<p>Slavery and any of the civil rights analogies are false arguments, as you know, as the majority of black leaders will argue. Gender equality is here; at least 2/3 of the kids in these schools have moms who work outside the home. You can’t just snap your fingers and turn your back on the religious tradition of 76% of the American population which is Christian (in addition to many of other religions), the vast majority of whom believe marriage should be between a man and a woman (including every single one of our presidential candidates, and almost every single one of our elected officials, including the state legislature in Massachusetts, which had to be bypassed to legalize gay marriage in that state). You can’t just cut out parental influence in a public school because you decide it should be so, and put shining examples of loving kindness and empathy for all like AM, EK and cgm in charge. You people are living within a bubble of prejudice which has nothing to do with tolerance. That your idea of tolerance is to tell people who want an opt-out form in discussions of gay marriage with their 5, 6 and 7 year old children in keeping with their sincerely held religious beliefs that they must move, homeschool or pay private school tuition because “education is for the masses” is utterly mind-boggling. “So the same message needs to be repeated.”–d*** the parents. There is no deviation allowed from your secular, fundamentalist, bogus “tolerance” dogma. I have never encountered such arrogance (on second thought, yes I have–in my own school district’s administrators). I can’t believe this is happening in America. Heaven help the people of Massachusetts.</p>
<p>kluge: Hate-filled bilge, as a matter of fact. Quote the posts I was referring to, why don’t you.
Please stop explaining to people what I believe, think and feel. I can do that myself–thanks.</p>
<p>I read between the lines of HH, and I see someone who dislikes gays, and masks it behind religious beliefs</p>
<p>It is amazing to me that hate is justified by religious beliefs, and its okay cause the bible tells them so</p>
<p>Nice…</p>
<p>Hate filled bilge? You say that we are to tolerate hate because it is someone’s relgious belief, and we say, um, why should we…and you call that hate filled bilge</p>
<p>At least be intellectually honest and honest with us.</p>
<p>If you dislike gays, admit it, don’t hide behind your religion, which is what many people do</p>
<p>hereshoping:</p>
<p>Discrimination ended not “in the last couple of hundred years” but within the time I have lived in this country. And it ended because people were pro-active about it. I was calling you out on your notion of “tolerance.”</p>
<p>The people of MA have the lowest rate of divorce in the nation. Maybe there’s something others could emulate, hmmm?</p>
<p>Although I frequently disagree with hereshoping, I think that people are wilfully misunderstanding her point here.</p>
<p>If I understand hereshoping correctly, she isn’t saying that students shouldn’t be taught to tolerate all types of people. What she is saying is that there is no need to give specific curricular attention to homosexuality at that age. Although I’m not sure how far she would take this, by and large I agree with her.</p>
<p>In the case that marite is describing, the subject came up naturally, and I do think some discussion of respect for differences - and stern warnings to the taunters - was called for. However, there is a difference between saying “Some people have been making fun of Sara’s family. It isn’t nice to say hurtful things to anyone, but it is particularly important in this case to remember that all families are different, just like all people are different, and we shouldn’t look down on families that don’t look like ours” and “Sara’s dad is gay, and here is what that means.” </p>
<p>There is also a difference between discussing an issue that obviously needed to be addressed and including something as a routine part of classroom instruction. I know that that isn’t what the case is about, but according to the curriculum hereshoping provided, teaching about gays and lesbians is a component of the class’s diversity instruction, which I don’t think is necessary at that age.</p>
<p>Personally, when I have kids I will have no problem teaching them about homosexuality at an early age. In fact, since I have a close gay friend who I hope will still be a part of my life at that point, I fully expect the subject to arise. My answer would probably explain that there are different kinds of love - the love that you feel for family and friends, and the love that older people feel, usually for someone of the opposite sex, like mommy feels for daddy. But some people are born differently, and love people of the same sex, and that’s okay too. What I would not tell them is that gay means love between boys, because I think that is a confusing and generally unhelpful definition. </p>
<p>I understand some parents are going to teach their kids hateful things, and that is true whether or not the school is addressing homosexuality in the early grades. And by middle school, I do think homosexuality should be a legitimate discussion topic in schools. Within reason, however, I think parents should have a choice about when their children are exposed to the issue. If circumstances require them to be exposed to it early, so be it. But there is no need to force the issue.</p>
