California FAIR Education Act, or teaching 'gay history'

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**micahaphone**

Melissia, while I agree that the best way to get people to learn is to make them enjoy it, nothing short of brainwashing in kindergarten will be able to do this. You can't customize people's personalities like that.

And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history? No offense to homosexuals, but people were so forced to hide it that I don't think you'll be able to find much data before the 1900s, or you'll have to teach a lot of speculation, like "Queen Elizabeth might have been a lesbian", or "Shakespeare wrote some sonnets to men/from a woman's perspective, maybe he was gay?"

**Frazzled**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Melissia wrote:Stop claiming I support the class in the OP when I repeatedly and specifically said that I don't.

My apologies.
I am now confused what exactly you are supporting then.

Are you saying this law is not good? Your statements about indoctrinating the students to welcome homosexuality appeared to support the purpose of the law.

I am not being snide. I am honestly apologizing if I misunderstood, though I am still a little doubtful that I actually did.

I'm confused as well. What are you advocating?

**Ahtman**

micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?

It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.

**micahaphone**

Ahtman wrote:
micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?

It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.

Sorry, my mistake for being confused. If gay people did something significant, let it be taught. I was taught all of the above in my American History class. Maybe California currently has a more conservative view in its curriculum?

**Monster Rain**

When you put it that way, Ahtman, this whole thing seems like sensationalistic, manufactured controversy.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Ahtman wrote:
micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?

It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.

Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing? His work would apply, but his person life and problems post war are not really vital to WWII history. No more than taking time out for Patton post war situation, or Montgomery's. See the problem. it does not serve to educate the student about WWII, but serves to make a statement on homosexuality.

Compound that by every period or lesson plan and you end up with a mess for the students/teachers.

**Frazzled**

Leave no special interest group behind!

Senate Bill No. 48
CHAPTER 81
An act to amend Sections 51204.5, 51500, 51501, 60040, and 60044 of
the Education Code, relating to instruction.
[Approved by Governor July 13, 2011. Filed with
Secretary of State July 14, 2011.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 48, Leno. Pupil instruction: prohibition of discriminatory content.
Existing law requires instruction in social sciences to include a study of
the role and contributions of both men and women and specified categories
of persons to the development of California and the United States.
This bill would update references to certain categories of persons and
additionally would require instruction in social sciences to include a study
of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other cultural groups,
to the development of California and the United States.
Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities that
promote a discriminatory bias because of race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry. Existing law prohibits the State Board of
Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting
textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects
adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions
by referring to race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and
sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law prohibits a governing board of a school district from adopting
instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon
persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex,
handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian or denominational
doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in this provision
to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual
orientation, and occupation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law requires that when adopting instructional materials for use
in the schools, governing boards of school districts shall include materials
that accurately portray the role and contributions of culturally and racially
diverse groups including Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican
Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, and members of other
ethnic and cultural groups to the total development of California and the
United States.
96
This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse groups to
also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Americans, and persons with disabilities.
Existing law provides that there shall be no discrimination on the basis
of specified characteristics in any operation of alternative schools or charter
schools.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that alternative and
charter schools take notice of the provisions of this bill in light of provisions
of existing law that prohibit discrimination in any aspect of their operation.
This bill also would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 51204.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51204.5. Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of
California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women,
Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian
Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other
ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development
of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis
on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.
SEC. 2. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51500. A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall
not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of
race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation,
or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
SEC. 3. Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51501. The state board and any governing board shall not adopt any
textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that
contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race
or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or
because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
SEC. 4. Section 60040 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60040. When adopting instructional materials for use in the schools,
governing boards shall include only instructional materials which, in their
determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our
society, including:
(a) The contributions of both men and women in all types of roles,
including professional, vocational, and executive roles.
(b) The role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans,
Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European
Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with
disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups to the total
development of California and the United States.
96
Ch. 81 — 2 —
(c) The role and contributions of the entrepreneur and labor in the total
development of California and the United States.
SEC. 5. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60044. A governing board shall not adopt any instructional materials
for use in the schools that, in its determination, contain:
(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or
ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation,
occupation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
(b) Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to
law.
SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature that alternative and charter
schools take notice of the provisions of this act in light of Section 235 of
the Education Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or other
specified characteristics in any aspect of the operation of alternative and
charter schools.
O
96

**micahaphone**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
micahaphone wrote:And seriously, have they found enough material to make an entire class out of gay history?

