Parents Protest Gay Fairytale for 2nd Graders...

If a child is old enough to ask the question, they're likely old enough to understand the answer. If I don't know the answer, I say so. I'm not going to lie, and I'm not going to say there's only ever one 'correct' answer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]242733[/snapback]</div>

I'll set aside just what is and is not "mainstream" for a moment, but I do want to comment on the rest of what you wrote... When discussing gay relationships, a lot of people get the discussion mixed up with sex. As with heterosexual relationships, sex is a component, but it is not the only component and arguably not the most important component of a relationship.

I would not expect 2nd graders to be told about sexual activity of any kind in an ordinary classroom setting. To me, your example of "S&M fetishes" doesn't apply here because a bedroom activity (or nightclub or wild party or whatever) is not something 2nd graders are likely to encounter (we should hope) in their community and school life. That's something for a future human sexuality class.

Kids are, however, going to encounter other kids with same-gender parents (sometimes via adoption, sometimes via previous marriages) at their schools and in their communities. Pointing out that this exists and answering questions about those kinds of relationships does not amount to "mainstreaming" or indoctrination in my book.

I would also expect schools to point out that some families come from different religious backgrounds. Perhaps there are some Muslim or Buddhist families in the school. Not "mainstream" (at least in this country), but to point out aspects of those belief systems in a neutral way is fine by me.

How do we teach tolerance if not by showing a few examples of that which exists in the community that should be tolerated?

Regarding your other example of "the Princess that has to use the men's room too", that's also not likely something the kids are going to encounter. You see, most transgender people, when dressed according to their gender orientation, will use the restroom appropriate for that attire. A kid won't notice or perceive a man going into a woman's room or vice versa. (Most adults don't notice when it happens either.)

Now discussion of transgender issues will have to come up sooner or later, but at the 2nd grade level really just an examination of what kinds of families are around is as far as things need to go, and the book in question is a component of exploring that variety.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]242733[/snapback]</div>

That this provokes a knee-jerk reaction of "bad!" says a great deal about why we're such neurotic bastards by the time we reach adulthood. Our innocent expressions of affection when we were innocent got us slammed by adults obsessed by "SEX" - and so we stopped making ANY gestures of friendship and affection.

I'd be very saddened to see two 5 years olds "caught" kissing in any way remonstrated or told it was "wrong," irrespective of the sex of the kissing kids - girl - girl, boy- boy, boy - girl. SEX is the LAST thing on a 5 year old's mind - or have you forgotten?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 20 2006, 12:22 PM) [snapback]242738[/snapback]</div>

YOur right, we don't give our kids enough credit... even if they don't get it now.. it will click later....

so tell them the truth!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 03:14 PM) [snapback]242733[/snapback]</div>

So, basically, you're saying that we should teach kids to tolerate people who are homosexual, but God forbid that they become friends with them. I mean, they might actually discover that they are able to be friends with homosexuals!!! They might discover that gay men and women are just like them, with a rather minor (IMO) difference. The horror!!

Basically, it seems like your world consists of a place where we can teach tolerance of other minority groups, but that we need to stop short of actually talking about how those groups are different from the majority. Everything we teach in school should only be about western European, heterosexual, protestant groups since, after all, they make up the majority population and we wouldn't want other, "non-mainstream" information creeping into our classrooms. God, what a boring place that would be.

A lot of the dialogue about homosexuallity these days reminds me of what I've read about civil rights in the middle of the 20th century. We're just starting to get to the point where people are saying we should tolerate this minority group, but not to the point yet where people actually accept that they are a legitimate part of society. On the other hand, I don't think that we're at that point for race relations in this country either; but that's a topic for another discussion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Apr 20 2006, 03:53 PM) [snapback]242757[/snapback]</div>

Problem is, you might eventually convince a racist that racism is wrong.

No such luck here: eternal damnation is involved, so the 'sinner' can't be allowed to sin or spread it to others...

 

I don't understand the importance of knowing the percentages of sexual orientation. Should we treat people differently because they're not "mainstream"?

 

For years we have made use of a book, "The Practical Princess" where a princess (female) is the hero of all the stories and saves the prince. You don't realize your own bias, until you begin reading traditional stories with a reverse plot. Forces us to think and and rethink about ourselves and others.

I highly recommend "The Practical Princess".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 04:11 PM) [snapback]242770[/snapback]</div>

I disliked being told to kiss my father goodnight when I was just a toddler, and never intentionally kissed a male ever since then. 'Repulsion' is a good word for it.

I believe people who 'experiment' either didn't have enough of that kind of exposure as infants so need to try and figure things out later, or they aren't as repulsed as I was. Trick is, by that time the senses have dulled and no major difference might be detected anyway. Whenever I hear of a man fooled into dating another man, I wonder why he couldn't tell. I'm seriously annoyed when what I percieve to be an attractive woman turns out to be a man, since it causes my interest to collide with my repulsion, and it's not pretty.

So people repulsed by the same sex won't be indoctrinated into anything, but others might be interested if society left them alone. It's that 'left them alone' that's missing in most cases, as 'saving' people is waaaaay too important for some...

 

Squid - thanks for the reply... there is a lot of ground to cover here, so forgive me if I overlook any of your points...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 12:55 PM) [snapback]242759[/snapback]</div>

If the two eunuchs were cohabiting and in love, I'd consider them a couple. Let me turn the question around on you... If you were married to a woman and later on in life you were involved in an accident that required the surgical removal of your testicles (Yikes! I would not wish that on anyone!)... would you stop loving your wife? Would you cease to be married? Would your children no longer have a happy, nurturing home? Of course not. The sex act, and the ability to engage in the sex act, do not necessarily define a marriage.

Sexual attraction is a strong force in our physiology. Not as strong of a force such as eating or breathing, and not necessary for individual survival, but strong nonetheless. Sexual _orientation_ is really just the way our "compass" directs us. Heterosexual people are sexually attracted to and driven toward certain members of the opposite sex. Homosexual people are sexually attracted and driven toward certain members of the same sex. Bisexuals, to varying degrees, are attracted to members of both sexes.

Sexual orientation is about attraction and bonding, nothing more.

As a gay man, I can tell you that nothing in my upbringing or environment directly contributed to me "choosing" to be gay. (Except for the times that I used to play the organ in church. That was very gay.) You don't choose your sexual orientation, you simply realize what it is.

Well, by the 2nd grade, if they haven't already noticed that there are some unusual family groupings in their school, I'd worry about the kids perception. When I was in 2nd grade, we were already aware of things like divorce, step-parents, widows, foster kids, etc. In a low-density suburban elementary school.

Yes, it is another dimension, but I would argue from my perspective that the objections to any neutral or positive depiction of same-sex couples in school comes from religious sources, and only certain subsets of particular religions at that.

About which more later...

To be honest I haven't given too much thought about transgender issues at the elementary school level. Certainly, if a child asks questions about such things based on something they have encountered, the teacher should be free to talk about it in very basic, neutral terms or consult a children's book on the topic without fearing vilification from angry parents.

Well, most studies put the gay population between 5% and 10%. My personal experience lends me to believe it is closer to 10%, but we're not talking about "openly" gay people here. One of the interesting things about being open, such that I am, is that I get to meet and talk to a number of people who aren't open, who are afraid of being open, etc., whom most people would never expect to be gay because they don't fit any stereotype.

Interestingly, we have some good data on "open"... in the 2004 presidential election, exit polls actually asked questions related to the sexual orientation of the voter. 4% of those interviewed reported being gay or lesbian. That's a willingness to tell a total stranger with a clipboard.

Regarding same-sex relationships specifically, the 2000 census gives us clues. The census did not directly ask the question, but it did allow people living with a nonrelative to mark "partner" instead of just "housemate/roommate". If you look at just same-gender "partners" who are already cohabiting, about 600,000 households or 0.6 percent of the adult population.

Furthermore, this census data shows that 96% of all counties in the USA have at least one same-sex couple with children under the age of 18. So the odds of at least one same-sex couple having kids in school anywhere in the country are quite high. And those numbers are from people willing to answer affirmatively on a government form, in a time when same-gender couples are under attack on many fronts.

When there was hope of same-sex marriage becoming a reality in California back in February of 2004, about 4,000 couples turned out to get married. My hubby and I were among them. Here in Oregon, 3,000 more couples, mostly local, also got married. The two sets of couples do not have much overlap because most couples knew that Oregon would not "re-marry" couples who were already married in California. The California supreme court eventually nullified all of those marriages but has not addressed yet whether or not California's ban on gay marriage is constitutional. The court in Oregon also struck down the Oregon marriages but did so based in part on the reasoning that an anti-gay ballot measure that passed in November, 2004 made the question moot.

In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, over 6,000 couples married in the 1st year (as of May, 2005). Massachusetts bans out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying there, so those are all local residents or at least people who can legally claim residence there.

I hope that helps out the issue of numbers.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 03:14 PM) [snapback]242733[/snapback]</div>

Ah yes. The "Family Research Institute." I'm sure they are a fair, unbiased organization.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]242764[/snapback]</div>

You said earlier, "Teaching tolerance is one thing, attempts to mainstream homosexuality and other issues is another." This implies (to me, anyway), that you think we should teach students to tolerate people who are homosexual (i.e. "teaching tolerance"), but that we shouldn't "mainstream" homosexuality. Basically, I interpret "mainstreaming" as saying that homosexuality is normal; not necessarily that a majority is homosexual, but that some people are and there's nothing wrong with that. There's a significant difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]242764[/snapback]</div>

It's not teaching it as a fondational value! The story is saying, "This is how some people live. Most people fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, but some fall in love with people of the same sex." A huge proportion of the stories we read have girls/women falling in love with boys/men. Don't you think it's reasonable to say that it isn't the case for everyone? Some people fall in love with people of the same sex. That's the way the world is. It's not saying that the kids should fall in love with someone of the same sex, it's just saying that some do. I think that banning this book from the classroom implies that there is something wrong with it and, by extension, implies that there is something wrong with gay couples.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 05:11 PM) [snapback]242797[/snapback]</div>

I think 5% to 10% is a reasonable estimate of openly gay men and women (from what I've read). My point was just that I would be much more likely to believe something from a more independent source than a source that is obviously anti-gay. They cite the "best studies" at one point in that report, but don't state what makes them the "best." Should any of us be surprised that they are the studies with some of the lowest homosexual percentages?

This reminds me of a quote I heard Jon Stewart say once. Speaking about gay marriage, he said, "Well, at first I was against it. But then I found out they weren't mandatory."