Dem Debate topic - Teaching 2nd Graders about gay issues..

[HardWorkingDem]

During the debate, one of the questions brought up dealt with some 2nd grade teacher discussing gay issues with students and reading a story dealing with a prince marrying a prince.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/14313/democratic_debate_transcript_new_hampshire.html

Now, Edwards was the first to be asked this and he replied he had no problem with this.

I'm sorry, but I do. First, I am all for gay marriage and believe all Americans should be afforded the same rights and protections as every one else.

But what I don't care for is the potential of a teacher discussing this topic with seven year olds. To me, it is not the place or time for this discussion. What I don't have a problem with is children being taught we are all humans and we all should be treated fairly and humanely.

To me, this topic should be left to parents.

Am I wrong? Does this make me a bigot?

[Bill McBlueState]

1. think about this

How is this different from a story where a prince marries a princess? Why would one be okay for a class but the other one not?

[IndianaJones]

2. yes, its bigoted. nt.

[HardWorkingDem]

15. How so?

Explain how it is bigoted to think that seven years old might be too young for this topic and it is best left to a parent? But I guess maybe some children may be more mature to understand than others, but I just think seven is too young.

But how is it bigoted?

[IndianaJones]

18. How is it not? Excluding discussion of a sizeable portion of society from public schools? nt.

[HardWorkingDem]

26. Not talking of permanently excluding...wondering what is the appropriate age...

I guess part of what I am getting at is, when is the appropriate time and appropriate age and should a person outside of parents be introducing this topic to someone else's children.

And if one's child asks about this topic to a teacher, isn't it more appropriate for that teacher to tell the parent that their child was asking about this particular topic?

I think a true bigot would not be open to this topic at all, which I'm not. I just don't think my seven year old should be dealing with this in a school until she is ready for it.

[William769]

24. What about the kids in the classroom that have two mommies or daddies?

Should they be subjected to prince only marrying a princess?

[rucky]

3. This isn't a Dem debate issue, it's a GOP debate issue for Dems.

don't take the bait.

[goodgd_yall]

6. That's true.

The answers are meant to outrage social conservatives.

[rodeodance]

9. its another wedge issue.

[goodgd_yall]

4. What about all the kid's books with a straight mommy and daddy?

Maybe the pictures and storylines that show a male Dad and a female Mom need to be expunged? This seems to follow your reasoning. The topic should be left to parents.

I believe we need to have materials in the schools that show gay parents. We already show single-parent families and kids raised by extended family in order to reflect real life in books for young people. This seems to be the final barrier---acknowledging gay people in school materials.

I work for a test publishing company. I look forward to the day there will be two men and two women as parents in our reading test excerpts. That will show real progress.

[rodeodance]

5. some parents avoid the topic-yet their kids go to school and Whala-a kid has two mommies

or two daddies.


Kids can handle it---it is the adults I worry about.

[rodeodance]

7. i can't believe in this day and age, some still have problems with this this issue

[goodgd_yall]

8. BTW

Edwards did make an aside comment that he wasn't so sure 2nd grade was an appropriate grade, if that means anything to you.

[sandnsea]

10. How do men feel about "prince" stereotypes anyway

Nobody ever asks men if they like the image that women expect them to live up to, based on these fairy tales. Now gay men are going to have to live up to the whole 'knight in shining armor' thing too.

I've been wondering about that lately, what say you fellas.

I think the more homosexuality is presented in grade school, etc., the more people will push back against gays completely. But I guess if the gay community wants the fight, it's their right to choose it.

[noamnety]

40. The real topics of concern in the book are troubling.

stereotypes of men, as you pointed out - yep.
the classist nature of needing to meet an "appropriate" mate for your station in life.
Parading the princesses in front of him like he's selecting a slave at an auction block.
Why is the mother pressuring her son to get married?

These issues are all being overlooked - and actually are disturbing issues to try to discuss with a second grader.

I'd have liked to have seen THOSE issues discussed at the debates. But the candidates won't be talking about that, and the teachers won't be talking to the kids about those issues either, because we live in a culture that normalizes auction block selection of women (Miss America), that normalizes pressuring people to get married and have kids, that normalizes harmful stereotypes of both men and women, and all those things cause real damage.

Instead we got this drivel about whether somebody's second grader is going to be damaged cause the child found out not all men want to spend their life with a woman. The Horror!!!

[HardWorkingDem]

45. Replies like yours are ones that are disappointing...

To me this discussion or topic is not "drivel". And I get good and damned sick when other Du'ers marginalize other Du'ers because they might have a different opinion of things or different beliefs.

