Nightmare Boy wrote:Why not just teach historical accomplishments because they are historical accomplishments, and if being a homosexual or whatever else actually had some impact on someone's accomplishments, then mention it? I don't like the idea of pointing out that so-and-so was "gay" just because (s)he was. That makes it seem like a big deal, which it shouldn't be--and if it's not related to the person's accomplishments/actual history, then it is irrelevant and pointless to teach. Besides, what about all the other groups and labels that exist? Are we seriously going to teach "______ history" for every damn thing out there? I doubt it, so why start? There's a big difference between not teaching about people who happened to be homosexuals or not mentioning sexuality when it actually was/is relevant to a particularly notable moment of history; and pointing out the fact that they were homosexuals when teaching about them, even so it is/was unrelated to why they are being learned about in the first place.

