Mandated gay education closer in California

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    July 9, 2011 5:32 p.m.

    It's obvious many of you only read the title of the article, and not the article itself, which states:

    [The bill, "would require schools to teach at all grade levels the historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."

    ...San Francisco Unified School District has offered curriculum since 1992 that is similar to what Leno's act proposes. "It's no different," Leno told the Examiner, "than instructing students about the historical role of an African-American man by the name of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., fighting for civil rights and being assassinated for his efforts than teaching students about a gay American man by the name of Harvey Milk fighting for every man's civil rights and being assassinated for his efforts."


    So stop with the 'innocent little children are being taught to be gay!' nonsense.

    And Jeff, you know perfectly well that gay couples who wish to have children, do so just exactly in the same ways that heterosexual couples who are infertile go about it.

    I didn't 'choose' to be attracted to boys. I just was. I just am. If you really believe who you are attracted to is a 'choice', then I guess you consciously chose.

  • Grandma19 Spanish Fork, UT
    July 8, 2011 9:18 p.m.

    I feel so very sorry for the sweet, innocent children upon whom this evil agenda is being forced -- they are being brainwashed, in suttle ways, that that particular lifestyle is ok. It is appalling!!! Homosexuals are NOT BORN THAT WAY!!! It is a CHOICE. I recognize that we have all been given our free agency by our Divine Creator to make choices in this life. But -- we do not have the free agency to choose the consequences of our actions, be they good or evil.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 7, 2011 10:59 p.m.

    California keeps adding wood to the fire.

  • albu1595 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 7, 2011 6:18 p.m.

    Ok take alternative sexual lifestyles out of the picture for a minute. Our education quality is arguable already not up to snuff. We are weak in math and sciences. Now we are talking about requiring people to take these types of classes. I think everyone should take classes about mormonism because people pick on us :(. Seriously? If a high school wanted to offer an elective of this nature I really don't care(like any other history elective) but making it mandatory is just pandering and not doing our children any favors.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    July 7, 2011 3:59 p.m.

    As a teacher, I could not and would not teach something to my students that I personally feel is a moral choice. I agree with the voice of others that this type of discussion has no place in an elementary school setting.
    Schools should be more about educating students the basics of reading and writing...let the moral compass issues be taught at home.

    If it passes, you will see a masive exodus of parents who leave the public school system, to either form more charter schools or you will have an influx of homeschooled children. As a parent...this type of education for young children is rediculous.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    July 7, 2011 2:21 p.m.

    re - Jeff | 1:16 p.m
    "I agree that homosexuals choose their relationships--they are not born into the compulsion to make the choice--and that comfort has much to do with it."

    please do not put words in my mouth. Gays have relationships with someone of the same sex because they are born feeling more comfortable with someone of the same sex, and to be happy they need to have that type of relationship. Of course everyone has a choice in who they are with, but I couldn't be with another man any more than (I assume) you could be. I am most comfortable in an intimate relationship with a woman. gays are born with a propensity to be most comfortable with someone of the same sex.

    I hope that clears it up for you. Of course who you are with is a choice - but feeling the way you do isn't a choice. You are born that way.

    And it never ceases to amaze me when people try to say it isn't something you are born with. I could hang out with gays my whole life and I still wouldn't be gay. how about you?

  • Go West Kearns, UT
    July 7, 2011 1:52 p.m.

    "Gay" used to mean "happy," and it still should. Please don't deign to use slang when writing a Deseret News article. Call it was it is, "homosexual behavior." Then it will not be labeling people with slang words.

  • Herbal Tea Partier Kearns, UT
    July 7, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    In Massachussetts elementary schools, they have "gay pride day." And they talk with the children about how wonderful it is and that people who disagree with it are bad and closed-minded.

    Perhaps the school had written parental consent?

    In my own experience will say things, sometimes, that pop into their heads. Which are inappropriate. They have our children for most of the day. Who knows what's being said?

    My elementary teachers said that we should do away with the 2nd Amendment. They also vented to us about their political leanings.

