and lesbians was never even mentioned. Despite the enormous importance of African-Americans in the United States in general (and New York in particular), our studies in that department were limited to learning about the Emancipation Proclamation, a few lines about Booker T. Washington and a nod to Martin Luther King, Jr. Hispanics? Forget about it! I remember we had one book in my elementary school about Cesar Chavez. That''s it.
> 
> *If education today gives a broader perspective of society and history -- not only the view from the dominant class -- I think that's incredibly useful. Part of the richness and diversity of our heritage is a richness and diversity of sexual preference -- studying the history of Stonewall, AIDS, and the current controversy over marriage (to give a completely reductionist overview of recent gay history) can only make better informed and educated students and citizens.*
> 
> *In our country at the moment, anti-gay legislation is the rallying cry of one political party and the straw that they are clutching at to save them from defeat in November. If people are going to cast votes that deprive one segment of our population of rights held by other segments, can it really hurt to ask that they know something of the culture of those they cast a vote against?*
> 
> However, the vast majority of American students will never learn anything about gay culture. In vast swathes of this country, the teaching of simple birth control techniques is prohibited -- it will be a long time before the history of Hitler's pink triangle or the rainbow flag is taught in those schools!


 
I did read your post and thought that this was speaking in favour of such a forthcoming legislation. Should it really be only a joke? 
Of course I cannot tell you the exact place in the states, but then it would be nationwide, or not?

I am surprised to find in google *Gay culture studies at the University of Amsterdam *(to give one example)

So, it does exist already.


----------



## ElaineG

> I did read your post and thought that this was speaking in favour of such a forthcoming legislation. Should it really be only a joke?
> Of course I cannot tell you the exact place in the states, but then it would be nationwide, or not?


 
No, it would definitely not be nationwide.  While some educational policy is set at the Federal level, I think we all know enough about the Bush administration to know that they are not sponsoring any such legislation.  I can assure you that it is not statewide in any state, either (or if it is, it is not going to pass).  It could be one town, city or college that has decided to do this.

I am in favour of students learning more about gay culture.  My argument was that knowing gay history, gay sociology and the dilemmas faced by gay people in contemporary society makes better informed, better educated citizens.

That has nothing to do with reading Lorca's poems as a gay author.  However, as Tim said, I do think that knowing the context that an author wrote in -- including personal background -- is an essential part of literary studies.


----------



## ireney

I don't disagree with that since in some cases it _is_ important in order to understand things better. But not always. That's the catch. Reading all actions and or works of people under the prism of their sexual orientation, race, religion, nation, whatever (or all of the above if we want to be more accurate in our understanding) is wrong as I see it.

Learning about history, sociology etc for all the sub-groups existing in humanity is absolutely correct and proper, if feasable. Just as soon as we make sure we are not -in this way- building different walls between us.


----------



## timpeac

ElaineG said:
			
		

> I am in favour of students learning more about gay culture. My argument was that knowing gay history, gay sociology and the dilemmas faced by gay people in contemporary society makes better informed, better educated citizens.


 
I am too - same for any minority. I have a bit of a problem with the word "culture" (for any minority, not just gays) because I think that we should concentrate more on how we are all basically the same rather than what makes us different (all while enjoying and respecting what does make us different, if that doesn't sound too paradoxical). So I'm happy with the idea of what is being taught, but I think the word "culture" makes it all sound too inviolate and exclusive. I think of culture at a wider level, I think, than black, jewish, christian, gay, deaf etc) Can't think of a better alternative off-hand though, without a paraphrase, to be fair though


----------



## timpeac

ireney said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with that since in some cases it _is_ important in order to understand things better. But not always. That's the catch. Reading all actions and or works of people under the prism of their sexual orientation, race, religion, nation, whatever (or all of the above if we want to be more accurate in our understanding) is wrong as I see it.
> 
> Learning about history, sociology etc for all the sub-groups existing in humanity is absolutely correct and proper, if feasable. Just as soon as we make sure we are not -in this way- building different walls between us.


 
I think you are saying the same as me really - let's learn about others, but let's not put them into sealed and labelled boxes.


----------



## ireney

Timpeac yes although in much worse English


----------



## MarcB

I saw the show that Heidita is referring to. It was a joke on an American TV show. It was basically a blurp about an article in the news. Put in context it has to do with what Elaine so aptly explained. In the US there has been an institutionalized attempt to exclude information about people who are in some way “perceived” as part of a minority. This is in regard to race, ethnic origin, religion, sexual preference etc. In fact, there are more women n the US than men, Irish Catholics outnumber English Protestants. Catholics are the largest religious sect in the US although the combination of all protestant sects is a slight majority in 2006 (historically the numbers were greater). As Elaine said there is a movement to further exclude many people and it is not limited to any one political party although we can see that the numbers may be greater in one over the other. Although some aspects of this are not exclusively American, it may not apply to all countries, so it should be viewed in that context. Ideas like this are in reaction to the situation as it relates to past and present policies in the US. Also in many communities there is a movement to ban scientific theories (ex. Darwin’s evolution) in favor of teaching religious beliefs (Creationism/Genesis) as absolute science. I personally think, they should both be taught as what they are theories and beliefs not absolute science. I do not see where giving additional information to people is harmful unless we favor ignorance over knowledge. I do not want to say that one should necessarily agree with everything that is taught but should have enough knowledge to make an informed decision.
Also I am in favor of including the study of all history/culture as an integral all inclusive course, not to separate them. How this applies to other countries, depends on their historic and current circumstances. So it might seem ridiculous or unnecessary in certain cultures, but it is an issue in the US.


----------



## timpeac

I remember at my university there was an option called "queer studies" which was just about gay "culture" (still can't think of an alternative for that word!)


----------



## ElaineG

Interestingly, Jay Leno (the host of the Tonight Show, the show that Heidita saw the joke that spawned this thread) is currently being criticized by a leading gay playwright for his repeated gay jokes on his show.

The playwright's perspective makes for interesting reading: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid30116.asp


----------



## timpeac

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Interestingly, Jay Leno (the host of the Tonight Show, the show that Heidita saw the joke that spawned this thread) is currently being criticized by a leading gay playwright for his repeated gay jokes on his show.
> 
> The playwright's perspective makes for interesting reading: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid30116.asp


Blimey, you can see how he managed to write an award-winning musical! Very well put.


----------



## ireney

now _that_ should be taught!


----------



## heidita

Timpeac, I do agree with you that it is essential to know the person's background, of any kind, sexual, religious etc. to understand his or her work better. ( I think it would be really difficult to understan Santa Teresa de Jesús's work if you didn't know that she was a religious woman) I do not understand though why there should be a separate subject on Universities for these studies, as this is a means of separating. Actually I am surprised at your note that you really had "queer studies" as an optional subject at school. 
I don't know if I would agree with this if I were gay, as there is no reason to any kind of separation for reasons of colour, religion of sexual preferences.
I believe, and there is a website to it, there even exists a Gay University, for gays and transvestites only (?). I have no knowledge if they accept students of other sexual preferences, too. But I do believe this is not the way to stop being treated as a minority.

