Do you remember the age-old adage, “˜the more things change, the more they stay the same’? Have you ever sat back and wondered how that applied to your life? How about “˜history repeats itself’?
As times change, it seems we try to flow along and change with it. Little do we realise that soon we find ourselves full circle at the beginning. That is because as we change, we recreate the same scenario we started with, only at a different level. (The latest recession perfectly represent that.) But something else does to. The ideas of tolerance and discrimination.
The new ideas that have been suggested and put into action, all done in the name of ending discrimination, have only resulted in creating more. Tolerance preaching is excessively overdone. Has it really done anything to discourage discrimination? I think it has either made it worse or made it appear to be worse by persistently pandering to minority groups.
Let’s just take, for example, this idea of gay history month. Some parents are facing prosecution because they pulled their children out of school when they objected to their children being taught gay history for an entire week. This was in primary school and the parents were uncomfortable with them being taught such a sensitive matter at such a young age.
First of all, why is there an emphasis on gay history? What is so special about them? Do the teachers only emphasise the good, or do they point out the bad as well? Is it equal teaching if you only focus on positive aspects and not negative? And don’t tell me there are no negative aspects. If you want to end discrimination, why make them appear so different and special? Do you want children to start living out like a homosexual at a young age? Secondly, young children may subtly pick up on differences between people, such as the way they look, dress, talk, etc. However, they make little fuss about it. They cannot pick up on sexual orientation at this stage, so what good is it to point it out to them. It would only cause confusion and uncomfortable questions. Do these people enjoy telling these same kids where babies come from and the technicalities of sex? Anyone who disagrees with them is automatically labelled homophobic.
Some people think that just because there is so much attention in the press about discrimination and tolerance that things have actually improved. If that is the case, why are we still bombarded with all these messages? If there was truly equality, can we stop pointing to all our differences and just agree to disagree? Excessive attention to equal rights only creates resentment towards these groups who are still going on about inequality when in fact they get more than their fair share of press coverage and public sympathy.
In the work place, the first consequence of all this attention is always reverse discrimination, then it gradually reverts back. The reasons are obvious. Those wishing not to appear discriminatory will start hiring from the minority or discriminated group. However, as time elapses and other disgruntled people step forward, the hiring process changes. Then the majority will start bringing suits of reverse discrimination, and we are back where we started.
Sexual orientation should be a personal, not a public matter. As such, it should not be part of an individual’s profile unless that sexual orientation may affect the person’s job. A good example of this has been in the religious sector. Many religious groups still frown upon gay and lesbian ministers. That is because, even though they may teach tolerance to these sexual deviants, they do not believe they should be leading their churches. It goes against teachings in the Bible, which stress following the straight and narrow path. This is a religious matter and those conversant in religion should be the ones to argue this out. Those in public life have no right to force their views in this arena.
In the public sector, you can reserve your sexual education for secondary school, where children are a little older and able to understand what you are teaching. At that time, you may introduce your gays and lesbians, but be sure you can adequately answer questions raised by the kids if they find the subject of your teachings despicable. My suggestion is that you teach it similar to teaching against bullying. Help them to understand that no matter how different someone is to you, you should not treat them differently. I disagree with putting emphasis on important gays and lesbians and their contribution to society. Can we not give them attention without pointing to the fact that they are gay? Or is it because they are gay that their achievements are given any consideration? The first gay to do this, the first gay to do that. Will we have to rewrite history in order to point out someone’s sexual orientation? Oh, puh-lease!
Puh-lease yourself, but yes: gay people have contributed to civilization out of all proportion to their expectable numbers, and yes: those who seek to contribute to civilization need to know why. Gay people want their history passed on to children who are or will become gay. Must this be pointed out to heterosexuals? So long as we have integrated gay-and-straight public schools, we must.
History itself, the genre, was a gay invention (by Heroditus and Thucydides), and modern (warts and all) biography likewise (“Elizabeth and Essex” …?). As the gay historian said, “History is biography.” Would you pretend that it is a ‘heterosexual’ invention? Ancient science? Modern science (you know, Sir Francis Bacon, Newton, Cavendish, et al.?) What were the Wright brothers? Straight? Why would you deny gay people credit for such inventions? Because you want to keep them for yourself? Puh-leeze! As Thucydides demonstrated in his Peloponnesian War, give credit where credit is due. You, guy, might be overdue for a little study in gay biography and history.
The problem you have to confront is why we heterosexuals and homophobes wrote gay people out of history by burning them at the stake; and then you’ll be obliged to explain why Christians closed down the Greek academies in the 4th century and cancelled the Olympic Games for 15 centuries. Was this in our best interests? or in the best interests of ignorance? Repressing homophilia (gay life) in the 4th century turned out the lights all over Europe and gave us the Dark Ages, the Christian Dark Ages — or weren’t you taught that the Renaissance was a largely gay event recreating the homophilic classical era, all made possible by the election of a couple of gay popes (like Julius II, the Warrior)?
My interest is in who invented civilization, and why; and so long as our children need to know that to continue it, we’re going to get gay biography and history in our schools. It would appear to me that you need gay history if only, by default, you learn what straight history is. How bad can the answer be? Gay men invented civilization? While gay men produce, we can reproduce; how bad is that?
My point is that primary school is not the place to introduce gay history, where the children have very little concept of sex, much less sexual orientation. I never claimed history was created by heterosexuals only. But I don’t believe that these homosexuals achieved their greatness simply because they were gay. I don’t think that being gay makes them any smarter or more creative. Unless you are implying that it should have made them less smart and less creative; therefore, we should celebrate their achievements. I can understand Blacks saying that they were oppressed, therefore, it was a great accomplishment to do what they did. Yes, some gays were discriminated – in some societies, they were outlawed. This only kept them in the closet, but they were not prohibited from doing anything. It’s not like their skin colour can give them away. So, should we rewrite history, having a separate one for gays and another for straights? That’s ridiculous. Can’t we look at an achievement and see how it affected history, science, etc., without pointing to the discoverer’s sexual orientation? In primary school, children learn basic facts without delving too much into fine detail. As they get older, they relearn the facts with finer details. This continues to progress in higher education. At the primary school stage, it is not important to stress sexual orientation. I believe it can cause more distress because it creates some confusion. You might argue that it is good to get them started thinking like that at a young age, but I don’t agree. Though some children may mature earlier than others, the majority at this stage have very little understanding of sexual preferences. They see other children of their age as playmates, not future mates.