[noamnety]

49. You have a different opinion about gay people?

What's to have an opinion about?

They are people. They exist just like left-handed people exist. You don't need to have an opinion "about" them.

[HardWorkingDem]

50. Not at all....but what I do have an opinion about...

is when people come here and ask sincere questions and have someone state their questions, thoughts or opinions are "drivel."

No where did I state gays aren't people.

Let me ask you this - right now PBS's The War is getting stellar reviews for its realism and graphic nature. War is a fact of life. Would you want that program being shown to a child of yours? And by a teacher?

Or would you rather approach that topic in your own home?

[noamnety]

54. Wars and violence are not comparable to people being gay.

Wars and violence harm people, and repeated exposure to violence makes children more violent, and can cause PTSD.

So as a parent and as a teacher, I would say second grade is too young to be exposed to that. As a veteran, and human, I would say that nobody, at any age should be exposed to war, including soldiers and civilians of all ages. And I am very much aware of the privileged position I am in to even be able to say our children shouldn't be exposed to those images, when we are blowing the limbs off of children and killing their parents in front of them in Iraq, and when our policies killed a half million Iraqi children under Clinton.

Privilege aside, that's not comparable to telling a story about two people in a healthy happy relationship, and I think it's drivel - not to mention highly offensive - to try to equate gay marriage with graphic scenes of war. Kids might be harmed by the parent's reaction to it, which is a whole separate issue - but they aren't harmed by finding out some kid in the class - or in a story - has two moms or two dads, just like they aren't going to be harmed by finding out two men live next door from you and sometimes hug or kiss. Would you move if you had a 5 year old and two gay men moved in next door? Would that bother you?

I don't really know how it can be a sincere and at the same time nonhomophobic question to try to stir up support for the idea that simply hearing about two adults who love each other could possibly harm a child.

On a side note, I wish DU would institute a logic test as a posting requirement. If I tell you that schools shouldn't have to limit their texts to straight white Christian males to appease bigots, it's not logical to conclude from that that I want schools to expose children to graphic sexual or violent material.

[HardWorkingDem]

59. Sigh...

You missed my point about war and two gays. Guess I should have just used any other sort of content to make the illustration.

My point was, right now in our country we are at war. Children might have questions about the war or the show on PBS and my point was, WHO do you want to determine the level of content to discuss war with YOUR children? Do you want some teacher? Or do you want to be the one to approach that topic? I know what I would like.

And my God, where did I state a child hearing about two same sex people will harm them?!?! Or that I wouldn't want a gay couple living next door?

Why do you keep jumping to conclusions that I have not even made or put forth?

But look at it this way: imagine if your children had a second grade socially conservative grade teacher and this topic came up and this teacher answered questions influenced by his or her beliefs and they weren't what you would have liked your child to have heard. Does this make a difference?

And thanks for the insult I guess.

Like I stated elsewhere it this thread, it's so great to come to a place that has members that are supposed to be so much more courteous and open to other ideas or questions.

[noamnety]

63. I fully admit I am not "open" to the idea that gays belong in the closet.

Why is a higher level of maturity required to hear a story where a man loves another man, than a story where a man loves a women?

[Puglover]

70. That cuts to the quick Lwfern.

I'm not surprised to see there isn't a response. But he's no bigot by gosh! :eyes:

[HardWorkingDem]

73. Tell me then....

at what age or what level of whatever, (time, grade, maturity, whatever standard to you choose) do YOU think is some sort of point to start introducing topics like this to children? What is your personal time of appropriateness?

[noamnety]

79. I am not sure I understand the question.

You want to know when it's appropriate to introduce a child to the concept of families? Mine was just kinda born into one ... it's not like we kept her isolated in a cage in the basement amd fed her through a tube until she was old enough to grasp that she and her friends have parents, and then sat her down with a PowerPoint briefing to explain the concept.

[NMMNG]

82. Maybe that's what the homophobes should do

it's not like we kept her isolated in a cage in the basement and fed her through a tube until she was old enough to grasp that she and her friends have parents, and then sat her down with a PowerPoint briefing to explain the concept.

I mean, if they really don't want their precious little ones learning about eeeeevul gay people (and other facts of life) until they're, like, 30 or something. :eyes:

[HardWorkingDem]

87. When do you think/or was/is

is the time for this discussion to be held? Do you think it is when the child first asks about the topic or should it be introduced to any child at any certain time?

