Should gay history be taught into schools?

Richard Dower · 02-05-2011 02:36AM #1

As in to teach understanding and tolerance for the GLBT community?, i mean....it won't turn your kids gay, same as teaching about the Holocaust won't turn yuo Jewish, thoughts?

Kev. · 02-05-2011 02:36AM

No...

Links234 · 02-05-2011 02:38AM

It most absolutely should.

it's like in America where right-wing mouth pieces are saying that they shouldn't teach kids about certain people because of their sexuality. that's just wrong.

they should learn about the contributions people like Alan Turing made.

OutlawPete · 02-05-2011 02:38AM

Yes, as I for one want to know when the first time he said 'excira & delira' was.

Jesus Wept · 02-05-2011 02:39AM

Are gays excluded from history teachings?
Teach tolerance in a civics class or something.
Teach history in a history class.

GarIT · 02-05-2011 02:42AM

They already do in Social Personal and Health Education class, or SPHE.

Celly Smunt · 02-05-2011 02:46AM

If it is of historical benefit to the syllabus then why not,however just throwing some pointless piece of history with no basis in to please the gay community or other groups is just stupidity of the highest order.Subjects within the curriculum should be chosen at merit not to please minority groups.

tommyboy2222 · 02-05-2011 02:46AM

Tis called "Glee"

Oranage2 · 02-05-2011 02:50AM

Wrong forum op.

Pro wrestling is that way

>

johnthemull · 02-05-2011 02:51AM

Whatever goes on between the sheets goes on. homo, hetro, bi, group who gives a ****. gay people need to lighten up. they should be judged like the rest of us. not on who we **** but who we are.

Dangerous Man · 02-05-2011 02:52AM

No.

GarIT · 02-05-2011 02:53AM

If they had a reason to they should like if someone started a war because they were gay, or a revolution or something major just because they were gay it would make sense. They don't put an emphasis on Hitler, Martin Luther or Columbus being straight so why should they put an emphasis on someone being gay? If the persons sexuality directly effected their decisions it should be noted, but if they were just gay and that didn't make a difference to anyone we don't need to know it.

johnthemull · 02-05-2011 02:56AM

Agreed. totally.

Celly Smunt · 02-05-2011 02:57AM

johnthemull wrote: »

Agreed. totally.

next stop,educated idiots

Kojak · 02-05-2011 02:57AM

pmcmahon wrote: »

If it is of historical benefit to the syllabus then why not,however just throwing some pointless piece of history with no basis in to please the gay community or other groups is just stupidity of the highest order.Subjects within the curriculum should be chosen at merit not to please minority groups.

My sentiments exactly.

TeddyTedson · 02-05-2011 02:58AM

I don't think it's necessary really is it.
There's very little homophobia from what I can see around theses days so imagine it's going to be even less in the future?

johnthemull · 02-05-2011 02:59AM

pmcmahon wrote: »

next stop,educated idiots

enlighten me

policarp · 02-05-2011 03:02AM

Should violent history be taught in schools?

Lavattack · 02-05-2011 03:02AM

At a time when they are debating whether or not to cut the National language from the system..... do you actually think that it will ever take off? What would they call the class? "Gay History"? If what you suggest was to happen then there would also be "women's History" and "Mens History" and "Kerry History" and so on. It could not be divided. Every-one would want their own History segment. And anyway since when does history in general leave out gay people?

Leonardo da Vinci
Michelangelo
Richard Cromwell
Alexander The Great

These are just some of the more memorable gay men that we learned about in History. Just because they are not remembered for being gay doesn't take away the fact they were. They were more famous for other reasons.

In summary I think your question is very.........I'm not sure of the word.

Can I ask what in particular you would like to see on such a course if it were to be such a course drafted up?

Aoifey! · 02-05-2011 03:02AM

I think tolerance and acceptance of others should (and could be already) thought in SPHE. LGBT could be included in this, but it could extend to acceptance of many minorities and/or individual differences.

Lavattack · 02-05-2011 03:04AM

GarIT wrote: »

If they had a reason to they should like if someone started a war because they were gay, or a revolution or something major just because they were gay it would make sense. They don't put an emphasis on Hitler, Martin Luther or Columbus being straight so why should they put an emphasis on someone being gay? If the persons sexuality directly effected their decisions it should be noted, but if they were just gay and that didn't make a difference to anyone we don't need to know it.

+1 for sure

Dangerous Man · 02-05-2011 03:07AM

Would Geoffrey Dahmer be on the course?

Richard Dower · 02-05-2011 03:10AM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I don't think it's necessary really is it.
There's very little homophobia from what I can see around theses days so imagine it's going to be even less in the future?

I bet you belive in unicorns as well, bless

Stained Class · 02-05-2011 03:12AM

Now way!:mad:

Nothing wrong with being gay, but don't force your perversion on the rest of us.

policarp · 02-05-2011 03:12AM

Gay is history now, anyway.
Not in the dark ages anymore, I think.
I hope...

Snappy the Moose · 02-05-2011 03:20AM

They always have, I think William of Orange was on the syllabus somewhere in history no?

Craebear · 02-05-2011 03:23AM

Stained Class wrote: »

Now way!:mad:

Nothing wrong with being gay, but don't force your perversion on the rest of us.

Wouldn't ye agree the biggest problem in this country is all the fuppin' QUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRS?

Sinfonia · 02-05-2011 03:24AM

Richard Dower wrote: »

it won't turn your kids gay, same as teaching about the Holocaust won't turn yuo Jewish

Same indeed.

Da Shins Kelly · 02-05-2011 03:26AM

As long as it's relevant. In social, personal and health education classes, yes, there should be attention given to the gay community, and different sexual orientations, with an emphasis on how to be safe and sensible regarding sexuality. However, teaching "gay history" for the sake of it should probably be left out. We don't teach "straight history". If there is something in history that is relevant to the gay community (i.e the gay rights movement or something), then yes. But, otherwise no. Of course we should teach children to be accepting and tolerant of all sexual orientations, but it should be done in social studies classes and in the home, not history classes.

Einhard · 02-05-2011 03:28AM

Links234 wrote: »

It most absolutely should.

it's like in America where right-wing mouth pieces are saying that they shouldn't teach kids about certain people because of their sexuality. that's just wrong.

But surely you're doing the same thing in reverse? They want gays specifically omitted from history classes because of their sexuality, while you want them specifically included because of their sexuality.

they should learn about the contributions people like Alan Turing made.

Yes, they should learn of them because they were immense accomplishments, not because thay happened to be made by a gay person.

GarIT · 02-05-2011 03:34AM

Just talking to a friend on Facebook and he says that gay rights in Ireland is part of the "modern history" section of LC History. He said there isn't much on it but it is there. There's actually a bit about it in CSPE (Civic, Social and Political Education) too. But that's mainly dealing with being politically correct and everyone being equal.

BTW for anyone that doesn't know SPHE and CSPE are only taught in 1st to 3rd year. CSPE can be taken as a LC subject but I've never heard of any school that offers it.

Should gay history be taught into schools?

Comments