    In high school, a couple of history teachers voiced anti-Mormon sentiment and mocked the Church. If it was any other religion, they probably wouldn't do it. One of the teachers also said that an aborted fetus is "just a piece of meat" and of no consequence.

    These teachers obviously had no written consent to speak about such things, but they can say anything, really, and get a way with it, because most kids are naive about reporting things to the school board.

    All I can say is, "Hello Homeschool."

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    July 7, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    @charlie91342: There is much that you last wrote that I agree with. I agree that homosexuals choose their relationships--they are not born into the compulsion to make the choice--and that comfort has much to do with it.

    I am seeking a cogent definition of "gay" in order to have a cogent discussion. I don't necessarily equate "gay" with sex, but if "gay" means "homosexual," then a self-identification as "gay" carries an implicit sexual connotation. If, however, "gay" simply means effeminacy or tom-boyism, and there is no sexuality involved at all, then the discussion is completely different (hence the acceptance of domestic unions rather than marriage for many of us--a domestic union need not be sexual).

    I usually call it "same-gender marriage" rather than the other; I think it is a more proper description. Marriage, however, is--again--implicitely a sexual relationship. Even among the Greeks and Romans, who tolerated homosexuality (especially pederasty), marriage was the relationship intended to create and nurture children.

    Insofar as "love and intimacy" do not necessarily involve sexual relationships, I am supportive of domestic unions.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:59 p.m.

    As educators we are required to have written parental consent before teaching the maturation unit in elementary because it is a sensitive subject. The same written consent should be required before talking about homosexuality in school.

    It is not appropriate developmentally to be teaching any sexual unit or component in the elementary years to begin with. The maturation program for example, deals with body changes and not sexual behavior. It may be appropriate teaching some children WITH parental consent during the middle school years about homosexual and heterosexual behavior, but is a waste of instructional time when I can be teaching math, science or literature. It shows how FAR off the priorities of politicians differ with the electorate.

    In regards to bullying, there is NO reason for bullying of any kind to be occurring. If it is find ways to INCREASE supervision and stop it when it happens at school. Talk to all involved and work towards getting along. Tolerance isn't what is needed. Respect IS.

    I would be interested in seeing this curriculum for myself. I have a hunch it will advocate rather than inform.

  • Herbal Tea Partier Kearns, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:56 p.m.

    Since we're on the topic of semantics. "Sex" defines being male or female. "Gender" defines words. It's especially used in Latin-based languages. Like in Spanish or French. Nouns in those languages have masculine qualities or feminine qualities.

    "People have sex, and words have gender," as the grammar books say.

    I think a lot of people nowadays use the word gender to describe people, because they are uncomfortable using the word "sex." And I'm not implying that any commentors here shy away from using the word "sex."

    I agree with The Deuce, there is no need to bring up sexual orientation when teaching about the contributions of individuals. It's irrelevant. Just as the color of someone's skin is irrelevant.

    Charlie01342 made an interesting point too at 10:50. We shouldn't define marriage relationships based on the bedroom. It's not the only thing, but it's still important.

    And the parents should have a right to decide when it's best to bring these issues up with their kids and how to present it. And very important to follow it with, "We need to be nice to everyone, no matter what choices they make, or how they look, etc."

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    July 7, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    re - Jeff | 4:38 p.m
    "If you define the word "gay," then we might have an intelligent discussion"

    "gay" means the person would rather have a relationship with someone of the same gender as they are more comfortable in that type of relationship.

    Your problem is you equate "gay" with "sex". Tell me, how much of your relationship is based on sex? If you are married, it is probably 1 hr a week. So is that what defines your relationship?

    why does the bedroom seem to define "gay" for all religious people. Can you not understand that it is love and intimacy that defines it. and who you are most comfortable spending your time with?

    when discussing relationships with children, there is no need to bring up sex, and it would be very strange and just wrong to do so. They are kids. But it is a gender issue. Perhaps instead of calling it "same sex marriage" you should call it "same gender marriage". it really has very little to do with sex.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    July 7, 2011 9:50 a.m.

    to charlie91342: bi-sexuals choose everyday which side they will be on --on any given day or week. They prove that choice is king. I do not choose to hang around bars and night clubs and terrible music and smoke and alcohol and drugs---and that is where people meet people. Perhaps some are born to be night owls and to love darkness over the light of day.

