Parents Protest Gay Fairytale for 2nd Graders...

Mystery Squid · Apr 20, 2006

Parents rip school over gay storybook
Lesson reignites clash in Lexington
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff | April 20, 2006

In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son's teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first.

The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children's book, ''King & King," as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association's list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

''My son is only 7 years old," said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ''By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports."

She complained more than a year after Lexington parent David Parker was arrested for trespassing, because he refused to leave the Estabrook school grounds until administrators allowed him to opt his son out of discussions about families with same-sex parents. The latest incident has renewed the efforts of Waltham-based Parents' Rights Coalition to rid the state's schools of books and lessons that relate to homosexuality, and led the school system to reemphasize its stance on teaching about gay marriage and related issues as part of larger lessons on diversity and tolerance.

Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. ''We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed," he said. ''Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal."

Ash, who became superintendent this school year, wrote a memo to parents in September defending the system's philosophy of teaching diversity. His memo, which clarified the state's parental notification law, stemmed from the controversy with Parker. Schools are required to notify parents of lessons on sex education and give them the right to opt out, but in Lexington, sex education doesn't begin until fifth grade, Ash said.

Parker had objected to a ''diversity book bag" that his son brought home from kindergarten. The bag included ''Who's in a Family?," a book that depicted same-sex couples along with other types of families.

In ''King & King," two princes kiss at the end of the book, which was first published in the Netherlands then translated into English and published by the Berkeley, Calif.-based Tricycle Press in 2002. The book was written for children ages 6 and older, the publisher said. Tricycle Press also published ''Who's in a Family?"

''Tricycle Press is proud to have published 'King & King' ," said Laura Mancuso, the company's marketing and publicity manager in an e-mail in response to questions from the Globe. ''It features an unconditional love that ignores conventional boundaries. There are many kinds of families in this country, and the children in these families and their friends deserve to see their situations in a positive light."

Mancuso said the publisher first received complaints about the book in 2004 when a North Carolina couple objected to their first-grade daughter bringing it home from the school library. Last year, an Oklahoma legislator used the book as an example of why children's library collections should have new restrictions. The Lexington teacher borrowed the book from the school library.

The two protests in Lexington illustrate the need for a broader parental notification law in the state, said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents' Rights Coalition. Camenker provided the language for a 1996 Massachusetts law that requires schools to notify parents of lessons on sex education and is pushing for the addition of sexual orientation to the topics requiring notification.

The pending bill would also require all parents to sign forms allowing their children to participate in such lessons instead of asking those who are offended to opt out, said Camenker, a Newton parent whose group is fighting same-sex marriage and opposes what it calls the ''homosexual agenda" in public schools. The Wirthins contacted his group for help in dealing with Lexington schools.[/b]

Maaaaaaaaan, please NOT in the 2nd grade....

hycamguy07 · Apr 20, 2006

WOW~

Again a perfect example of how american officials have givin in, so not to offend. LOL if this was done in the 80's the parents would have dragged the teacher out into the parking lot and clubbed/stoned him.
At least they are being civil about it..

this could also bring up the topic homosexual: indoctrinated or born with it.? Thats a good one!

mikepaul · Apr 20, 2006

Seems more like 'HETEROsexual: indoctrinated or not?' is appropriate.

Cases abound where people seem to be brow-beaten into marrying someone of the opposite sex, then give it up later for what they REALLY want.

Fitting in being very important, it's more likely that people would switch to something acceptable rather than something that people attack.

Notice how easily not 'fitting in' got this thread started?...

TonyPSchaefer · Apr 20, 2006

''My son is only 7 years old," said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ''By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports."[/b]

And when a seven year old hears about people getting married, they are not worried about what's going on in the bedroom because they have no idea what goes on in their own parents' bedroom. When you tell a child that a prince married a prince, the child thinks that they are just really good friends.

efusco · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 08:41 AM) [snapback]242580[/snapback]</div>

Maaaaaaaaan, please NOT in the 2nd grade.... [/b]

You're absolutely right....I read "My two moms" to my boys before they started kindergarten. If you wait until second grade all the other kids can start "indoctrinating them" with prejudicial terms like "faggot" and other terms in a derogatory fashion so they start thinking it's something bad.

I discuss that people are all different and no one way is right or wrong all the time. They ask questions and I give honest answers. "Daddy, why does aunt Sharon always come to our birthday with her friend Mary?". Any kind of evasive or dishonest answer will prejudice them and make them less trustful of me. Stories like "My two moms" presents an opportunity for consideration.

We also read them stories about a children of divorced parents. Is that 'indoctrinating them' with the concept that it's OK to divorce and have two homes? I guess so.

