What's new
By:

CA Senate Passes Bill Mandating Gay History in Public Schools

Maybe they can just combine gay history with black history month?

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/jackson-push-bennett-lawsuit-119861339.html

Bennett, 55, claims [Jesse] Jackson ridiculed him in front of other employees and required him to perform "humiliating tasks" like escorting women to Jackson's various hotel rooms, cleaning up after alleged trysts and packing his clothing. It also includes an allegation that Jackson asked for oral sex, according to the claim. Jackson flatly denied each claim in his response.
Click to expand...
 
Craig K. Manscill said:
I know, I agree with your logic. There are many small social issues out there not discussed in a social studies book, and therefore, arguably the largest social issue of this century is okay to be left out. There's only so much room!

- Craig
Click to expand...

Link?
 
It is about time they started teaching happy history in school. When I was there all we ever read about was the great depression, wars, pestilence, children of thalidomide, well you get the picture. We should all focus on the happy side of history because if we don't then it's bound to happen again.
 
This might be the most sarcastic thread ever on Jazz Fanz.
 
As a general rule, I'm against the state legislature mandating particular curriculums on a granular level.

However, acting like a mandate (that isn't actually law in CA yet) to include some education regarding homosexuality in society, while providing little to no guidance on amount and content of that education, is a big deal is slly.
 
bordelais7 said:
Yes, but it's a mandated foot in the door. Or in this case, a *****. A gay one.
Click to expand...

And? Is it your position that they should be excluded entirely?

I will say I'm curious how they're planning on handling this. As a practical matter, high school and jr. high history courses tend to peter out around the 1960s anyway and historical accounts of homosexuality, particularly as they apply to notable historical figures, tend to be somewhat speculative anyway. Maybe James Buchanan and William King will get a full day of coverage.
 
Sirkickyass said:
And? Is it your position that they should be excluded entirely?

I will say I'm curious how they're planning on handling this. As a practical matter, high school and jr. high history courses tend to peter out around the 1960s anyway and historical accounts of homosexuality, particularly as they apply to notable historical figures, tend to be somewhat speculative anyway. Maybe James Buchanan and William King will get a full day of coverage.
Click to expand...

No. I said nothing about my position. I just wanted to use a metaphor to create the mental image of a ***** forcing its way through a door. Just play along, sheesh.





Oh no. I just realized I'm becoming Trout.

@#$%.
 
bordelais7 said:
Oh no. I just realized I'm becoming Trout.

@#$%.
Click to expand...

Your balls just got 3 sizes bigger and you're now getting rug burns on your weenus? Just wait until the line of hotties starts forming at your front door -- your wife is going to be pissed.
 
This bill is nonsense and that kind of teaching doesn't belong in schools. My children will learn about homo's from the best source out there: MTV.
 
default said:
No comments from Katie?
Click to expand...

You know this makes me think of something completely tangential. If you get a gender-reassignment, are you then no longer gay, but simply straight? If you are a homosexual man, and you feel like you are a woman trapped in a man's body, and you get surgery to turn yourself into a woman, you are no longer a gay man, but rather a woman, so you are a heterosexual then, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top