It isn't a class. They are just putting segments about gay history into courses. Talking about WWII? Might mention Alan Turing. Doing a Civil Rights section? You might mention the Stonewall riots. There is no separate class; it is just the inclusion of some information that was not included before.

Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing? His work would apply, but his person life and problems post war are not really vital to WWII history. No more than taking time out for Patton post war situation, or Montgomery's. See the problem. it does not serve to educate the student about WWII, but serves to make a statement on homosexuality.

Compound that by every period or lesson plan and you end up with a mess for the students/teachers.

For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".

**Monster Rain**

I can't imagine that even the most ardent homophobe would say that Alan Turing didn't have a part in pretty much saving the world.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

micahaphone wrote:
For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".

okay, but what does the 'gay" part have to do with anything?
Do text books currently state "Mr X did this historical thing and was straight."?
I doubt it.
So are we giving special (read unequal) treatment to one group and not the other?

There is no point to any inclusion of any sexuality (gay or straight or fetishes) in history unless sexuality is the subject matter (which is should not be in a history class). It is a tangent at best.

**micahaphone**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
micahaphone wrote:
For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".

okay, but what does the 'gay" part have to do with anything?
Do text books currently state "Mr X did this historical thing and was straight."?
I doubt it.
So are we giving special (read unequal) treatment to one group and not the other?

There is no point to any inclusion of any sexuality (gay or straight or fetishes) in history unless sexuality is the subject matter (which is should not be in a history class). It is a tangent at best.

Okay, yeah. The only relevant thing I can think of to teach would be the movements and efforts for equal rights, like the Stonewallers. I learned about them alongside other people working for equal rights, like suffragists and civil rights advocates.

**Ahtman**

Monster Rain wrote:When you put it that way, Ahtman, this whole thing seems like sensationalistic, manufactured controversy.

Perish the thought.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing?

The same way you fit anything into a survey course that is meant to teach a broad overview of a subject that you will teach for a month that one could spend years studying. One does not become a historian based solely on the information taught in High School. There are all sorts of things we teach now that we didn't 40 years ago. Women and minorities of all stripes that were overlooked have been included and so they should; these people were also instrumental in forming the fabric of our history. We pick and choose all the time what gets included.

Leave no special interest behind

That is how politics works. Get enough support and you get things accomplished. This isn't limited to them silly homosexuals. Ever heard of the NRA? Focus on The Family? Parents Television Council?

**Monster Rain**

micahaphone wrote:Okay, yeah. The only relevant thing I can think of to teach would be the movements and efforts for equal rights, like the Stonewallers. I learned about them alongside other people working for equal rights, like suffragists...

That's people from Suffragette City, right?

**Ahtman**

micahaphone wrote:For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".

You just accomplished what this bill is trying to do, you radical gay sympathizer.

**micahaphone**

Ahtman wrote:
micahaphone wrote:For Mr. Turing, give him a paragraph in the textbook, or mention the breakthrough in cryptography as an essential part of the war. Then give two sentences telling what happened to him after the war. "He deserved medals, but instead got chemically castrated for being gay. He was important in the creation of early computers and has 'the Turing Test' named after him, because he created it".

You just accomplished what this bill is trying to do, you radical gay sympathizer.

You know me: extremist to the end. Next thing you know I'll be forcing pregnant teens to get abortions while trying to hand out free prescription drugs to old people, whether they need them or not.

**darkPrince010**

micahaphone wrote:[Next thing you know I'll be forcing pregnant teens to get abortions while trying to hand out free prescription drugs to old people, whether they need them or not.

I suspect the above sentence may have induced a few certain contributors on this thread to soil themselves.