I have finally found several links related to this subject

http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/cgs/lgsp.html

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Clags/index.html

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/lbg/

http://wwwstudent.brighton.ac.uk/~lgbsoc/


----------



## macta123

*If that was serioius then:*

Perhaps, it my be meaning that in schools(??) or colleges(??) they will be taught what are the causes of homosexuality. What leads them(the homesexuals) to that state. How should society look at them!! And all those stuff (ie. without harrassing or ostracizing them)


----------



## Pivra

Seems like homos are not part of our cultures


----------



## Fernando

We have several centuries fighting against eurocentrism and white-centrism and now we have black-centrism and gay-centrism.

I do not think you must be centered in your own personal skin or sexual preferences to study something. I undestand a gay will pay a marginal additional importance to the fight of homosexuals to get equal rights (or more than equal) but I think would be a pity for him/her to learn "gay literature", "gay history" or "gay art".


----------



## timpeac

heidita said:
			
		

> Timpeac, I do agree with you that it is essential to know the person's background, of any kind, sexual, religious etc. to understand his or her work better. ( I think it would be really difficult to understan Santa Teresa de Jesús's work if you didn't know that she was a religious woman) I do not understand though why there should be a separate subject on Universities for these studies, as this is a means of separating. Actually I am surprised at your note that you really had "queer studies" as an optional subject at school.
> I don't know if I would agree with this if I were gay, as there is no reason to any kind of separation for reasons of colour, religion of sexual preferences.
> I believe, and there is a website to it, there even exists a Gay University, for gays and transvestites only (?). I have no knowledge if they accept students of other sexual preferences, too. But I do believe this is not the way to stop being treated as a minority.
> 
> I have finally found several links related to this subject
> 
> http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/cgs/lgsp.html
> 
> http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Clags/index.html
> 
> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/lbg/
> 
> http://wwwstudent.brighton.ac.uk/~lgbsoc/


 
Actually, I was misremembering, it was "queer theory" (I didn't do that module so I'm not sure exactly what it was teaching).


----------



## fenixpollo

MarcB said:
			
		

> In fact, there are more women n the US than men, Irish Catholics outnumber English Protestants.


 While it's true that females are statistically more common than males in human populations (praise Hera!), your claim about Catholics in the U.S. is just plain silly. Most data shows that about 26% of Americans claim to be Catholics (not _Irish_ Catholics, mind you), while more than 55% claim to be Protestant (no word on the breakdown of _English_ Protestants). 





			
				heidita said:
			
		

> But I do believe this is not the way to stop being treated as a minority.


 Is it the goal of minority groups to no longer be treated as a minority group?


			
				heidi said:
			
		

> I am surprised to find in google Gay culture studies at the University of Amsterdam(to give one example)


 You've said that it's surprising and unbelievable that these courses exist, without being specific about what's wrong with them. You've also said all along that they are elective courses... so what's the big deal? Do you feel the same about courses in "African-American Studies" or "Women's Studies"?

What is it that you object to about the idea of "gay studies" or "queer studies"? Is it that the Left has hijacked our educational system in order to promote the radical notions of _tolerance_ and _understanding_? Next thing you know, they'll want me to start loving my neighbor and stop coveting his wife!


----------



## ElaineG

> You've said that it's surprising and unbelievable that these courses exist, without being specific about what's wrong with them. You've also said all along that they are elective courses... so what's the big deal? Do you feel the same about courses in "African-American Studies" or "Women's Studies"?


 
Yes, it's important that that distinction be made for non-Americans/English speakers.

Queer theory/studies/gay studies has been around as an elective area of study in some colleges and universities for at least 15 years now. (Don't forget that American college students take at least 28, and often many more, different classes over the course of 4 years).

The original joke that started this thread supposedly had something to do with the _mandatory_ teaching of "gay culture" in some unspecified place to unspecified people.

While I believe that _everyone_ would benefit from a more inclusive view of history, culture and society, we must distinguish -- in analyzing the subject -- between some_ hypothetical world_ in which people are compelled to learn about homosexuality and the _real world_ in which some university-age students may choose courses with gay themes (just as they may choose courses in Judaic Studies, Islamic Studies, African-American Studies, Asian-American Studies, Hispanic-American Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, etc. etc. ad nauseaum).


----------



## Residente Calle 13

In Europe this might seem strange but in American colleges there are African-American Studies departments, Asian Studies departments, Chicano Studies departments, Women Studies departments, Native American departments etc. etc. I'm sorry if I left some people out.

So you can major in any of these. The idea is that these groups have been traditionally underrepresented in academic life so universities should promote the learning of what their culture is all about.

I have not seen a Gay Studies department but I'm sure they are out there. 

But, if in Germany students learn a great deal about German history, culture, etc., why shouldn't kids from Harlem learn a great deal about black culture?

I think the approach is wrong but I think the tradition eurocentric approach of the universities for the last 1000 years or so has also been wrong. Too much focus on us and not enough on them.


----------



## Markus

I think we do ourselves a lot of harm getting too attached to our causes. It's sort of inevitible though that when a certain group is oppressed they're going to break out and form their own subculture. So I am all for the gay rights movement but only so that we can _stop_ needing to identify ourselves by our sexuality. There is so much more that connects us as humans but I have so many gay friends who only make friends with other gay people (or the occassional girl) and who think that they need to exclude so much of life in order to be happy. Our culture of oppression has caused that and in many ways having an accepting subculture is much better than outright oppression, but this subculture should not be the final goal. I dream of a day where we don't have to talk about our sexuality, not because we're ashamed, but because no one cares.

The problem with my point of view is that it often gets mixed up with that of a different type of homosexual -- the one that rejects gay culture because they're somehow ashamed of it and don't want to be associated with "that". So they reject it and instead cling to what society thinks is "normal" friendships. So I just wanted to clarify, this isn't what I'm talking about at all. Gay culture isn't a sickness that needs to be avoided or be ashamed of. We should be able to move freely in our friendships with all types of people (maybe if we stopped seeing people as "types" we'd realize there is much more potential for friendships out there than we realized).


----------



## Agnès E.

Indeed, Markus.
This would be, for me, the ultimate tolerance: caring about _who_ people are, and not _what_ people are.


----------



## maxiogee

heidita said:
			
		

> This is about a weird piece of news I heard on The Tonight Show:



*I would not regard The Tonight Show as a source of news!*
If anyone can show me why I'm wrong, I'd be more than interested.


----------



## Fernando

To residente Calle 13

You are right, but:

1) Pendulum law is not the answer.

2) German literature has a unity: most German writers have some influence from other German writers. I am unsure if black French writers have their influence from blck English writers or from other white/black French writers. The same for Swahili writers (I assume most of them are blacks, but that is not the point).