It's a pretty simple question but since I've been identified as a homophobic, prejudiced bigot for wanting to be the one involved who teaches our children about certain issues maybe it's hard to phrase it well.

I can't believe people here jump to the knee jerk labels so quickly. I am not advocating the repression of this topic at all. But I've repeated that ad nauseaum.

People here are responding like I am saying my children should never be exposed to big bad gay people because it will corrupt them or ruin them and this claim is utter BS.

[noamnety]

95. You haven't been able to identify what the "issue" is.

Two adults love each other sometimes. That's the issue.

Some people think it's a whole other category if the two adults are black and white, and that this is something that children need to be introduced to as "an issue." It isn't. It's just two people in love, unless the people doing the explaining feel they need to add a disclaimer onto that situation to tell kids that it's deviant in some way. If kids grow up being exposed to mixed race couples, THEY don't see it as deviant. They just accept that this is how some couples are. If you shelter them from the idea of mixed race couples until they are old enough to understand it as an issue, then you've made it one. For what purpose, I don't know, other than to create the impression from a young age that this is not how any couples are, so you can later introduce the surprising idea that there actually are some couples who are mixed race, and that this is ABnormal.

The best way to erase prejudice from the next generation is to treat diversity as the NORM.

It's nice to say you aren't advocating the repression of the topic at all, or marginalization of gays, but that's a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. You want them not to appear, in normal percentages, in literature. You want them whitewashed out of school books. That IS repression of their existence and marginalization. It's one step from Ahmadinejad's assertion that gays don't exist in Iran. You want schools to create the impression that gays don't exist in the world - to shield your kids from WHAT?

The BEST time for children to be exposed to the idea that gay couples exist is the same as the best time for them to be exposed to the idea that straight couples, or black, or white, or any other race, or mixed race, or tall or short or mixed height couples exist - before they can talk, and before they've been exposed to people's bigotry, so they see it as a normal healthy part of life.

[HardWorkingDem]

116. Let me try this in another way...

when are you going to/or when did you teach your children about the birds and the bees?

Did you wait until they asked, until you though they would understand it or wait for a public school teacher to do it for you?

And your statement about how I want all this whitewashed from everything is one step from Iran is incorrect and not even a fair assumption and takes great liberty with anything I have written in this thread.

And if people here think I stated that or believe that, then I dare them to find the words where I do and quote them.

[noamnety]

121. Quoting you:

"Why do you keep bringing up sex acts?"

Fair enough - until you start bringing up the birds and the bees. What does that have to do with this story? Anything at all?

I've asked you to state why kids need a maturity level for the story, but you haven't been able to articulate that yet.

If you are okay with your young child hearing a story in school about a straight couple, and you are not okay with an identical story about a gay couple being read, and the only discriminating factor is the characters' orientation, then you are discriminating based on orientation.

[HardWorkingDem]

137. Sigh....it was a metaphor...

What I was asking YOU in particular was,

When did you feel it was the time to tell your children about the birds and bees? Or any other possible difficult subject matter?

My question is, how do/did you know or not know they are ready? And not necessarily for same sex couples but for all things like the birds and bees, wars or any other topic.

What I am asking is, when it comes to any difficult topic, did you wait until the child asked about the topic? Or when you felt it was time for the topic?

Did that clear that part up? (I'm not going after sex acts, but used that for an illustration on when it is time or not time to broach subjects with children.)

[noamnety]

144. If you think it's a "difficult subject", you are prejudiced.

Unless you think a similar story about a princess and a prince is a "difficult subject."

The age that I talk to my kids about difficult subjects isn't related to this discussion, because it's not difficult. Some men are attracted to women, some to men. That's not any more difficult than Some men like ketchup, some like mustard.

What is your problem with it?

[HardWorkingDem]

145. Oh, please forgive me...

I am so sorry. You are a better person, a better liberal and a better parent than I simply because I want my wife and I to be the ones to discuss certain subjects with our children, rather than that of a second grade teacher deciding to automatically start teaching children these things at an age of his or her choosing.

[swimboy]

163. Second grade teachers teach.

It's the fact that you refer to the existence of gay human beings as a class of "these things" when it is just "another thing" that diminishes your otherwise fine credentials as a liberal and a parent.

How much of the second grade curriculum was submitted for your review and approval? Would you strike this fairy tale from the list?

In all the responses to your OP thus far, are you still not able to step outside yourself and see the point we are trying to help you to see?

[HardWorkingDem]

166. Book Lover really helped me out...

He gave me some really good replies and a great place to start, unlike the fall back on things like reading into words like "these things"....you know - the old Ross Perot attack reply.