Overall, I see what Melissa is saying, and agree with her. Mandating education of certain groups does somewhat detract from the overall spectrum of material covered, but I believe the positive benefit from displaying the influence of gay people and their impact on history is fully acceptable for the purpose of displaying additional social factors for world events. Pre-Civil Rights books lacked mention in many cases of important black people and movements in history (I'd highly doubt a pre-1960s/70s General History High School textbook would have mentioned the successful slave revolts in the Bahamas, which weakened French control in the Gulf of Mexico and was a probable influence in the decision to allow the U.S. to make the purchase of the Louisiana Territory), which resulted in students being deprived of basic understandings for certain events. Looking at the textbooks we had in my high school and junior high, it was not uncommon for the paragraph of biographical info on a certain person to read "John Doe, an African-American, was a devoted Catholic who led his community to support position X during War Z." One line of text, such as mentioning those about Mr. (Dr.?) Turing would not nessessitate the removal of paragraphs about the importance of the Enigma device itself.

In 50 years, if we didn't mention ethnicity, what would set Barack Obama apart from previous and future Democratic presidents? Would his election have been entirely built upon the push for a Democratic president, or would his ethnicity have possible had an effect? Ignoring factors like this simply result in a handicapped understanding of social events. Gen. Lee, say you want to ignore the bit about Turing being castrated for being gay. Fine. Why not remove the bit about MLK being assassinated for being an influential African-American, and simply say he was killed by someone who disagreed with his ideals? Removing the factor of ethnicity or sexuality in major events of an influential person stymies the ability to understand said person's actions and motivations.

**Frazzled**

darkPrince010 wrote:
micahaphone wrote:[Next thing you know I'll be forcing pregnant teens to get abortions while trying to hand out free prescription drugs to old people, whether they need them or not.

I suspect the above sentence may have induced a few certain contributors on this thread to soil themselves.

Overall, I see what Melissa is saying, and agree with her. Mandating education of certain groups does somewhat detract from the overall spectrum of material covered, but I believe the positive benefit from displaying the influence of gay people and their impact on history is fully acceptable for the purpose of displaying additional social factors for world events. Pre-Civil Rights books lacked mention in many cases of important black people and movements in history (I'd highly doubt a pre-1960s/70s General History High School textbook would have mentioned the successful slave revolts in the Bahamas, which weakened French control in the Gulf of Mexico and was a probable influence in the decision to allow the U.S. to make the purchase of the Louisiana Territory), which resulted in students being deprived of basic understandings for certain events. Looking at the textbooks we had in my high school and junior high, it was not uncommon for the paragraph of biographical info on a certain person to read "John Doe, an African-American, was a devoted Catholic who led his community to support position X during War Z." One line of text, such as mentioning those about Mr. (Dr.?) Turing would not nessessitate the removal of paragraphs about the importance of the Enigma device itself.

In 50 years, if we didn't mention ethnicity, what would set Barack Obama apart from previous and future Democratic presidents? Would his election have been entirely built upon the push for a Democratic president, or would his ethnicity have possible had an effect? Ignoring factors like this simply result in a handicapped understanding of social events. Gen. Lee, say you want to ignore the bit about Turing being castrated for being gay. Fine. Why not remove the bit about MLK being assassinated for being an influential African-American, and simply say he was killed by someone who disagreed with his ideals? Removing the factor of ethnicity or sexuality in major events of an influential person stymies the ability to understand said person's actions and motivations.

MLK's whole being was civil rights. Turing helped kill Nazis.
But lets keep Turing and Harvey Milk. Is that it? If so who the hell cares?

**darkPrince010**

Frazzled wrote:Turing helped kill Nazis.

Right. All that computer stuff was a hobby.

I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.

**Frazzled**

darkPrince010 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Turing helped kill Nazis.

Right. All that computer stuff was a hobby.