When I read Vargas Llosa he is overall a Spanish-speaking writer. Of course he is also a Peruvian, and a descendant from Spaniards and Indians, but I would not classify Vargas Llosa as an Aymara writer (or Quechua or Spanish).

To study "Black" culture is to assume you are a racist: It is more important your skin colour than your environment or your personal abilities.

...Unless you are studying, as an example, Martin Luther King. I can not deny that skin colour has a major importance and must be studied independently of the contemporary "mainstream" (white & black) culture movements.


----------



## GenJen54

pivra said:
			
		

> Seems like homos are not part of our cultures


Hi Pivra, 

Could you expound on this a bit? I am not sure what you mean.---------

As for "gay culture" classes, why not? The question that comes to my mind, however, is "what defines 'gay' culture?" Is it the activism, the 'lifestyle,' the gender issues? 

Some courses at major Universities already have gay-themed courses in Sociology departments (Homosexuality in the U.S., Gender Issues) and English (Sapphic Poetry), and Film Studies Departments (Homosexuality and Film). This is just a small sampling.

Someone (Chaska, I believe) mentioned the importance of embracing people for who they are as people, not how we can "identify" them as being different from "ourselves." I wholly agree with this.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> In Europe this might seem strange but in American colleges there are African-American Studies departments, Asian Studies departments, Chicano Studies departments, Women Studies departments, Native American departments etc. etc. I'm sorry if I left some people out.


Not in the UK - I went to a _very _traditional university and you could certainly study all of that sort of thing - and I would be surprised if the same wasn't true of most UK universities.


----------



## MarcB

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> While it's true that females are statistically more common than males in human populations (praise Hera!), your claim about Catholics in the U.S. is just plain silly. Most data shows that about 26% of Americans claim to be Catholics (not _Irish_ Catholics, mind you), while more than 55% claim to be Protestant (no word on the breakdown of _English_ Protestants).
> Your own source partially shows this to be true Catholics are the largest sect in the US, remember I said Protestants are the majority if one adds up all of the sects. Hence no one sect equals the Catholics. The point is not just the numbers but to show that perceptions are not always accurate. Just as women are not a minority. By the way the period between the Irish Catholic ratio and the Catholic total population indicates that it does not refer only to Irish Catholics. Also women are not limited to Irish Catholic women. By the way current estimates are different from what "Most data" shows. Again my point is that education should be all inclusive not separating out any ethnic group, religion or sexual orientation. I included that both Darwinism and creationism should be taught as a theory and a belief, neither should be omitted. We all sooner or later find out about the world, I believe knowledge should be provided in an academic environment as opposed to encouraging ignorance. Again an inclusive curriculum does not need to promote an agenda, but simply present the facts.


----------



## heidita

MarcB said:
			
		

> Again my point is that education should be all inclusive not separating out any ethnic group, religion or sexual orientation. I included that both Darwinism and creationism should be taught as a theory and a belief, neither should be omitted. We all sooner or later find out about the world, I believe knowledge should be provided in an academic environment as opposed to encouraging ignorance. Again an inclusive curriculum does not need to promote an agenda, but simply present the facts.


I might not have been able to bring across my point as well as Marc, but this is exactly what I wanted to say.


----------



## Just_Wil

It has to be a joke, it wouldn't make sense, what would the kids study in "gay culture"? I've got nothing against these tendencies, but I don't think it would help our decadent system anyway.


----------



## Just_Wil

And I agree with Fenixpollo


----------



## ElaineG

Pimp_of_the_pimps said:
			
		

> It has to be a joke, it wouldn't make sense, what would the kids study in "gay culture"? I've got nothing against these tendencies, but I don't think it would help our decadent system anyway.


 
I think it's long since been established that the original thing Heidi saw was a joke, and that's why no one can say what would actually be studied.

It's interesting to hear someone who calls himself "pimp of pimps" refer to a "decadent" system. There's nothing inherently "decadent" about homosexuality. The same cannot be said about adopting "pimp" as a badge of pride and coolness. It doesn't get much more decadent than that!  

I'm not opposed to decadence, just to surprised to see an obvious fan and promoter of decadence like yourself speaking out against it in another context.


----------



## Just_Wil

My heart is broken, anyway, I'll refer to our decadent system in some other thread, and of course I agree with this woman: "there's nothing inherently decadent about homosexuality", sure there isn't, just in case, I'll be the "pimp of the pimps" for the rest of my life 'cause I feel proud of being decadent just the same way you feel proud of having almost 4000 posts. Just in case, I'll complete the one billion posts when I have nothing to do.


----------



## fenixpollo

Pimp_of_the_pimps said:
			
		

> It has to be a joke, it wouldn't make sense, what would the kids study in "gay culture"? I've got nothing against these tendencies, but I don't think it would help our decadent system anyway. And I agree with Fenixpollo


 You'll have to be more specific, PotP, about what I said that you agree with -- because "gay culture" studies are not a joke; they are for real, and I don't think it's a bad thing for people to learn to accept other people who are different from them.

P.S., PotP -- relax, dude.  Elaine was not personally attacking you.


----------



## fenixpollo

MarcB said:
			
		

> ...Irish Catholics outnumber English Protestants. Catholics are the largest religious sect in the US although the combination of all protestant sects is a slight majority in 2006 (historically the numbers were greater).


 I don't think I misquoted you, Mark, although maybe I went too far by using the word "silly".  Perhaps I was reacting to your odd phrase "English Protestants", because I have no idea what that means (are there churches with that name where you live?).
 
While I agree with you that Catholicism is the largest Christian sect, I don't see how you can argue that _Irish_ Catholics outnumber other ethnic groups within the Catholic church in the U.S.  In any case, I don't see what religious affiliation or the "chicken and the egg" have to do with the subject of this thread.


----------



## tvdxer

As far as I know, _The Daily Show_ is a comedy-news program, so it was probably just silly satire that you saw .  

Personally, I would be strongly opposed to having my children learn "gay history" in school.  For me, and a large percentage of Americans, homosexuality is a disordered inclination, and the actions that result from it are immoral and deviant.  That does not mean I hate homosexuals; actually, I love them, and pray for them, and I would want my children to do the same.  But the naïvete of thinking that loving all also includes accepting all lifestyles is dangerous.


----------



## ElaineG

> As far as I know, _The Daily Show_ is a comedy-news program, so it was probably just silly satire that you saw .


 
It was the Tonight Show, but yes, the point is the same.



> For me, and a large percentage of Americans, homosexuality is a disordered inclination, and the actions that result from it are immoral and deviant.


 
Thankfully, the number of Americans who hold such views are shrinking, if slowly, over time. http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lwnews179.htm. It is very sad that in this day and age there are still those who see love between two human beings (presumably created by God to be that way) as "disordered."

I will pray for you, Tvdexer, very hard.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Personally, I would be strongly opposed to having my children learn "gay history" in school.


Hatred is usually based in ignorance.  Why wouldn't you want your children to learn that homosexuals were persecuted for hundreds of years?  You say you love and pray for them.  Why not also expose your children to some facts...such as, that many people don't love them and pray for them, but excoriate them, as they do members of all minorities?