The world is what it is and presenting it in a way children can understand isn't indoctrination.

That said, I know that some prejudice parents will want to shelter their kids and be sure to be able to 'indoctrinate them' with all the fag, homo, etc. terms at school so they have a good way to make fun of the children that do have 2 moms or 2 dads.

Salsawonder · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 20 2006, 10:25 AM) [snapback]242673[/snapback]</div>

You're absolutely right....I read "My two moms" to my boys before they started kindergarten. If you wait until second grade all the other kids can start "indoctrinating them" with prejudicial terms like "faggot" and other terms in a derogatory fashion so they start thinking it's something bad.

I discuss that people are all different and no one way is right or wrong all the time. They ask questions and I give honest answers. "Daddy, why does aunt Sharon always come to our birthday with her friend Mary?". Any kind of evasive or dishonest answer will prejudice them and make them less trustful of me. Stories like "My two moms" presents an opportunity for consideration.

We also read them stories about a children of divorced parents. Is that 'indoctrinating them' with the concept that it's OK to divorce and have two homes? I guess so.

The world is what it is and presenting it in a way children can understand isn't indoctrination.

That said, I know that some prejudice parents will want to shelter their kids and be sure to be able to 'indoctrinate them' with all the fag, homo, etc. terms at school so they have a good way to make fun of the children that do have 2 moms or 2 dads.
[/b]

My hat is off to you Doc. I also believe in presenting the truth to children. They are way smarter than most people give them credit for. Not allowing your child to have all information available to them when they make a choice limits their ability to make an informed choice.
As mentioned in another post, the information given to them at any given time should be compatible with their developmental level, but it should be true.
Parental Bias causes children to fear dogs for no good reason, to not learn how to swim, and to be prejudice.

windstrings · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 20 2006, 09:50 AM) [snapback]242647[/snapback]</div>

WOW~

Again a perfect example of how american officials have givin in, so not to offend. LOL if this was done in the 80's the parents would have dragged the teacher out into the parking lot and clubbed/stoned him.
At least they are being civil about it..

this could also bring up the topic homosexual: indoctrinated or born with it.? Thats a good one!
[/b]

Oh good!..now we get into the homesexual debate.....

Humm..... where shall I begin?.....

First of all the homesexual union cannot be of God... otherwise the union could procreate...

regardless of anyones "opinion", its against nature as a union. The creator didn't intend it so.

The Act of marrying is not a political move.. its a union of two becoming one.... where do you think the whole "marriage" thing came from anyway.. the tooth fairy?

Gays wanting to marry is just corrupting the original purpose of marrying and if they legally get married, they are still not married where the two become one.

Don't even go there....... God does not condon it or a whole city would not have been destroyed with fire over the homesexual thing... which history and science defends too btw..
Where do you think the word "Sodom" as in "sodomy" came from anyway?..... it was a city thats not fried!

Churches who condons it will have the greatest accountablitity.... hate to be one of those pastors!

Now if you want to talk about thier rights to live together and play with each others tally whackers...and let little critters run up their poot shoot until they suffocate to death "put that in your vegetarian pipe and smoke it! , .... then thats different!.. but don't use the word marriage in any part of it!

And don't tell me what I just said is offensive to you if you support gays........ make up your mind!

You can't like the icing on the cake and hate what its made of!

If you can't swallow what they do, why do you want to feed that crap to your 2nd graders?

When they were in the closet, that was one thing... they were free to do what they would before God without impressing it upon everyone else as normal.

If everyone in the country starts child molesting thier children... is it then "normal"?

Normal is defined not on the majority, but the original.

There... thats a little gasoline for the fire!

References:
(Rom 1:26 KJV) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(Rom 1:27 KJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 20 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]242673[/snapback]</div>

You're absolutely right....I read "My two moms" to my boys before they started kindergarten. If you wait until second grade all the other kids can start "indoctrinating them" with prejudicial terms like "faggot" and other terms in a derogatory fashion so they start thinking it's something bad.

I discuss that people are all different and no one way is right or wrong all the time. They ask questions and I give honest answers. "Daddy, why does aunt Sharon always come to our birthday with her friend Mary?". Any kind of evasive or dishonest answer will prejudice them and make them less trustful of me. Stories like "My two moms" presents an opportunity for consideration.

We also read them stories about a children of divorced parents. Is that 'indoctrinating them' with the concept that it's OK to divorce and have two homes? I guess so.

The world is what it is and presenting it in a way children can understand isn't indoctrination.