<p>cgm: You read between the lines. As I said, the arrogance is astounding.</p>
<p>You can’t even read and think: The Parkers simply want to remove their child from gay marriage discussions until the child is in seventh grade. They are not attempting to influence others. Is this so hard for you to understand?</p>
<p>When I gave my definition of tolerance as “acknowledging someone’s right to make a choice” you said that meant that I believed that being gay was a choice.</p>
<p>You people keep reading into what I’m saying your own hate and you can’t even see it.</p>
<p>yes, ICargirl: their misunderstanding is absolutely willful. It shows how kind they are, doesn’t it.</p>
<p>
See, Marite - HH is the victim. And she will always view herself that way until everyone - including the public schools - works with her to reinforce and support her anti-gay prejudice. That’s why she can be so arrogant - victimhood bestows that right on her. The fact that gays are taunted, assaulted, beaten and abused every day throughout the country matters not - holders of the predominant prejudice are the victims because the schools fail to reinforce their bigotry.</p>
<p>You are attempting to converse about me with others here while I’m here. You are a prince, kluge.</p>
<p>
Not to step into this too far, but I also find this distasteful.</p>
<p>Disagree, when you do; but be honest in your disagreement.</p>
<p>Argue the issue or advance your position, but it is beyond the bounds of decorum to speak about someone as if they are not even there…as if they were a dog that could not grasp the conversation their masters are engaged in.</p>
<p>Arogance does not fully capture this all too common phenomenon.</p>
<p>7th GRADE!!! Yeah, and the Parkers kid isn’t around any gay people…most people that are homosexual know by 10 at the latest…so trying to hide their child from being exposed to homosexuals is just sad</p>
<p>And , yeah, when you talk about homosexuality and it being a choice…yeah, I see what I see</p>
<p>Your narrowminded bigoted tone is pretty obvious</p>
<p>We are supposed to tolerate those that don’t tolerate</p>
<p>How stupid does that sound?</p>
<p>Be honest, do you like gay people?</p>
<p>FOR THE ZILLIONTH TIME…</p>
<p>NO ONE is “teaching homosexuality” or having “gay marriage discussions”. No one is telling elementary aged children in direct instruction that men love or marry each other. They are not discussing SEX!!! In the confines of literature, pictures of two women or two men (non-sexualized) come up, but they are to legitimize the relationships that children in that town and in this Commonwealth see every day.</p>
<p>Maybe some posters on this thread live under a rock, carefully protecting their breathen from those godawful queers, but in more enlightened communities, lesbians and gay parents are very much part of the fabric. They are at school events, and they might <shudder> even hold hands, or some such.</shudder></p>
<p>Those parents could not possibly protect their son from seeing evidence of gay parenting in that town, and many others. It is way beyond the school…it is everywhere, at the library, grocery store, etc. And if they don’t like it…YES, they should move. The lesbians are not going back in the closet to protect the sensibilities of these parents or the HHs of America.</p>
<p>Lesbians and gay men are LEGALLY married in this state. They can adopt children, and their children can attend school…legally. They have the same rights as the rest of us (contrary to you who live in more backwards states). Quit trying to push your homophobic and bigoted agenda on people who are protected by legal rights.</p>
<p>You can’t just cut out parental influence in a public school because you decide it should be so,</p>
<p>I totally agree- I think with HH
In our state- students aren’t mandated to attend school till 8 years old- if they do attend public school kindergarten, that is usually 5 years old, for a couple hours a day.
Once they do attend school full time- I think 6 hours is pretty standard and that often includes time for lunch and recess.
All the rest of that time, the years leading up to school attendance, the 18 or so hours a day, they spend away from school they will exhibit the beliefs and values that their parents have modeled and taught.</p>
<p>In the couple hours they have of kindergarten a day. TIme is spent lining up, to wash hands, to get their coats/crayons/snack. Time is spent putting away chairs/papers/wallpaper paste. A few minutes may be spent on manners- no hitting- no swearing- no teasing.If someone dresses unusually enough that they are teased, a few more minutes might be spent on kindness that day.</p>
<p>But really, they don’t spend much time at school- not compared to the time they spend with their siblings and parents, who are their role models.</p>
<p>If there is a particular issue that they don’t want their child exposed to or something that the family/child is sensitive too - their best bet is to discuss that with the teacher when they have conferences at the beginning of the year.