Studying gay history, whatever that may be, is not to promote or advocate homosexuality.  It is simply to learn about some substantial minority of the human population.

Ignorance may be bliss for you, but I see it as a defect to be corrected by knowledge.  I don't hate narrow-minded people, but I do believe we should all pray for their salvation from ignorance.


----------



## MarcB

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I don't think I misquoted you, Mark, although maybe I went too far by using the word "silly". Perhaps I was reacting to your odd phrase "English Protestants", because I have no idea what that means (are there churches with that name where you live?).[/font][/color]
> 
> While I agree with you that Catholicism is the largest Christian sect, I don't see how you can argue that _Irish_ Catholics outnumber other ethnic groups within the Catholic church in the U.S. In any case, I don't see what religious affiliation or the "chicken and the egg" have to do with the subject of this thread.


It means English Protestants, no more no less. I repeat the point was that perceptions do not always tell the whole story. No attack on English Protestants. Since with gay studies posters mentioned other groups some of whom are and are not minorities, I mentioned what I did. I merely wanted to say that studies should not exclude anyone as they had in the past but also I think they should not be apart, instead taught together with the information already in the curriculum.


----------



## fenixpollo

Oh, I see... Were you trying to say that even though women are considered a minority group, there are more of them then men, and therefore not in a minority; and likewise Catholics are considered a minority but there are really more of them than (any one sect of) Protestants?  Maybe instead of "English Protestants" you should have said "Anglo-Saxon Protestants" to make it more clear that you were distinguishing between the WASP majority and Catholic minority.  By mentioning Irish, though, you confused the issue.

Even if you had been clear, however, you still would have been wrong.  One definition of the word "majority" is "the group with power".  Women are a minority not because there are fewer of them than men (as you pointed out), but because they have been treated as second-class citizens in most Western cultures throughout history -- as have homosexuals.


----------



## Outsider

heidita said:
			
		

> Should you study culture according to the colour of your skin or sexual preferences?


Sure, why not? There are all sorts of perspectives for studying history.
In recent years, I've noticed an explosion of history books devoted to specific topics you wouldn't dream of hearing about a couple of years ago: the history of clothing, the history of underwear, the history of food... What's wrong with one more?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I look forward to the day when universities will offer courses on literature, religion etc. across the curriculum which include female writers _as a matter of course_; culture classes which include gay figures _as a matter of course_; history classes which include native American history _as a matter of course_; and demonstrate our commonality - as a matter of course.

Why, oh why, is there this emphasis on neat little pigeonholes instead of a realization that we all drink from the same wellspring?


----------



## fenixpollo

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> Why, oh why, is there this emphasis on neat little pigeonholes instead of a realizatoin that we all drink from the same wellspring?


 Because some people feel that the well becomes contaminated with impurities if *certain types* drink from the same water.


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Because some people feel that the well becomes contaminated with impurities if *certain types* drink from the same water.



Contamination is in the taste buds of the consumer, not in the well water.


----------



## heidita

I wonder how a "politically incorrect" statement like Tvdxter's can cause so much uproar.

I do belive that he must be very convinced of his believes to state them openly while many might think the same and do not dare "swim against the stream" ( do you say: nadar contra corriente this way?).

I also think that his believes should be just as accepted as others , as if we do not do so, we are just as prejudiced.

Or do we only accept the opinions which suit us?


----------



## timpeac

heidita said:
			
		

> I wonder how a "politically incorrect" statement like Tvdxter's can cause so much uproar.
> 
> I do belive that he must be very convinced of his believes to state them openly while many might think the same and do not dare "swim against the stream" ( do you say: nadar contra corriente this way?).
> 
> I also think that his believes should be just as accepted as others , as if we do not do so, we are just as prejudiced.
> 
> Or do we only accept the opinions which suit us?


 
Hmmm, do you really mean that Heidita? You really think we should _accept_ every opinion there is otherwise we are prejudiced?

Well I must be very prejudiced then because I can assure you I do not accept everyone's opinion - in fact I do not accept most people's opinions without forming my own views on it first - but that doesn't mean I think they don't have the right to say it - as long as the comment isn't inflammatory or inciteful to hatred etc.


----------



## heidita

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> I look forward to the day when universities will offer courses on literature, religion etc. across the curriculum* which include female writers as a matter of course; culture classes which include gay figures as a matter of course; history classes which include native* American history _as a matter of course_; and demonstrate our commonality - as a matter of course.
> 
> Why, oh why, is there this emphasis on neat little pigeonholes instead of a realization that we all drink from the same wellspring?


 
I wonder why you say that? Do you not study literature in your country which include female or gay writers?
You certainly do so here in Spain. And I am sure you do so in Germany. I am vastly surprised at your statement.


----------



## heidita

Timpeac, I do think that tolerance is a very important item in men's life. But if you can only tolerate opinions you_ like,_ you aren't tolerant at all. 

I do not think we have to *share* the opinions of others, but, yes, tolerate them.


----------



## timpeac

heidita said:
			
		

> Timpeac, I do think that tolerance is a very important item in men's life. But if you can only tolerate opinions you_ like,_ you aren't tolerant at all.
> 
> I do not think we have to *share* the opinions of others, but, yes, tolerate them.


 
I do tolerate opinions I don't agree with (within the parameters I state above) - that doesn't mean I accept them. I tolerate that some people in all honesty believe the world is a few thousand years old, I don't accept that fact though.


----------



## fenixpollo

Important distinction: when someone says "The world is a few thousand years old", the opinion that they are stating is their interpretation of facts.  It is easy to disagree with, yet accept, that there a difference in facts. 

When someone says "homosexuality is wrong, and all homosexuals are immoral and deviant", the opinion that they are stating is a value judgement.  It is not easy for me to accept a value judgement that de-values other people.


----------



## ireney

I on the other hand cannot even tolerate much less accept opinions such as "black people are inferior" and will try my very best to make them obsolete.

edit: When I posted it fenixpolo's post wasn't there


----------



## timpeac

ireney said:
			
		

> I on the other hand cannot even tolerate much less accept opinions such as "black people are inferior" and will try my very best to make them obsolete.
> 
> edit: When I posted it fenixpolo's post wasn't there


 
Nor can I, but what I can tolerate is their right to say it (much as I may not want to be anywhere near while they do!)


----------



## ireney

timpeac that's completely different. The right to have an opinion is one of the most basic ones in a democracy.

Respecting the right to having any opinion has nothing to do with tolerating the opinion itself.


----------



## timpeac

ireney said:
			
		

> timpeac that's completely different. The right to have an opinion is one of the most basic ones in a democracy.
> 
> Respecting the right to having any opinion has nothing to do with tolerating the opinion itself.


 
Absolutely agree - but I thought it was this very distinction that was getting confused above.

It's also not only having an opinion that's a right, but also expressing it (within certain bounds).


