6 Comments to 'Campfield: no talking about gay folks at school'
Subscribe to comments with RSS
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Campfield: no talking about gay folks at school
Posted By katie allison granju
Rep. Campfield wants to pass legislation stating that:
…no public elementary school or middle school shall permit any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
How would this work if you were teaching something in, say, history or civics class about someone important who just happened to be gay? I ask this in all seriousness.
Jan 18th, 2008
I think our children would benefit more from a prohibition of ever speaking Rep. Campfield’s name again. He is an inarguable clown and only does this stuff for attention. He is proof that some people do not know how to use their vote. He goes in the David Duke basket.
I think we should prohibit any discussion of left-handedness in schools, because it might give our right-handed children the impression that some people are just naturally different and there is nothing wrong with that.
I don’t understand why sexual orientation would come up in a history class in K-12.
So by Campfield’s dubious logic if you don’t talk about homosexuality it will not happen? What a staggering intellect.
Unless their contribution to history was directly related to their sex life, why would it come up at all?
For example, is Michaelangelo( the artist, not the TMNT) famous for his taste in bed partners, or his prolific output of masterworks? What is more important to know about Julius Caesar, that he conquered Gaul, or that he played both sides of the field?
Do we make a big deal out of the sex lives of famous straight historical figures? Do we explore the bedroom secrets of George and Martha Washington? (Eeewww)
That being said, the proposed law is stupid, as are most laws regarding what can or can’t be taught in the classroom.
Rich makes a common mistake by confusing sexual orientation to mean nothing more than a person’s sex life. People on average don’t immediately think of sex when thinking of straight married couples; it’s understood to be far more complex than that, as it should be for gay couples, too. It’s a double-standard even pro-gay types hold all to often without thinking.
Lifelong companions/partners/spouses are frequently cited in history texts while have only tenuous connections to any contributions to history - Mary Todd Lincoln, for instance, or the example Rich even cited, Martha Washington. But if you have to have a gay example, Alexander the Great’s second in command Hephaestion comes quickly to mind.
How would you discuss Gertrude Stein without Alice at some point along the way? Or if you insist on knowing how even just a sex life could be important, how could you discuss Oscar Wilde without it?
And how do you respond to kids who want to understand the daily headlines, news of gay marriage and constitutional amendments and hate crimes? How do you protect public health without a full discussion of AIDS, when folks who still think it’s only a gay thing put themselves and others at risk?
Etc., etc., etc…..