  • nyca411 Menlo Park, CA
    July 6, 2011 10:36 p.m.

    @MaggieW: Oh the irony! Gays SWORE that they had no agenda to change the curriculum in schools to teach about homosexuality, but low and behold, they were WRONG! Oops. And you display stunning irony in saying that it is the pro-traditional marriage supporters who are "hateful." Really stunning. What about all the "hatred lobbied at" those who support Prop 8 and traditional marriage? Teaching about homosexuality and its accompanying lifestyles should be done in the home. It has no place in schools.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    July 6, 2011 6:24 p.m.

    I am from California and have lived here for a number of years. I have seen and heard this fight for too many years and am sick and tired of this issue. Why can we not simply recognize the contributions of an individual for what they are and what they mean to society? Why do we have to label it as a "Gay" person in order to recognize their contribution to history? What difference does it make and why do we have to emphasize their sexual orientation? Simply let the merit of their actions speak for themselves. If a person contributes to their community, society, nation, let it go at that and honor their work. It matters very little to me what color, sex or sexual orientation a person has if they are making a difference. What is wrong is to simply push an agenda because of sexual orientation. This actually lessens the contribution of the individual when you are trying to emphasize anything other than what they did to help. When can we simply get past this issue. Yes, I have heard all of the crap about why and it still makes no sense.

  • MaggieW ALLSTON, MA
    July 6, 2011 5:55 p.m.

    Oh, the irony. It was claimed that PropH8 was necessary to keep school children from learning about gay people. That was apparently untrue. Not only did school children learn about gay people *because of* PropH8 (all those "Yes on 8" signs the anti-gays were waving on every street corner) but now Harvey Milk day and now this law. What's more, despite all the millions contributed by Mormons and all the hatred lobbed at innocent gay people who wanted merely to marry the people they love, it appears PropH8 will ultimately go down in flames.

    And it's as it should be. If kids can learn all about straight people in school they should learn about gay people. There are, after all, gay and bisexual kids in every school. They have as much right to learn their own history as every other kid. They have the right to be treated fairly as every other kid, despite what some people think.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    July 6, 2011 4:38 p.m.

    @ charlie91342This is vastly different from desegregation and teaching about other races. Homosexuality is a completely sexual identification. There is no way to explain homosexuality except in terms of sexuality, and sexuality is not appropriate for most school-age children.

    If you define the word "gay," then we might have an intelligent discussion. What do you mean "no one chooses to be gay"? Do you mean no one chooses whom they will have sex with? Or no one chooses to have gender identity issues? Or no one chooses whom they will be attracted to?

    Do you favor "gay" rights over "bisexual" rights? Bisexuals certainly choose, and if they choose homosexuality, are they choosing to be "gay"? Or should we allow bisexuals to blithely continue to have sex with both sexes, not committing to either one, because they are "born that way"? Transgenders aren't born that way, and they completely choose what gender they are going to be, despite their birth. Are we to honor them for contributing to society in other ways, or by changing their gender surgically?

    By the way, how can there be children of gays? By adoption, or by surgery?

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    July 6, 2011 3:19 p.m.

    this is no different than desegragation and teaching about other races to stop the hate.

    the problem is there are still a LOT of parents (mostly religious ones) that teach it is sick to be gay. and then they wonder why their gay child commits suicide.

    once everyone realizes that no one actually chooses to be gay, then we can have some intelligent discussions. Until then, we will be stuck in a repeat of the 60s civil rights era, where gay children (and the children of gays) are constantly beaten up, berated, and actually taught that they are sick and evil.

    now that's a sad world. Jesus would be disappointed.