----------



## fenixpollo

timpeac said:
			
		

> It's also not only having an opinion that's a right, but also expressing it (within certain bounds).


 Certain bounds being, of course, not whether anyone agrees with the opinion, but whether it interferes with anyone else's right to express their own opinion.  Just to clarify, in case there are doubts.  See also Thomas Paine.


----------



## timpeac

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Certain bounds being, of course, not whether anyone agrees with the opinion, but whether it interferes with anyone else's right to express their own opinion. Just to clarify, in case there are doubts. See also Thomas Paine.


Or if it incites to violence or worse (at least in the UK), or legally slanders etc, and then you have some countries that have specific laws such as not denying the holocaust happened.

I hope I haven't taken us off topic here - to be clear I was just questioning Heidita's use of "accept" above. I think if she means "right to voice" then I would agree. I don't see that I actively have any moral need to accept the comment they use their right to free speech to make.


----------



## ireney

Hmmm that's what I get from not being precise enough

Ok here's what I think:
Everyone is entitled to have any opinion even if it is a discriminting one.
Everyone is entitled to voice that opinion even if it means promoting hate.
Boundaries must be set to 'acting' upon one's beliefs since it is wrong to abuse another human because of your beliefs.

That said, I don't tolerate any discriminating idea/opinion/belief.


----------



## timpeac

ireney said:
			
		

> Everyone is entitled to voice that opinion even if it means promoting hate.


 
Well, just be aware that there are some countries - the UK is one - where incitement to hatred is illegal. The idea is that if I stir up hate so much that someone does go and act on it (and attacks-kills etc) then I have played a part in that attack.


----------



## ireney

timpeac I know that but making the distinction is sometimes hard and who is to make that distinction? (I mean what incites hate and what doesn't) 

(I believe I am derailing the conversation a bit but I thought I'd add this post anyway)


----------



## timpeac

ireney said:
			
		

> timpeac I know that but making the distinction is sometimes hard and who is to make that distinction? (I mean what incites hate and what doesn't)
> 
> (I believe I am derailing the conversation a bit but I thought I'd add this post anyway)


 
Here, a judge! But yes I agree we are going off at a tangent here, better get back to the main topic


----------



## moodywop

The trouble is that where the opinion that a sexual orientation/behaviour is immoral has been turned into state law it has led to horrific results such as these:

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/29/do2903.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/29/ixportal.html


----------



## ElaineG

The problem is that opinions have consequences. Just yesterday, here in New York, one of the most tolerant cities in the world, a man was sentenced (rightfully so) to 25 years in prison for beating and permanently disabling a gay young man whom he thought had flirted with him. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/nyregion/24cnd-hate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. The victim is permanently brain damaged and will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. 

TVDexer's calling gay people "deviant" is not the same as beating them. But it is an opinion that is part of a continuum.  We are certainly more comfortable beating someone who is "deviant," "immoral" and "decadent" than someone we view as fully valuable.

People who hold TVDexer's views have been instrumental in passing laws that deprive gay people of fundamental rights, such as marriage, that are held by every other member of our society. 

In many states, that beating victim's partner could not visit his bedside as he lay in intensive care because that is a right limited to "immediate family" -- spouses, parents and children. That outrage against civil society is a direct consequence of opinions like that held by TvDexer.

On the other hand, I deprive TvDexer of no rights by failing to tolerate his opinion. He can send his children to a private school, and have them taught what ever he likes, he can choose not to have gay sex, and he can even choose not to befriend gay people. 

I firmly believe that all human beings are created equal. Beliefs that derogate that from that fundamental principle are not worthy of tolerance.

As a German, Heidita, how comfortable would you be with someone saying that Jews were deviant, that they would not want their children exposed to Jewish values, and they would work actively for legislation to limit Jews' rights to form families, enjoy tax benefits, immigration benefits, etc. on a par with the rest of society? Would you be prejudiced if you failed to tolerate that view?


----------



## timpeac

moodywop said:
			
		

> The trouble is that where the opinion that a sexual orientation/behaviour is immoral has been turned into state law it has led to horrific results such as these:
> 
> http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/29/do2903.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/29/ixportal.html


 
That's disgusting and terrible, yes - but no one, including TVDXer, has suggested that such an opinion should become law, have they?

Edit - thanks Elaine, you've completely answered my question before I even asked it!


----------



## moodywop

timpeac said:
			
		

> no one, including TVDXer, has suggested that such an opinion should become law, have they?


 
No, of course not. But that kind of opinion(or theological dogma) shares much with the ideology on which the inhuman laws in some countries are based on


----------



## Bonjules

To bring the discussion back a little to its origin: The fact that we feel a need to create a program for 'gay studies' or gay culture is, of course nothing but an admission that we have failed not only to give appropriate credit to the numerous contributions homosexuals have made in all areas of society (even the military!), but also that we are still struggling with  issues of basic tolerance, esp. when it comes -
god forbid -to sexuality. As it was with race, gender, you name it. All these movements ('Black studies', Womens studies' etc.) are the feeble attempts to counteract our tendency to discriminate and exclude(which is not to say that they are not better than nothing) which is as innate as our love of apple pie or greasy foods: There was an evolutionary (survival-)advantage to it;  To be reminded of that fact  in a world where we increasingly have to live in close,crowded contact creates the kind of anxieties and hostilities we see in this discussion: It's not so much fun to see what we see when we look into the mirror.
saludos
bj


----------



## timpeac

Bonjules said:
			
		

> To bring the discussion back a little to its origin: The fact that we feel a need to create a program for 'gay studies' or gay culture is, of course nothing but an admission that we have failed not only to give appropriate credit to the numerous contributions homosexuals have made in all areas of society (even the military!), but also that we are still struggling with issues of basic tolerance, esp. when it comes -
> god forbid -to sexuality. As it was with race, gender, you name it. All these movements ('Black studies', Womens studies' etc.) are the feeble attempts to counteract our tendency to discriminate and exclude(which is not to say that they are not better than nothing) which is as innate as our love of apple pie or greasy foods: There was an evolutionary (survival-)advantage to it; To be reminded of that fact in a world where we increasingly have to live in close,crowded contact creates the kind of anxieties and hostilities we see in this discussion: It's not so much fun to see what we see when we look into the mirror.
> saludos
> bj


 
Ah, I think you might be assuming a bit much there about what such courses are about. I think that more than just highlighting certain artforms that have been created by gay people in order to give them a bit more recognition (a point I don't really accept - there have been loads of known and celebrated gay artists) I think it is more just looking at gaydom as a phenomenon etc. In other words, not studying it in order to make up for it having been undervalued in the past, but studying it because it is interesting and worthy of study.

I think there are direct parallels with studying "black issues" or "women's issues" - yes, there is an element of "let's celebrate these things", but also I think there is a large element of "what is it that makes these things tick?" "what can we learn about humans generally from this subsection".