That said, I know that some prejudice parents will want to shelter their kids and be sure to be able to 'indoctrinate them' with all the fag, homo, etc. terms at school so they have a good way to make fun of the children that do have 2 moms or 2 dads.
[/b]

I think the issue relates to what you think is right for you to teach your kids may not be right for everyone. I think that each set of parents wants to retain the right to teach THEIR children their own set of values and morals. Granted that there can be those who teach (or don't teach) their children well, but societies role in teaching all children should be reserved for what I refer to as central issues like Math, Science - and leave the "judgement" calls like homosexuality and gay marrage to the parents.

hyo silver · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 20 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]242685[/snapback]</div>

First of all the homesexual union cannot be of God... otherwise the union could procreate...
[/b]

And what about hetero couples who for whatever reason are unable to conceive? Should we test for sterility at birth and just kill them then? Are couples who choose not to have children not really married? Are they going to hell, too?

Marriage is a union of the hearts, not the parts.

hybridTHEvibe · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 20 2006, 01:41 PM) [snapback]242685[/snapback]</div>

References:
(Rom 1:26 KJV) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(Rom 1:27 KJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
[/b]

but yet King James was gay :blink:

Maytrix · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 20 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]242699[/snapback]</div>

And what about hetero couples who for whatever reason are unable to conceive? Should we test for sterility at birth and just kill them then? Are couples who choose not to have children not really married? Are they going to hell, too?

Marriage is a union of the hearts, not the parts.
[/b]

Whether I agree or not really doesn't matter. But, consider this:

Where would the world be if today, everyone decided they were homosexual? In about 100 years, it would be an empty place.

mikepaul · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Maytrix @ Apr 20 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]242710[/snapback]</div>

Where would the world be if today, everyone decided they were homosexual? In about 100 years, it would be an empty place.
[/b]

Umm, but wouldn't artificial insemination work?

Seems to work now as-needed...

hybridTHEvibe · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Maytrix @ Apr 20 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]242710[/snapback]</div>

Whether I agree or not really doesn't matter. But, consider this:

Where would the world be if today, everyone decided they were homosexual? In about 100 years, it would be an empty place.
[/b]

are you saying that the only way for the world to exists is when humans inhabit this planet?

Maytrix · Apr 20, 2006

Umm, but wouldn't artificial insemination work?

Seems to work now as-needed...
[/b]

Would it work, sure. Does it make it right though?

I think we do a lot of things today, simply because we can and without thinking of the consequences. New Orleans is a great example. A city built below sea level? Why? Because humans are foolish and do things just because they can. Obviously there still would have been great damage in that area even if nothing had been below sea level, but it would have been quite different.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Apr 20 2006, 02:28 PM) [snapback]242715[/snapback]</div>

are you saying that the only way for the world to exists is when humans inhabit this planet?
[/b]

Not at all. The world would still be here, just no humans

hybridTHEvibe · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Maytrix @ Apr 20 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]242718[/snapback]</div>

Would it work, sure. Does it make it right though?

I think we do a lot of things today, simply because we can and without thinking of the consequences. New Orleans is a great example. A city built below sea level? Why? Because humans are foolish and do things just because they can. Obviously there still would have been great damage in that area even if nothing had been below sea level, but it would have been quite different.
Not at all. The world would still be here, just no humans
[/b]

that's not necessarily a bad thing

Maytrix · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Apr 20 2006, 02:37 PM) [snapback]242720[/snapback]</div>

that's not necessarily a bad thing
[/b]

It's not always good either. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. The problem is, the person coming up with the idea doesn't care whether it's good or bad.

Case in point - nuclear weapons. The are the most useless thing ever - all they do is keep everyone in check. Noone can use them, because it would be world genocide.

bobr1 · Apr 20, 2006

I am sorry to see fellow Oregonian, Windstrings, come down on the wrong side of this.

I invite Windstrings to come visit our household and marriage, and see for himself what same-gender marriage actually looks like.

Maytrix asks: "Where would the world be if today, everyone decided they were homosexual? In about 100 years, it would be an empty place."

Once again perpetuating the myth that homosexuality is a "decision" or "choice". The truth is that homosexuality has been observed in some form or another in most species including primates. It is a natural occurrence (the exact factors are not entirely known) and has existed throughout time.

It's like saying "If everyone drove Priuses, there would be no room for large families, therefore Priuses are bad." There are many kind of cars, and there are many kinds of families. Each kind of family contributes to society in its own way.

If you want to talk in bizarre hypotheticals, I'll make this pledge: If the world population starts declining because people "decide" to stop having babies for no good reason (such as available resources) and all the unwanted children are adopted and there is still a problem, and volunteers are required to do their civic duty and reproduce, I'll sign up. Until then, stop harping on non-breeders (straight or gay.)