I'm not saying we need to overwhelm the schools with only teaching about LGBTQ/African-American/Native-American/Flavor-of-the Month in classes, but iirc, the law seems to simply be enforcing the inclusion of these points so teachers can't skip them (as they probably would in several states, and possibly some schools even in California). Just as when the Civil Rights movement finally got legislation, we didn't suddenly only learn about the Black panthers and George Washington Carver for the entire year, but it did become integrated (grudgingly in some areas) into the curriculum. Did Black History Month abolish racism? Hell no (Unfortunately), but it did raise awareness of the importance of black individuals in history, and helped show that White people weren't the only ones with rich histories and important individuals.
The main reason we don't have as much rich history for the LGBTQ community atm is because it's not as visibly obvious as skin color, so it wouldn't have been as easy to track historically in the records. This doesn't mean it's less prevalent than important black individuals; It just means we know less about LGBTQ individuals in a historical context.

Sorry I thought he was the enigma guy? If not who gives a gak about him?

Again your point goes back to mine though. Absent one or two dudes its like...and? Unless their big focus was homosexual rights (like Milk or MLK) or in some way groundbreaking (first woman on the moon) their special interest doesn't mean dquat. its not...you know...historic.

**darkPrince010**

Turing was the Enigma guy. In addition to that, he had major contributions to the field of electronics and computing.

As for the non-historic angle, then why tell kids about the Native Americans as more than a footnote? They don't have any MLK-scope historical figures, and they're a vastly outnumbered minority. Sure, they have their own history, but they're such a small proportion of the population it's a complete waste to talk about them when we could be teaching more algebra and grammar to the students.

[^ end bluescript

]

**Melissia**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not being snide [snip] though I am still a little doubtful that I actually [misunderstood].

... so yes, you ARE being snide. I should probably just put you on my ignore list, but I'm givin' ya the benefit of he doubt and instead...

I quote myself:

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:Is it better than personal finance?
Better? Why not have both?

I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.

Isn't actually reading instead of merely skimming a post fun?

**Gen. Lee Losing**

darkPrince010 wrote:Why not remove the bit about MLK being assassinated for being an influential African-American, and simply say he was killed by someone who disagreed with his ideals? Removing the factor of ethnicity or sexuality in major events of an influential person stymies the ability to understand said person's actions and motivations.

What did MLK? Race Equality. The racially motivated assassination is a part of that historical context. His extramarital affairs are not (and thus not mentioned).
What did Turning do? Crack a code and start computers. His trials with his sexuality are not a part of that historical context.

If the class were on him alone (or another homosexual person), than yes it is a big part of his (their) personal story. But it is not a big part of the history of nations. That is the point.

The class is focused on event. What people did, not who they were sleeping with. Unless we want every single person in every single history book to have a alittle biography box about their sexuality and religious beliefs. Then text books would weigh 45 lbs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not being snide [snip] though I am still a little doubtful that I actually [misunderstood].
... so yes, you ARE being snide. I should probably just put you on my ignore list, but I'm givin' ya the benefit of he doubt and instead...

I quote myself:

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:Is it better than personal finance?
Better? Why not have both?

I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.
Isn't actually reading instead of merely skimming a post fun?

You took me for snide. I apologize (again) as that was not my intention.
Given that the OT is not about a separate class, your quote about not needing a separate class does not really put you in the "against the legislation" camp directly. Combine this with your posts about instilling acceptance into children... well. Can you see how I may have been lead to a false conclusion?

**Melissia**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Can you see how I may have been lead to a false conclusion?

Yes, by not actually bothering to read the posts and instead skimming over them.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Melissia wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Can you see how I may have been lead to a false conclusion?
Yes, by not actually bothering to read the posts and instead skimming over them.

Now THAT was snide.
You rudely insist that I did not read your post. However, as I pointed out, your post does not clearly state where you stand on the OT, but you have added a lot of support for indoctrination (which appears to be the purpose of the law in the OT).
I apologized for misunderstanding your position. I still do not understand your position on the OT.

Give me a yea or nay. Do you support this law?

**darkPrince010**

@Gen. Lee: Well, if you read my earlier post, you'd have seen I gave an fictional example of how unnessesary information is still included in information on an important historical figure:

darkPrince010 wrote:Looking at the textbooks we had in my high school and junior high, it was not uncommon for the paragraph of biographical info on a certain person to read "John Doe, an African-American, was a devoted Catholic who led his community to support position X during War Z."