----------



## heidita

I have an update on the discussion, heard on fox news, which I hope you consider a serious source:

There is a bill on the senate in Florida, California, which will make Gay Studies a *mandatory class* for students. (this is the exact wording)

and this is the exact wording of the bill in text

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/04/040706calEd.htm

So, I think we can forget about it being just a joke.



I think that changes from being an optional subject quite a bit. Why one should study: women's literature, gay literature, black literature, men's literature .......all apart from each other which this will probably lead to is just too much for my little understanding.


----------



## ElaineG

That's not what the article says at all. 

The article states: "Her bill would require that the contributions of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, like other underrepresented groups, be included in social science curriculum."
 
Any implication that "gay studies" is going to be a separate subject is just not there.  It sounds like the bill simply requires that the history and accomplishments of gay people be addressed as _part of the regular social science cirriculum._

I quote again: 





> One student who testified in favor of the bill said that *when students learn about the people who shaped history they seldom hear that many of those people were gay.*
> "I believe that many of society's values are rooted in education, *and with an inclusive and more diverse curriculum, we can break down the stereotypes* that are obstructing the way to acceptance for all," said Juliana Spector, a senior from Piedmont High School in Oakland.


 
Here's another article (an editorial advocating for the bill): http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=36806

It's clear that no one is talking about a separate subject, but merely ensuring that gay history is addressed as part of the existing cirriculum.


----------



## badgrammar

Just my two cents: While I am definitively in favor of gay and lesbian unions and have always had many, many gay and lesbian friends and neighbors, I am AGAINST teaching kids in mandatory elementary and high school classes that the history and culture of gay and lesbian people is somehow seperate from that of the rest of the country.  That is some kind of post-segregationist theory that sounds counter-constructive to me.

While I would think it very positive to INCLUDE in all history and social studies classes, where pertinent and instructive, information about GLBT history and culture.   If it is relevant to bring a person's sexual orientation into focus to better understand their role in history or their works, then so be it.  

If there are some major GLBT events in history (like the killings of a dozen gay men in that bar in NYC way back when, what was it "Stone's"?, or the persecution of gays by the Third Reich, or the sexual orientation of authors which better explain their works, or the perception of homosexuality in Ancient Greece, etc.)...  Well then, why not just teach them as they come up in the study of a country or time period? 

Perhaps what is really being propposed is that there be a a section - a few days spent - covering GLBT studies, within the course of a regular social studies/culture class?  I just can't imagine kids studying it for a whole semester...

Elaine, just read your post... The difference is indeed in reading the texts thoroughly before jumping to conclusions.  Good work!


----------



## cuchuflete

Example of the sort of thing I think should be included in a literature class:  Oscar Wilde, who wrote works with homoerotic themes, was arrested and sentenced to hard labor for his homsexuality.  This is not just a biographical aside, but something that clearly influenced the literature he produced.  
Not all writing by gay authors is "gay literature", any more than all novels by female writers belongs in a "Womens' studies" course, but there are times when part of a person's makeup is pertinent to an academic course.

This is not political kerrectitude, but academic rigor, IF applied with common sense, rather than an agenda of advocacy.
Perhaps the reason many people object to such teachings is the not infrequent 'hijacking' of topics by groups that lack academic rigor.


----------



## ElaineG

This article further clarifies that what is being discussed is adding a recognition of gay history to general textbooks (not a separate class, or area of study):




> "The goal is to have students, when they learn about history, to learn about all the history and not have one group excluded. No one benefits from erasing an entire group from the history of the nation and the world."


 

The article goes on to explain the benefits of such an approach: 


> An American Academy of Pediatrics policy states that environments critical of gay people interfere with the development of gay youth. And a 2003 Preventing School Harassment Study by the California Safe Schools Coalition found that school climate improves and students feel safer and experience less name-calling and other harassment at schools where gay and lesbian issues are taught.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/16/TEXTBOOKS.TMP

I recommend that anyone interested in the issue read the whole article. It also reports the views of those opposed.


----------



## lizzeymac

timpeac said:
			
		

> I remember at my university there was an option called "queer studies" which was just about gay "culture" (still can't think of an alternative for that word!)



Hi
Just a clarification.  In the United States a college course named "Queer Studies" would imply politically active & gay (lesbian/bisexual etc.) studies - political & social history rather then being about the "sex" part of being gay.  It is about human rights: adoption rights for homosexuals, legalized same sex partnership, etc.  It is a movement that has reclaimed or taken back the word queer from those who use it as a slur, like the Black Power movement in the 1960s using "black".  It is associated with a more radical, aggressive approach to political action, like the AIDS activist organizations ACT UP. Queer Culture is usually associated with a younger generation who, thanks to those who came before them, have grown up in somewhat more liberal times, who have generally come out to themselves & others (acknowledged their sexual orientation) at an earlier age, live openly as homosexuals in many or all aspects of their life, and refuse to accept second class status in society. 
Just something to think about.


----------



## timpeac

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Hi
> Just a clarification. In the United States a college course named "Queer Studies" would imply politically active & gay (lesbian/bisexual etc.) studies - political & social history rather then being about the "sex" part of being gay. It is about human rights: adoption rights for homosexuals, legalized same sex partnership, etc. It is a movement that has reclaimed or taken back the word queer from those who use it as a slur, like the Black Power movement in the 1960s using "black". It is associated with a more radical, aggressive approach to political action, like the AIDS activist organizations ACT UP. Queer Culture is usually associated with a younger generation who, thanks to those who came before them, have grown up in somewhat more liberal times, who have generally come out to themselves & others (acknowledged their sexual orientation) at an earlier age, live openly as homosexuals in many or all aspects of their life, and refuse to accept second class status in society.
> Just something to think about.


I'm sure that's what it means here - I doubt any of the courses are "about the sex part" of being gay!! I wish I'd read a synopsis of the course now, but I always imagined it would be what you describe above plus cultural influences both on gays and gays on general culture.


----------



## badgrammar

Interesting development in Masachussetts, where a book on gay families/alternative family structures was distributed to second graders as part of a "diversity book bag".  When one child took the books home and his parents (devoout Christians) saw it, they filed a suit. You can read it here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/04/28/gay.marriage.schools.ap/index.html.

Personally, if my children's school distributed this material, I would be okay with that, as they are already well-aware of the existence of gay couples and children whose parents are gay, including close friends and neighbors.  For me it's not a problem.

But I can certainly understand how it could be a problem for some to see that material come home in their kid's schoolbag, with no warning, and no chance to speak to their children about it first.  Nothing was mentioned before the children are simply offered the book.  I think parents should have been told beforehand that the subject would be coming up, so that they could prepare their kids as they see fit.  Parents do still have the right to raise their kids according to their own values, don't they?  Even if they are not politically correct?  

I don't really know if I want the state in my or my neighbors' bedrooms.  Discussing homosexuality when kids are taking sex ed later on is one thing - but distributing info about gay mariage to 7 year olds really seems like it's jumping the gun.  I agree with the parents inthis case - the state education system stepped out of bounds here.


