Teachers support adding sexual-orientation themes to all curricula



To all curricula. Math, music, history.

The resolution would call on the department of education to “ensure that same-sex families and LBGTTQ (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, two-spirited, queer) people and themes are reflected in all curricula.”

A music teacher, Olson said he’s seen many essays about how many children Bach had, but none that acknowledged Tchaikovsky was gay and how that and his society’s attitudes might have affected his music.

History courses don’t tell students that until recently, being homosexual was illegal and gays and lesbians faced severe punishment under the law, he said.

Even an advanced math class studying string theory might discuss how British mathematician Alan Turing was driven to suicide when his homosexuality was made public: “That would be central to a very powerful math class conversation,” said Olson.

Following the provincial education curricula is mandatory for Manitoba’s public and private schools.


It makes sense in history to have some comment on it; in music if people are doing essays about the life of Bach and such it makes sense because it isn’t just music class, but also some history. As to Math, I’d have to see what the math curriculum is to see whether it is valid.


The resolution would call on the department of education to “ensure that same-sex families and LBGTTQ (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, two-spirited, queer) people and themes are reflected in all curricula.”

With TQBGLT, who is the “Q” word supposed to represent? I mean what is their definition of the word?


This is bizarre. You take a Math class to learn Math, not to discuss the issue of the mathematician committing suicide due to his sexual preference.

This is nothing but an attempt to indoctrinate. Haven’t they done enough already?




Well, here is my two cents:

Regardless of the course under question if some mathematician, musician, artist, scientist or author was homosexual go ahead and provide that information. Ignoring a fact about any person accomplishes nothing.

Now, for the morality of such orientation, first we do need to be clear that simply being homosexual is not a sin. However, those of Faith should take the responsibility to ensure that they are teaching their children about the moral and spiritual implications of these matters. That is not up to the teachers or the any school as far as I am concerned.

We can teach history, the laws of the past and present, social norms, sciences and math, technology and all of these may or may not include references to individuals who were/are homosexual, transgendered and so on. That is unavoidable. How our children cope with this information is the parent’s responsibility only. Most of that education should occur before they ever enter school. (Sin, right and wrong, manners, common sense, consequences.) This is the time to set the all important moral compass.


Yet another reason for not granting the government the sole right to educate children. John Stuart Mill opposed public schools as he feared government indoctrination. Public education essentially constitutes an establishment of religion, the government religion. Only the government’s value system is presented.

Not only that, but the whole idea of ‘sexual orientation’ is of rather recent origin. It’s a fad that will soon pass.


The problem is that many historical people are labeled “gay” or “homosexual” who never would have understood the modern connotations of those labels. Today “homosexual” represents a lifestyle, an identity, an orientation, historically it represented a propensity to sex with members of your own sex and was understood as a part of the larger group “sodomy.” It was seen more as an action and less of a socio-political category. Today, people are pushing for “gay” to be seen more like we’ve understood the terms “man” and “woman” and less what any historical person would have understood, even the ones who were attracted to members of their own sex.

Another problem is that many people are labeled “gay” with very little evidence. Michelangelo jumps to mind. People rush to label him “gay” because of his art and his poetry not because of any confirmed homosexual activity. But taking a piece of art or poetry from one culture, 500 yrs ago and assuming that it must have meant the artist was “gay” is patently absurd.

Lastly, why is it important for our kids to be taught this at all? Have you seen the test scores in the US and Canada compared to the rest of the world? Do we really need time spent discussing the sexual predilections of long dead people?


Yes, it makes no sense to label historical figures as gay, who lived before gay was invented.


Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but you can’t really say that. There are records of homosexuality stretching back to Sodom and Gammorah, so it’s perfectly reasonable to conjecture about whether or not an historic individual was homosexual.

The problem is that these people are going farther than simple conjecture, they’re presenting it as fact when no such fact has been established. Further, they’re celebrating the persons’s homosexuality, rather than discounting it as a simple state of being as they should. It is this part of it which I find disgusting.


I wonder how many scientists, mathematicians and musicians were practicing Catholics?
Is that going to be part of the curricula as well? After all, these are people who contributed to society greatly and it would influence how Catholics are perceived by the world, or hold hostility towards Catholics.
Not going to happen.


Now now, we can’t go around exposing children to religion. How terrible of you to suggest such, you bigot.


The other problem is that they are adding stuff to a curriculum that doesn’t need to be there. It is not “normal” to be discussing the sex lives of mathematicians with students whether they are straight or homosexual.

They tried this in California a few years back and wanted LGQBTABC individuals represented in all subjects. The result was that obscure individuals were added to the English, Social Studies and Science curriculums for no other reason than that they were of a sexual minority or that someone theorized that they were. And more important historical figures were pushed out.


It’s utterly disgusting the lengths to which people will go to try to normalize or gain acceptance for their deviant behaviors. Sadly, because they’re generally the loudest, most annoying, pushy people about it, they get their way in the hopes they’ll shut up… What the heck happened to common sense? Did it commit suicide while we weren’t looking or something?


I can see it now. How much is 2 + 2 if you are a lesbian in a three way relationship?

Is the answer different if you are single and straight?


Now now, let’s not go judging the two’s; if they want to equal three that’s their right, and you shouldn’t try to force your irrational belief in the number four on them.


If Johnny has sex with 14 men, three of whom have gonorrhea, what are his chances of contracting an STD?

Show your work.


In literature, at least, it can be very useful to know if an author like Oscar Wilde or Walt Whitman was gay. Literature is a cultural repository – we learn something about the culture in which the author was writing by reading his or her work. Knowing how an author navigated his community’s prohibition on open homosexuality, for example, can be significant to understanding his writing. I’d imagine the same is true for all art.


Actually, I would have been very interested to learn about all the examples they give in the article when I was in school.

This is just in Canada?



I can see a relevance for that in upper-college-level literature courses, but this is k-12. If Coleridge’s use of opium isn’t relevant, how would Whitman’s sexual proclivities be so?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.