Gay history is a part of who we are and should be taught
What is it about having gay history taught in schools that bothers people so much? ("Time to stand up against requiring teaching about gays in history, Sept. 17.")
This is not some conspiracy to try to turn all of our children and grandchildren into homosexuals. That's not how it works!
Are people concerned that if we take "a look back" at gay history we will become pillars of salt? How can people point a finger at someone and say that they will face fire and brimstone?
I do not see a point in trying to hide truths by sending kids to
private schools. Doesn't the Bible command people to be "in the world"
and also not to judge?
Gay history is something that should be taught and is a part of who
we are. I am ashamed of the fact that there is still so much hatred and
intolerance even in the year 2011!
I hope that by the time my kids are in high school the history books
will have been rewritten to say that gay marriage has been made legal
and accepted in all 50 states.
Students need to learn about the contributions of gays and lesbians
Thanks to Muriel Kaye for her timely letter last Saturday ("Time to
stand up against requiring teaching about gays in history"), and thanks
to The Triplicate for violating its policy of not publishing religious
In her letter, she explains perfectly why students need to learn
about the contributions of gays and lesbians to our society. It's so
their minds won't be poisoned by rhetoric. Yes, maybe some parents will
feel obligated to home-school their children. Then the kids won't have
to hear about gays, or science, or mix with liberals or students of
different races and backgrounds.
They can grow up wondering why their test scores are so low they
can't get into college.
Teachers do talk about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases to
most of the students. Unfortunately, parents can opt out of some sex ed
lessons. If you don't tell the kids about sex, they won't think about
it. And gay kids won't think about that if they have no information.
Works every time.
I would have high school kids read about Freddie Mercury, Michael
Bennett and my junior high classmate Howard Ashman, all three dead from
AIDS, and ask if these men had worthwhile lives. I might also ask if it
is better for religious people to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah than it
is to try to help people who are ill, or work to find a cure.
Here's my more inclusive list of people to read about: James Baldwin,
Richard Rodriguez, Harvey Milk, Rosie O'Donnell, Wanda Sykes, Troy
Perry, Leonard Bernstein, Lily Tomlin, Martina Navratilova, Rita Mae
Brown. That should get everyone's education started.
Feels that the newspaper is leaning too far toward the political right
I feel the paper, as our one and only such publication for this
county, should serve all the people, not just the most vocal few.
Something that I think needs to be said, is that this county is not
nearly as right-leaning as the casual reader of our paper would surmise.
There is not much difference between Republican and Democratic voters
in this area, plus independents. We just had a large front-page article
about the sheriff and his affiliation with the Tea Party.
I actually wish there was such an article in the paper last year
before people sent in their mail-in ballots. A lot of people told me
that, if they had known that much about him, they wouldn't have voted
for him. As to the survey done at the fair, I noticed five answers
("what is your biggest concern?") were obvious right-wing views. Nine
could be interpreted as either right, left or middle.
Before, I felt that the paper did a decent job of covering all sides
fairly. Now it is further to the right. It is considered by many a joke
now, I'm sorry to say. Many people I know have canceled their
subscription. I haven't yet because I want to keep up on happenings.
This country has always had groups with basic fundamental differences
and beliefs. It seems to me that the far right seems to think they have
a monopoly on patriotism and virtue, that only they truly love this
country. Nationally, support for the Tea Party has dwindled. Fifty Tea
Party people show up somewhere and it gets national coverage; 50,000
union, left or middle voters show up for something and it's not
mentioned on most stations.
The loudest and most persistent get the megaphone, which is much
larger than they deserve. There's a dynamic here that isn't being
recognized. Democrats are generally more tolerant and more laid back
than, say, diehard Republicans and their far right wing. The latter seem
more willing to get "in your face"? and confrontational about
Most voters won't be inclined to get into a debate about who gets to
decide what we believe in as a country. But these people still vote and
are engaged. As Desiderata so elegantly put it, "Avoid loud and
aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."