----------



## maxiogee

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Interesting development in Masachussetts, where a book on gay families/alternative family structures was distributed to second graders as part of a "diversity book bag".  When one child took the books home and his parents (devoout Christians) saw it, they filed a suit. You can read it here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/04/28/gay.marriage.schools.ap/index.html.



I'm always intrigued at the things parents object to their children being 'exposed' to.
If something is legal can anyone object to it being included in educational material?
How much cottonwool do we expect ourselves to be allowed to wrap around our children?
Can we really expect to shield them from reality for all of their childhood?
We must remember that childhood as a time of innocence and lack of responsibilities is a relatively recent invention.
I suppose my basic point is really this…
If a gay couple is bringing up a child can they object to seeing that child only exposed to heterosexual relationships in all the educational material it comes across throughout its schooldays? 
If they can, then the heterosexual couple next door must expect that _their_ child will be exposed to depictions of homosexual 'families'.


----------



## timpeac

And I doubt they are going into any biological specifics, probably just saying "there are some people like this around". What's the problem with that? Most fear comes from ignorance after all.


----------



## heidita

In Spain there was an enormous uproar because books were distributed among children between 6 and 12 o sexual education, including some gay material. Parents protested against this and the books were taken back and its distribution stopped.

Do you think it is right that children of such short age should be taught in the way the book did?

Please look at this link.

http://iglesia.libertaddigital.com/articulo.php/1276231670

http://www.libertaddigital.com/php3/opi_desa.php3?cpn=11666


----------



## GenJen54

Hi Guys, 

Sorry to butt in here. Let me please remind you of Heidi's original query:



> I thought this must be a joke, but it is obviously true. Do you believe in this? Will we have children study items like homosexual culture opposed to heterosexual culture?
> 
> I think it is outrageous to make a distinction like this. What are your opinions.



Thank you.


----------



## maxiogee

Culture is culture. 
You cannot compartmentalise it. 

I would not want a child of mine to learn only a part of their nation's culture - culture in as broad and as varied a range as the curriculum can manage to cope with.
I'm don't see myself as bigotted, and I'd hate to think I was ignorant, but I am well aware that my knowledge of the lives & beliefs of many of those who share this small island with me is minimal. I would hope that a state-sponsored education system would be constantly broadening its content so as to address that and give future generations a better understanding of their fellows than I have of mine.

My lack of knowledge is the place where bigotry and prejudice take root! That must be stamped out, forcibly and against the 'wishes' of parents if necessary.
It's not as if anyone is going to tell Little Maxiogee that they must conform to idea I find repulsive or repugnant, all we're talking about is telling him that these ideas are held or that certain practices occur. Truth cannot be wrong. Maybe I might be allowed to have a legitimate say in what age Maxi-Minor ought to be when he hears of some of this.


----------



## gaer

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Interestingly, Jay Leno (the host of the Tonight Show, the show that Heidita saw the joke that spawned this thread) is currently being criticized by a leading gay playwright for his repeated gay jokes on his show.
> 
> The playwright's perspective makes for interesting reading: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid30116.asp


I think the letter you linked to was quite eloquent, including the one "f***" word.  I suspect that Leno has no axe to grind but simply goes for the "quick laugh". This does not make what he does right.

As others have said, I'm not quite sure what "gay culture" is, unless it refers to the history of gays, which to me is a different matter. I have a suspicion that most people think that "gay culture" in the US is something related to shows such as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", or life in a few places in the US—Key West or San Francisco, for instance.

As for culture itself: if you removed all the plays, books, music, painting, sculpture, etc. created by gays from our world, I suspect the difference would be beyond most people's belief. 

Gaer


----------



## vince

badgrammar said:
			
		

> but distributing info about gay mariage to 7 year olds really seems like it's jumping the gun.  I agree with the parents inthis case - the state education system stepped out of bounds here.



No it wouldn't, if the book was only spreading awareness that loving couples of two men and two women do exist in this world. No mention of sex needs to be involved. If this was what the book was about, then I salute the state education system for educating kids about this while they're young instead of 
learning about it through gossip and rumors and start seeing it as something to gawk and poke fun at.

Seven-year-olds are aware of heterosexual marriages and do not associate it with male-female sexual intercourse, so there is no reason why the concept of homosexual marriages can't be taught as a mutual commitment between two mutually-loving adults without mentioning sexuality.


----------



## ireney

What my idea of what gay culture studies should be about has to do with the following:

One of the greatest modern Greek poets and my personal favourite is Kavafis (1863-1933). He was gay. He suffered throughout his life because of that fact and of his never been able to really 'come out of the closet'.
Some of his greater poems have nothing to do with his being gay and much to do with his being Greek. Some other of his greater poems have everything to do with his being gay.

The problem is that, in school, before teaching any of the former (the latter do not appear in any textbook _of course_), a teacher has to first deal with the "Oh c'mon! He was a (put your 'favourite' derogatory term for a gay man)" that more than half the students audibly utter dismissing his work before even reading it, just because he was gay. 

Even junior-high students. They may know next to nothing about sex but they seem to know everything about prejudice.


----------



## timpeac

ireney said:
			
		

> What my idea of what gay culture studies should be about has to do with the following:
> 
> One of the greatest modern Greek poets and my personal favourite is Kavafis (1863-1933). He was gay. He suffered throughout his life because of that fact and of his never been able to 'come out of the closet'.
> Some of his greater poems have nothing to do with his being gay and much to do with his being Greek. Some other of his greater poems have everything to do with his being gay.
> 
> The problem is that, in school, before teaching any of the former (the latter do not appear in any textbook _of course_), a teacher has to first deal with the "Oh c'mon! He was a (put your 'favourite' derogatory term for a gay man)" that more than half the students audibly utter dismissing his work before even reading it, just because he was gay.
> 
> Even junior-high students. They may know next to nothing about sex but they seem to know everything about prejudice.


Very well put, Ireney. I remember that when my teacher taught bodas de sangre by Lorca - he said that being gay was "virtually obligatory" for poets and playwrites at the time (!)


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> a teacher has to first deal with the "Oh c'mon! He was a (put your 'favourite' derogatory term for a gay man)" that more than half the students audibly utter dismissing his work before even reading it, just because he was gay.



Well it is a well-known fact that people who don't think like "we" do have no right to be writing, cannot be writing anything worth reading, and definitely shouldn't be on a school curriculum!  

Bigotry —> putting the "die" in diversity!


----------



## badgrammar

Respectfully folks, and as the mother of two children, both of whom have grown up knowing children with two moms or two dads, and to whom I have never found it difficult to explain that two women or two men love eachother and can form a family, I can understand why some parents would not appreciate the actions of the state board of education in this case.