But like I stated, I'll just go with being a bad parent, a worse off liberal and a bigoted homophob as according to some DU members here and leave it at that.

[NMMNG]

171. I believe booklover did give you the right answer

Teach kids about homosexuality at the same time you teach them about heterosexuality.

That would be pretty much from the time they're born then.

But you don't want to hear that, do you?

[noamnety]

178. I gave that answer

but he/she didn't want to hear it from me, I guess. :)

They are asking the wrong question. It's not "When should I introduce the topic of people being gay to my child?"

It's "how long should I shield my kids from the radical notion that some people aren't straight?" And the answer is, Don't.

[NMMNG]

179. But, but, their delicate little sensibilities!

I think the bigger concern here is the parents' delicate little sensibilities. Kids don't develop bigotries until they're taught them.

[HardWorkingDem]

182. Wrong, Lwfern....

See, you and I see things differently - to me, there is a huge difference between "shielding" and "introducing" and I'm weary of trying to defend having a different perspective and being called a homophobe, bigot and other junk.

[noamnety]

184. If you want storybook characters scrubbed to create a false impression

that all people are heterosexuals, that's a problem.

If you told me you wanted black characters scrubbed from the stories, you only want the teachers reading books about white children, that would be shielding your kids from black people in stories, and it would be a problem. If you only wanted stories where women raised kids and didn't work outside the house, that would be shielding your kids from the idea that women are active participants in the workforce.

Marginalizing groups of people means creating an unnatural impression that only the dominant class/classes exist. It's an inherently bigoted thing to do.

Deciding that it's okay for a teacher to introduce heterosexual couples in stories, but not homosexual couples, is inherently bigoted.

[HardWorkingDem]

185. I'm done with you and here's why.....

I don't know what your issue is, but every time I try to explain something you take my words and completely mischaracterize them and hideously use them to describe some sort of doomsday scenario that I am not even approaching or advocating.

As I stated, BookLover really gave me some great insight and that was enough for me, but you keep bringing up junk like I don't want black characters in books and how teachers should only read books about whites....blah, blah and blah. Things like that.

And then you go on again about how I'm bigoted when all I want is do what I think parents should have the ability to do because it gets down to what one of the final posters posted (and something I've noticed you have conveniently avoided answering) and that is, what if teachers use their own beliefs in topics such as these that run contrary to ours (oh, my, there is that dreaded Ross Perot "these" word - wonder what sort of derogatory name you are going to allege I used that time).

So if that is your style to win an argument, consider yourself the winner. I'm done.

[noamnety]

186. It was one of those fancy analogy things

I didn't say you don't want black characters in books. :)

If you are thinking that teachers are so potentially bigoted that they shouldn't be allowed to read stories with minorities - because THEY might say something bigoted about the stories, what are we to deduce except that you only want straight white male Christian characters in the books? That way, they won't accidentally or deliberately pass on their bigoted ideas about women, gays, nonchristians, or people of color to your child. Is that the best solution?

I think a better solution is to treat the bigoted teacher as the problem, not the book. If they say something bigoted, report them to the administration, and make sure it's dealt with in an appropriate manner.

I definitely don't think bigoted teachers should hold that much influence over us all that we feel we have to alter our entire curriculum so it's entirely about the dominant class. I think that's exactly what THEY'D like to have happen. I don't want to give them that much power.

[1monster]

11. Hmm. What's a teacher to do if a child in her/his class reads that book

independently and asks her/him about it?

I'm reminded of a field trip I went on with my son's second grade class. As we were getting back on to the bus to go back to school, one of my son's second grade classmates came up to me and said:

"(My son's name) is gay, isn't he?"

I was so shocked at hearing the sexualization of an innocent (baby, in truth) second grader by another innocent (baby, in truth) second grader, that I replied in a shocked voice:

"How can you say something like that?"

The poor child looke totally bewildered and answered, "But I thought gay meant HAPPY!"

(Uh Oh, I really stepped in it there, didn't I?)

I realized right away what had happened. The little second grader had overheard a conversation about "gay" and ssked what it meant. His parents obviously thought he was to young for that kind of conversation and told him the old meaning of the word.

I quickly backtracked and told him that yes, it did mean happy and I was sorry, I misunderstood what he said...

I think second grade is way to young to be having discussions with children about matters of a sexual nature, but kids hear things and they will ask questions.

An age appropriate answer should be available for teacher to give. Because if the teachers fob them off with an obvious prevarication, the kids will ask other older kids and probably get a much more lurid and inaccurate answer...