(While this is a fictional example, I guarantee you I could find 95+% of the basic high school history books in the US have unneeded details like this included)

Should the history books devote pages on Turing's sexuality, or MLK's religion? Probably not ,outside of a book where that volume of information would be needed. Should the history books at least mention it? Yes, or else remove all unnessesary references in the history books and pare them down a couple pages. I guarantee you legislation to this effect would get shot down by groups who want to keep the religious affiliations (as long as they aren't dirty pagans) of Captain Bill Smith or Inventor Hank Anybody intact, even if they have zero bearing on their accomplishments. Everyone has special interests, but saying some interests are more special then others is a poor choice.

Also, a bit OT, I truly don't understand why some people cannot understand the clearly-argued points of view on here, especially when said views are reiterated quite explicitly...

**Gen. Lee Losing**

darkPrince010 wrote:@Gen. Lee: Well, if you read my earlier post, you'd have seen I gave an fictional example of how unnessesary information is still included in information on an important historical figure...
Should the history books devote pages on Turing's sexuality, or MLK's religion? Probably not ,outside of a book where that volume of information would be needed. Should the history books at least mention it? Yes, or else remove all unnessesary references in the history books and pare them down a couple pages. I guarantee you legislation to this effect would get shot down by groups who want to keep the religious affiliations (as long as they aren't dirty pagans) of Captain Bill Smith or Inventor Hank Anybody intact, even if they have zero bearing on their accomplishments. Everyone has special interests, but saying some interests are more special then others is a poor choice.

Also, a bit OT, I truly don't understand why some people cannot understand the clearly-argued points of view on here, especially when said views are reiterated quite explicitly...

So we have lines on every single heterosexual that they are straight? No? but.. but... you said we should not say some special interests are more important than the others! Maybe sexuality has nothing to do with what a person does (outside of sexual things). A christian may stand against slavery based on his faith. Did Turning (sorry to abuse the poor guy but he is a good example) crack German codes to impress dudes? Of course not!

And I sincerely hope your last line was not about my understanding of Melissa. She stated that she did not support a separate class (a statement that has nothing to do with the OT) and proceeded to spout out posts to support the law in the OT, then denied being for the law in OT followed by snide remarks about my not reading her contradictory posts. I know full well where she stands on indoctrination of youth (or sociopathic brats, as she calls them) and where she stands on homosexuality. I even have a very good idea of what she thinks of politics and religions. But her posts were pro- OT law followed by a declaration against it. Such Bi-Polar posts do not make a "clearly-argued point", Sir.

**darkPrince010**

Do we have lines on every person saying they're Caucasian? No, because it's the implied majority in the US. This is why noted African-Americans in history books have their ethnicity noted, whether or not it was directly tied to their accomplishments. Not doing so might change the reader's interpretation of the person and their motivations otherwise.

As to the topics, there have been several misinterpreted posts before your discussion with Melissa. I personally believe I understood her stance clearly after her second or third post. My interpretation of her view (along with the three points you seem to be confusing) are as follows:

The law is good (1), not because it forces inclusion of gay historical figures into the teaching curriculum (2), but rather because this exposure ito these figures in the formative school environment will foster recognition and acceptance of gay individuals and their culture (3) (or at least angered tolerance in some of the more bigoted parts of the US).

Also, her comment on children is fairly accurate, as social expectations of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior and attitudes towards others does develop during the early school years. While sociopathic implies that they have rejected these social programmings (which makes it somewhat inapplicable towards children), it is in the right ballpark.

**micahaphone**

You are implied caucasian because of your avatar. I am implied to be an Emperor Tamerin. Long live the Monkey rulers!

**darkPrince010**

"And the hordes of Jokaero shall inherit Terra..."

**Monster Rain**

darkPrince010 wrote:Also, her comment on children is fairly accurate, as social expectations of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior and attitudes towards others does develop during the early school years. While sociopathic implies that they have rejected these social programmings (which makes it somewhat inapplicable towards children), it is in the right ballpark.

Sure, if you don't know anything about children or psychology.

Not having learned something yet doesn't mean that you are incapable of learning it.

Also,

Team Gen. Lee Losing.