Perhaps, Max, you do not like to see others "cottonwool" their children.  And I quite agree.  But I do believe parents should still have some idea of what's going to be presented in school, so that they can prepare their children for it.  I guess I just think that subject is a strange one for a class of 7 year-olds, but that's probably because I feel it's normal to have these discussions at home, starting the first time they ask "Why did Gertrude kiss Fannie like in the movies at their Christmas party?" or "Mama, who is Louis' Daddy?".  When you explain to a 2-3 year old, they have no problem accepting it.

But maybe I live in a pretty liberal little community here, so sometimes I forget that not everyone is exposed to diversity during their childhoods.  Still, kids don't need to grow up too fast, and don't always need too much information too soon.

Just my humble opinion on the matter...


----------



## lizzeymac

timpeac said:
			
		

> Very well put, Ireney. I remember that when my teacher taught bodas de sangre by Lorca - he said that being gay was "virtually obligatory" for poets and playwrites at the time (!)



I was speaking to a friend of mine, an english literature teacher, about this topic.  She teaches in a public high school in an politically moderate upper middle class suburb of New York City.  She is teaching poetry to sophmores (15 & 16 year olds), including the poets Lorca & Walt Whitman.  She tells me that as some of the students in her class are under the age of 16,  she may not volunteer any information about the sexual inclinations/activities or living situation (cohabitation) of the authors.  If the students ask her a direct question about it she may only say either "Yes, Walt Whitman identified himself as a homosexual" or "No, he did not identify himself as ...." then must change the topic or tell them to ask their parents.  They do not teach any of the poems that allude to homosexual romantic or sexual matters  and some of the most beautiful poems are excluded, but of course the kids can buy an anthology or look on the internet & they read them anyway but can't discuss them with their teacher.  
It is not that the teacher wants to have a graphic sexual discussion in her class but the fact that she may not even discuss how the authors emotional experiences of love, loss & alienation affect their writings simply because they are not heretosexual experiences.  A reasonably discreet discussion of how Henry Miller's relationship with both his wife June & Anais Nin affected their creative expression was deemed acceptable by the school board but acknowledging what Oscar Wilde was convicted of that got him sent to jail was not acceptable, even though the wonderful poem he wrote about that experience is in their textbook.  These same kids are reading The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski, an important, wonderful book but full of horrific violence & prejudices that would give anyone nightmares.
It seems we are able to agree on age-appropriate & discreet ways to discuss heterosexual relationships (and religion and race and politics) when the issue comes up in school classes without causing children emotional trauma & confusion. 
Do you think it is impossible to find the same language to discuss homosexual relationships?
Is ackowledging that homosexuals are & always have been a part of the the human community the same as "advocating" or "promoting" homosexuality to children?  Many Americans seem to think it is.
I guess these people think these are all heterosexual children?

-


----------



## timpeac

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Is ackowledging that homosexuals are & always have been a part of the the human community the same as "advocating" or "promoting" homosexuality to children? Many Americans seem to think it is.
> I guess these people think these are all heterosexual children?
> 
> -


I think you've put your finger on an important concern of some people - as if learning that gay people can do something "good" will influence their children to become so (I can't think of any evidence that would support such a concern - indeed since heterosexual images and models are everywhere it would suggest that that should influence all children to be straight!). The trouble is that if you simply do not mention that x or y great person was gay then children grow up only hearing of the concept gay in a very restricted and often negative context. And as I said before ignorance breeds fear, and I can't see how that is healthy for society as a whole.

I must say that I am surprised that New York has such as restriction - we don't here as far as I know. It seems rather ridiculous and outrageous to me - do they have the same restriction on not mentioning what colour skin a certain writer had, etc?


----------



## lizzeymac

timpeac said:
			
		

> I think you've put your finger on an important concern of some people - as if learning that gay people can do something "good" will influence their children to become so (I can't think of any evidence that would support such a concern - indeed since heterosexual images and models are everywhere it would suggest that that should influence all children to be straight!). The trouble is that if you simply do not mention that x or y great person was gay then children grow up only hearing of the concept gay in a very restricted and often negative context. And as I said before ignorance breeds fear, and I can't see how that is healthy for society as a whole.
> 
> I must say that I am surprised that New York has such as restriction - we don't here as far as I know. It seems rather ridiculous and outrageous to me - do they have the same restriction on not mentioning what colour skin a certain writer had, etc?



And I think you understand this problem very well - what will a child think if the only information they are given on "different" people is what they see on TV (Heaven help them) or perhaps from an older conservative family member.  The point is not to promote "alternative lifestyles" (stupid phrase) but to prepare children to think & make informed choices & live respectfully with others.  I am amazed that people think if a young adult is told that condoms or gay people exist they will take it as an invitation to have sex or gay sex.  Have they noticed that teenagers have been having sex for as long as there have been teenagers?  If a teenager has self respect & respects their familys' values & has an understanding of the choices & the repercussions of sexual behavior they will be able to make decisions they can be proud of & live healthily with, whatever those choices are.  

Many, perhaps most, American suburbs are regionally homogenous & it isn't until a kid goes off to college or the workplace that they meet "different" people.  Who could be surprised that they feel unsure of how to relate to them.  Social skills & attitudes are learned & we shouldn't pretend it is otherwise.  Look at American movies - you can shoot a naked person but the naked people can't make love on screen - violence is OK, sexuality is not.  We are still Puritans in many ways.

Many people think NY is thoroughly liberal but the suburbs are often only liberal in amazingly conformist ways about chic tasteful things & inner city schools often don't have enough money in their budget for any kind of health or human studies classes. 

The best you can say about New York City is that while we may not always be liberal we hope to be tolerant.

-


----------



## heidita

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> it is otherwise.* Look at American movies - you can shoot a naked person but the naked people can't make love on screen - violence is OK, sexuality is not. We are still Puritans in many ways.*
> 
> 
> -


 
I have always been amazed at this ridiculous hypocrisy: you  can buy  a gun at any corner, so violence is perfect, but you cannot show a naked person on TV. I have even seen Americans criticize European TV where you see naked people all the time. In Spain, actually, there are two national serials with great success on TV, where the gay concept is perfectly clear and talked about. And this happening in such a catholic country!!!!Unthinkable some years ago...

In any case I have no understand for a separate "gay studies" subject anywhere, but I do think the fact that a certain author was gay (like García Lorca) should be mentioned while studying his literature.


----------



## maxiogee

heidita said:
			
		

> I have always been amazed at this ridiculous hypocrisy: you  can buy  a gun at any corner, so violence is perfect, but you cannot show a naked person on TV.



I spent just two weeks in the US, a few years ago.
I saw no guns but on the hips of policemen, and I did see nudity on TV, in appropriate situations.

I must have been standing on the wrong street corners, but then again, they were "any" street corners, and I must definitely have been watching alien TV.

*Why* is there such a desire among non-Americans for Americans to be able to see naked bodies?


----------



## heidita

That's not true Maxi, as nobody pretends to have anybody see any naked bodies on TV. I didn't say I agreed with the showing of naked bodies...
But I seem to have a problem with hypocrisy...
I didn't see any gun shop either, but then I wasn't  looking .....


----------