Most teachers find it helpful to learn more about the childrens circumstances and background, so that they can better aid them in the classroom.</p>
<p>Ah, but HH & DPX - HH’s worldview - and that of the Parkers - is the point - and she’s not interested in discussing it. “Please stop explaining to people what I believe, think and feel. I can do that myself–thanks.” But she can’t. Because she prefers to project a sugar coated version of that worldview - as people who cannot morally justify their true motivations often do.</p>
<p>The question is: How do you deal with irrational phobias when those who are afflicted with them refuse to acknowledge them? HH insists that “homophobia” is pejorative, not descriptive - and thus to herself sidesteps the underlying problem: irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality. </p>
<p>The issue is irrationality. Yes, I understand that faith, the underpinning of most religions, is essentially irrational. And I support freedom of religion. But when religious views support intolerance of others - and the others are actually under very real daily attack in society, with words and fists - schools should not bow to the demands of intolerance. Let the parents teach their kids to hate gays at home. But don’t bowdlerize the routine study materials to excise every passing mention of same sex couples. Same sex couples are a fact of life. Eliminating any mention of them from classroom materials so as to encourage the viewpoint that gays are strange and abnormal is not impartial education, it’s indoctrination.</p>
<p>I find it just fascinating that those that want tolerance taught that want kids to know that there are all kinds of wonderful families out there that want kids to treat each other with at a minimum dignity if they aren’t the cookie cutter family, that we are called intolerant because we don’t tolerate bigotry and hate.</p>
<p>How does that even compute in some people’s heads…“oh you aren’t really tolerant if you don’t like that people hate”…huh?</p>
<p>My Ds have seen all kinds of families growing up, have been in all kinds of homes, and when they are little, they just want to play with their friends, but if the parent is close minded and homophobic and says, Bobby’s parents are bad and sinful because it is two men, well, then Bob will get teased because of what parents say.</p>
<p>Know if a school has programs that say, well, they are people too, and its not right to talk like that, maybe the kid who is being the bully won’t be seen as so cool anymore becuase other kids are taught that kind of talk is not nice.</p>
<p>And the talk I hear about the tacky parties, the racist ones disguised as humorous, that those are a backlash against the tolerance teaching is just hogwash. To claim that is just trying to excuse bad behavior. And to see the horrid things those college kids come up with in the name of a good laugh is disgusting and to try and excuse it because its a backlash against having to treat people decently…sad indeed</p>
<p>Frankly I don’t agree with the Parkers’ view that the physical expression of homosexuality is sinful, although my religion does. I have explained this before.</p>
<p>Nor do I believe it is a choice: I have explained this before.</p>
<p>I do believe in freedom of religion, and I do not necessarily think that the Parkers’ wanting to have these conversations with their child at a later age, within their own home, necessarily makes them bigots and homophobes. </p>
<p>I do believe that gay marriage is wrong, but that does not mean I do not believe that gay people should not have civil rights under the law.</p>
<p>As far as my kids (“My D’s…” - cgm): I’d put my kids up against yours (AM, kluge and cgm) as winners in a contest as kind, loving and tolerant people any day of the year. In fact, I’d bet my life on it.</p>
<p>I’m going to break my vow of ignore to HH to scoff at her claim that her children are the winners in the kind, loving, and tolerant people contest.</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>I’m sorry but this is so beyond hysterical!</p>
<p>My children aren’t in any contest with yours (thankfully), but everyone (and I mean everyone) who meets them thinks that they are nothing short of terrific. They are wonderful, wonderful people, and I am proud of their openness to new people, to new experiences, to everything life has to offer. If you can say the same, HH, good on you.</p>
<p>“I’m going to break my vow of ignore…” – surprise, surprise! :)</p>
<p>“What she is saying is that there is no need to give specific curricular attention to homosexuality at that age.”</p>
<p>Where was there “specific curricular attention” given to homosexual relationships in the case at hand? There was a book, among many other books, given to the students as optional material. The book contained images of many family structures, including same-sex parents. I looked at the disputed book images on the linked site (all two of them). Children are shown washing a poodle with their two moms, and the reader is told that you need 4 pairs of hands to do that job. Is that giving “specific curricular attention” to poodle-owning families?</p>
<p>If there’s a case concerning a kindergarten class that gave “specific curricular attention” to same-sex relationships, let’s hear about the facts in that case. We haven’t talked about one here.</p>
<p>I don’t like it when kids use it AT ALL…I mentionned it once in passing to my son’s middle school guidance counselor, and she said," its no big deal. All the kids say it". She went WAY down in my estimation after that. Its a putdown and its insulting.</p>
<p>Does learning #18 on the anti-bias curriculum list for kindergarten and first grade: “introduce vocabulary–gay, lesbian and straight”–count?</p>