- Bob R.

efusco · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2006, 12:53 PM) [snapback]242692[/snapback]</div>

I think the issue relates to what you think is right for you to teach your kids may not be right for everyone. I think that each set of parents wants to retain the right to teach THEIR children their own set of values and morals. Granted that there can be those who teach (or don't teach) their children well, but societies role in teaching all children should be reserved for what I refer to as central issues like Math, Science - and leave the "judgement" calls like homosexuality and gay marrage to the parents.
[/b]

I know, and honestly I can understand that point. My response is more directed at the "indoctrination" statement in the article and MS's "Oh God not 2nd graders" comments.

This is a controversial enough subject that at least a letter should be sent to allow parents to object to 'their child' being read the story.

But, I think the great thing about public schools is the diversity...Those 'God fearers' would no doubt object to a story about Budda or an athiest story too, even though there are Buddist students and atheist students in the school.

bobr1 · Apr 20, 2006

I think the book does not endorse or advocate a particular way of life. It is just a way of pointing out a way in which some couples live, a possible outcome for some people. There are lots of committed long-term same-gender relationships in the world, always have been. Kids in any area, rural, suburban, urban, are going to encounter same-gender couples. The book simply points out what exists. It doesn't say to kids "this is the way you should be", it says "this is the way that some people are". It gives the kids the tools to understand that which they are likely to encounter. That's one part of what school is about.

- Bob R.

Mystery Squid · Apr 20, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 20 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]242673[/snapback]</div>

You're absolutely right....I read "My two moms" to my boys before they started kindergarten. If you wait until second grade all the other kids can start "indoctrinating them" with prejudicial terms like "faggot" and other terms in a derogatory fashion so they start thinking it's something bad.

I discuss that people are all different and no one way is right or wrong all the time. They ask questions and I give honest answers. "Daddy, why does aunt Sharon always come to our birthday with her friend Mary?". Any kind of evasive or dishonest answer will prejudice them and make them less trustful of me. Stories like "My two moms" presents an opportunity for consideration.

We also read them stories about a children of divorced parents. Is that 'indoctrinating them' with the concept that it's OK to divorce and have two homes? I guess so.

The world is what it is and presenting it in a way children can understand isn't indoctrination.

That said, I know that some prejudice parents will want to shelter their kids and be sure to be able to 'indoctrinate them' with all the fag, homo, etc. terms at school so they have a good way to make fun of the children that do have 2 moms or 2 dads.
[/b]

I don't agree to a high degree ( ), primarily because it's trying to "mainstream" a small segment of the population (and no, I'm not going to dig up "proof" that 60% of people are or are not gay. :lol: ). No, homosexuality is NOT mainstream (unlike divorce), neither are, for example, S&M fetishes. Should we make children's books of that too? Hey, while we're at it, let's put out children's books on the Princess that has to use the men's room too, and other various sexually related themes.

Teaching tolerance is one thing, attempts to mainstream homosexuality and other issues is another.

I mean, can you just imagine an innocent 5 year old boy kissing another boy in the playground, because it's OK/acceptable in the storybook/parental teachings? Sort of the inverse of your example of indoctrination of prejudicial terms isn't it?

I would prefer to NOT start laying a foundation of values on atypical behavior/lifestyle (making no comment on the genetic/behavior argument).

Ok, I'll contribute some sort of cursory research on this... What percentage of the population is gay anyway?

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

Log in or Sign up

Parents Protest Gay Fairytale for 2nd Graders...

Mystery Squid New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

mikepaul New Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator

efusco Troll Slayer

Salsawonder New Member

windstrings Certified Prius Breeder

dbermanmd New Member

hyo silver Away

hybridTHEvibe New Member

Maytrix New Member

mikepaul New Member

hybridTHEvibe New Member

Maytrix New Member

hybridTHEvibe New Member

Maytrix New Member

bobr1 New Member

efusco Troll Slayer

bobr1 New Member

Mystery Squid New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Parents Protest Gay Fairytale for 2nd Graders...

Mystery Squid New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

mikepaul New Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator

efusco Troll Slayer

Salsawonder New Member

windstrings Certified Prius Breeder

dbermanmd New Member

hyo silver Away

hybridTHEvibe New Member

Maytrix New Member

mikepaul New Member

hybridTHEvibe New Member

Maytrix New Member

hybridTHEvibe New Member

Maytrix New Member

bobr1 New Member

efusco Troll Slayer

bobr1 New Member

Mystery Squid New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches