"So Gay" Phrase Lands Santa Rosa Schools In Court

Parent Cafe
101

<p>You may well be surprised, HH. </p>

<p>The school system did not, according to everything I have read, do anything that didn’t protect the family’s constitutional rights. </p>

<p>Face it. They didn’t have to open the book bag. They were offended by a picture of two women cooking. There was no “instruction”. No one was "teaching"their child to be gay, how to love a man, or anything sexual.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court will undoubtedly find in favor of the town. This whole case was absurd and a media stunt from the get go.</p>

<p>And BTW, yes, I think the family should move. They are expecting something that the school system cannot provide, which is well out of the realm of their “religious freedom”. They have so many constraints on what their precious son can hear? School him at home, and then there won’t be an issue.</p>

102

<p>You need to read more about the case, and background of cases like it, so you will not continue to misstate the facts of it.</p>

<p>Just your use of the words “precious” and “precious sensibilities” tells me all I need to know about your religious intolerance, AM; as if I needed to know more.</p>

103

<p>I will be sure to gain all my facts from homophobic, racist and bigoted sites like the one you posted yesterday, HH.</p>

<p>And if you think you have the upper hand in moral superiority or religious tolerance, you are so beyond sadly mistaken, it is simply laughable.</p>

<p>I am done with my conversations with you. You are now on ignore.</p>

104

<p>Well, we’ve been having this conversation back since your liberal use of the pejorative “fundy” days, AM. I don’t believe I have any “upper hand in moral superiority” whatsoever, but, to be honest, I do think I am more religiously tolerant than you are. Probably a wise decision to put me on ignore for this reason.</p>

105

<p>I just read an article about this case, and those of you who claim it was just a picture of two women cooking are being a bit disengenuous. This is what Reuters said:
" The book that sparked the case was “King & King” which tells the story of a crown prince who rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after." </p>

<p>I think that changes the scenario significantly. Reading a book about different families that includes a mention of Molly’s family with two mommies is one thing. Reading a book specifically geared to introduce children to the idea of romantic love before members of the same sex is - if not personally offensive to me - something that I feel parents sould have a right to opt their child out of.</p>

<p>Homosexualty is something that is potentially difficult to explain to kids because once you remove the sexual component, it just sounds like any loving relationship between two people of the same gender, whether they are relatives or friends. Since kids of that age don’t themselves experience sexual feelings, even if they grasp in theory the romantic component, it is hard to explain why little Susie and her best friend Anna shouldn’t, at age eight, decide that they love each other so much that they must be lesbians. And no, I don’t think such instruction is going to “turn” kids gay, but I do see how parents might justly be a bit creeped out by that kind of scenario - even if they are tolerant people who do want to teach their kids to respect others, and even if they would be accepting if Susie actually did turn out to be a lesbian - once she was old enough to figure that out for herself.</p>

<p>Delaying that kind of information until kids are old enough to assimilate it properly isn’t a recipe for future homophobes. I remember asking my mom when I was in third grade or so what it meant to be gay - and she told me that she would tell me when I was older. She wound up telling me about homosexuality when she told me about sex a year later or so - at which point I thought that the whole concept of sex sounded repulsive, and romance between people of the same sex even more so. I don’t think my mom’s approach was the best one to take, but I also know that it didn’t do lasting damage. My parents were tolerant people who taught me to be respectful and sensitive to others in general, so it would never have occurred to me to gay-bash. By the time I was older and first starting to hear questions about gay marriage, I was more mature and my first thought was, “well of course they should be able to marry if they want to.” </p>

<p>I understand that in today’s world, it might not be reasonable to expect that kids won’t encounter gay people until they are older. However, I think there is a difference between meeting Billy’s two daddies and actually being taught about homosexuality at that age. In the first case, there isn’t any message, and the average kid is going to just think “Billy has two dads. I only have one. Sally just has a mom. Let’s play.” When it is being taught as part of a lesson, it is no longer neutral - it expresses a certain officially sanctioned viewpoint that may or may not be shared by the parents. Since it does concern a sexual issue, I think parents should have the right to opt out of it and teach their kids in the way they choose. The school can then teach the kids - including those opposed to homosexuality - the values of tolerance and respect for other people’s lifestyles, which is a lesson that no one should be able to opt out of.</p>

106

<p>No, this isn’t true, Icargirl. The book in question was entitled, “Who’s in a Family”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Family-Robert-Skutch/dp/188367266X[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Family-Robert-Skutch/dp/188367266X&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Sounds pretty racey and indoctrinating to me. ;)</p>

<p>The book of which you speak was apparently a piggyback case. That book was read aloud to the class (contrary to the aforementioned book, which was in a book bag, which the family could have opted out of bringing home, since it was reportedly voluntary, or opted out of reading, for the same reason). The case against the Prince book is entirely different, and NOT the basis of the Parker claim.</p>

107

<p>Regarding “King and King,” the book that the Wirthlin objected to, it appears the book was selected by a student in the class for in-class reading.</p>

<p>
[quote[The school has argued that state’s “opt-out” law requires schools only to inform parents about class content when sex education or human sexuality is the primary focus.</p>

<p>Ash also said it would be impossible to notify parents every time such issues come up. In the Wirthlin case, for instance, a child chose the book for the teacher to read. It was not planned and no notice could have been given, Ash said.
[/quote]

<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/27/parents_sue_school_for_failure_to_notify_about_gay_teachings/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/27/parents_sue_school_for_failure_to_notify_about_gay_teachings/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As a non-American, I have always been mildly shocked by the American (and British) custom of kissing on the mouth. I kiss my relatives on the cheeck once or perhaps twice.</p>

108

<p><a href=“homophobic%20is%20a%20pejorative,%20not%20descriptive,%20term,%20btw”>quote</a>

[/quote]

Sounds like a description to me. And from here, it looks like a duck, it talks like a duck…</p>

109

<p>What I find appalling is that there is ONE LINE in the bible, put in by who knows, and at what point in history that gives justification for this Christian “belief” that homosexuality it evil, etc.</p>

<p>So much is ignored in the bible, but that is held onto for dear life by people that are close minded, fearful, and scared</p>

<p>Get over it</p>

<p>THere have been homosexuals throughout time in all realms, and well, we need to let the Christians keep teaching hate because it is there right, well it is, their “right” I suppose, but does it make it right?</p>

<p>Many nice Christian folks didn’t think blacks and whites should mix, much less get married, just should have let that slide and not let the state step in</p>

<p>Ignorance should not be tolerated just because some people’s tome has a few lines that justify it in their minds</p>

110

<p>That was a nice post, ICargirl.</p>

<p>The King & King book (in which the prince is introduced to a series of women and rejects them all in favor of a man), is included in the legal brief, for the simple reason that when the Parker’s child reaches 1st grade at Esterbrook he will be read the book, or a similar book, as a part of the diversity curriculum, as well as the fact that the Wirthlins are plaintiffs in the case along with the Parkers.</p>

<p>Some people understand that it is disingenuous (at best) to pretend that same-sex unions/marriages/families can be separated from sexuality/sexual orientation/romantic love, etc. Hence, the word homosexual. We are being asked to check our common sense at the door in favor of appeals to our emotions.</p>

111

<p>All I can say is, oy vey. HH, you really should expand your horizons and make at least one post in a forum other than the cafe. How long has it been? This is a ‘college’ site, after all.</p>

112

<p>Right now I don’t have a child of age to be looking into colleges, although he will be next year. You can look forward (or not) to seeing me all over the college threads then! (Gosh, I’ll probably have to assume an alias, I would imagine.) My older child is already a college junior–second semester. In the meantime, I barely have time to keep up with one or two threads. But thanks, as always, for your concern regarding my posting habits!!</p>

113

<p>So is Cinderella a sexually-themed story? Or are only stories which acknowledge same sex relationships inherently about sex? Your “common sense” may be common, but it’s also irrational, HH. I recognize that your basic goal is to de-legitimize homosexuals, by making their relationships inherently “dirty”. That’s why “homophobic” is simply an accurate description of your philosophy.</p>

114

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe not. But there are two sides to every coin. I really don’t think kindergartners think of heterosexual couples on sexual terms. So then should children not know that heterosexual couples exist? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me, your mileage may vary. You keep mentioning that these young children “know” that only a heterosexual couple can make a baby. Many of them know on vague terms, and certainly I would imagine nearly all 8 year olds know at least on vague terms. I would highly doubt many of them know a great deal about the mechanics of it unless they have been exposed to material that isn’t age appropriate (though 8 is getting a little beyond that point). </p>

<p>People keep saying children don’t understand the sexual context of these relationships and therefore they might as well not know they exist. When they learn about heterosexual couples, can they not be taught to differentiate between a male and female friend, between a husband and a father? Please. This is ridiculous. Yes children do sometimes misunderstand THAT distinction. It’s explained to them in clearer terms in that case.</p>

115

<p>If you’re looking for a response from me–I read your post three times and I don’t understand what you are saying.</p>

<p>All these people are doing is asking to choose the time they feel appropriate to have conversations about same-sex unions with their children. This is, for some reason, threatening to the school authorities. That’s the bottom line.</p>

<p>kluge–give up on trying to guess what my “basic goal” is, ok? There is no “basic goal” other than what I’ve expressed repeatedly.</p>

116

<p>Some people had mentioned that children will think two girls who are friends are lesbians. I’m saying there are male-female relationships that are not sexual. This is somehow conveyed when teaching about heterosexual relationships. I don’t see how it’s different for male-male or female-female. I was also saying if you can’t seperate sexuality from homosexuality, then you can’t seperate it from heterosexuality. But no one is in court over books that depict heterosexual relationships. </p>

<p>I think many people just don’t understand why they are insisting their parental rights have been taken away when this was a book that was sent home and could have been reviewed. Also if the reports are true that the book just show two mothers and not much more, I don’t see why they have to introduce anything. They could say it was a mistake. They could say they are roommates trying to save on rent. This would be lying and it wouldn’t be what I chose to say personally, but it’s still up to them to come up with a fitting explanation as they choose. Maybe I missed something. I can understand the case with the prince story even if it’s different from the actions I would take, since that was done in class and the parents couldn’t decide what or how to explain. It also has an arguably sexual undertone in the ending that, while not exactly graphic, does go beyond the usual “they lived happily ever after” heterosexual couple story endings.</p>

117

<p>My kids knew that some of their friends had two moms; that others of their friends were adopted; that still others were born to a heterosexual couple; that yet still others had parents who were separated or divorced. I do not think they speculated about how friends of same sex parents were conceived. However, they speculated about how a daycare classmate was conceived, as the (heterosexual) parents made no bones about the child being conceived through IVF and talked openly about wanting to have another child in the same manner.</p>

118

<p>That’s the thing that is so weird about this whole conversation.</p>

<p>My kids have always known kids with two moms or two dads. We never discussed these particular couple’s sexuality; it simply wasn’t important. My kids played there, and it was absolutely, categorically NO BIG DEAL.</p>

<p>The big deal is made by those who try to make something out of nothing. Had the Parkers kept their homophobia to themselves, their son would have thought nothing of a picture in a book of two women cooking dinner. Had the other family kept quiet, the King book would have been forgotten by the afternoon soccer game.</p>

<p>This is the parents’ agenda, and they are the ones drawing attention to something that isn’t even on the radar screen of a five year old. Their poor children will probably need lots of therapy in the future.</p>

119

<p>I generally think it’s not a big deal, but I appreciate the parent’s point of view. What their 5 year old learns in class isn’t going to stay there, he/she is going to probably come home and eventually ask questions if they ever see what they ‘think’ is an example of ‘two mommies/daddies’. If a parent isn’t ready to discuss that with their 5 year old, I certainly think that’s their right. I know many inquisitive young children who’s first thought after learning this information will be to march up to every pair of friendly moms and ask if they’re lesbians. Awkward, awkward, awkward. Learning this later, when they have better tact (though some people never do, alas) would be stance I would take.</p>

120

<p>red-dragone:</p>

<p>But what would you do if, as in the case of my S, it happened in first grade?</p>