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Unfortunately, yes on both counts.

It is no different than having a black princess marry a white prince.

The idea is to teach the kids that there is nothing wrong with someone having two dads, or two moms.

Now, if the story talked about the mechanics of the honeymoon, I would agree with you 100%; however, the discussions of two same sex parents should be introduced at the same age you would introduce ANY relationship.

[Ellen Forradalom]

13. Being gay is not just about sex.

I suspect you are hinting that a florid discussion of sexuality is taking place in the classroom. I doubt seriously this is happening.

I've talked about gay issues with my son in an age-appropriate way: that most men marry women and vice versa, but some grownups fall in love with the same sex instead of the opposite sex. I don't think it does any good to pretend gays don't exist. There's nothing dirty or shameful, or even especially remarkable, about sexual orientation.

[maynard]

14. one time incident

Since this was a one time incident, it is not be a national debate.

[pingzing58]

16. The teacher should respond to a child's question or remark with age appropriate language & thoughts.

Children from Kinder to 4th grade say many things about what they see or hear at home and the teacher very often has to address the question or remark. The teacher is also responsible to speak to the parent/s after school about the situation. Here's the trap set by the Repug inspired question - the use of the word SEX in same sex couples. No one wants anyone talking to their children about SEX without their permission. But if approved by the parents and school district it's not about SEX it's about SAME GENDER couples or like gender couples. By using the word SEX thoughts of abuse and/or a premature and inappropriate introduction to sex comes to mind. The trap was talking about sex! The truth is about teaching tolerance and addressing the reality that some children in school have two mommies or two daddies at home.

[Kuni]

17. What next; you want to stop teaching science & evolution because it’ll offend some Witch Doctors?

If being “gay” is natural i.e. people are born that way (which it is); then it is okay.

And the faster we get superstition out of the classrooms, the faster non-issues like this will not be issues. The faster people are educated, the faster we put an end to the anti-gay foolishness.

[FlaxieB]

19. This is a strictly a parent's issue.

When it come to social development about matters regarding sexual matters, parents need to be totally responsible for that initial orientation for their children. In this case both parents or a single parent, who may be straight or gay, that discussion(s) need to be done at home. A teacher should only supplement information in class that's already been learned by the children from parents. Any differences in philosophy or questions from the child should then be discussed at home or with the teacher. Also parents needs to find out if their child's school has class instruction about the subject.

During a child's formidable years, teachers should only be responsible for school curriculum, not their personal opinions or views regarding sex, especially matters of gay people. If the school decides to make it a part of their curriculum,that's ok. That just my view. Also, if issues needs clarification from either side, parents and teachers can meet and discuss. At some point, children will grow up and make their own choices whether they are deemed gay or straight but at least at a young age, gay issues have been addressed. Question, have textbooks been revised to discuss the gay lifestyle? Just asking.

[IndianaJones]

20. those are some formidable years. what is "the gay lifestyle"? nt.

[NMMNG]

67. That's a good question, which nobody ever seems able to answer

:shrug:

[mitchtv]

23. Children should be taught Civics in school

that includes "socialization" while the may be taught to hate gayness at home they must learn what society expects of them , and of what is included in society, diversity. Parents have no right to dictate to a teacher the definition of America. THIS has nothing to do with sex, or discussions of as you put it. this is clearly straight,, homophobic bullshit , to jump from a story about a prince marrying a prince to>
>not their personal opinions or views regarding sex,<<<<
back on topic please

[sandnsea]

43. "we hold these truths"

to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Kind of a massive social agenda right there.

Has nothing to do with personal opinions or views about sex.

[JackBeck]

69. Your post implies that homosexuality is learned behavior.

Cyndi Lauper wrote a song about you:

"And I see your true colors shining through..."

[Jamastiene]

99. "formidable years???"

What's that? The terrible twos? :rofl:

I simply can't make this kind of shit up. This is print worthy. It will be good to laugh at for years to come. Oh, no, we're screwn!!! The kid has hit his formidable years. :rofl:

[FlaxieB]

173. People, realize that young people need to be taught by their parents, first and foremost.

The word "formidable years" continues until your children reaches adulthood. Too many parents quit teaching their kids at an earlier age once kids start thinking for themselves. What? you think that at that point you can take a break? Do you think that a roomful of electronics will do your job? If you didn't want the responsibility, don't have children. Don't let the teaching of your kids then become a priority when something goes wrong. That's when parents play the blame game. Blame TV, blame lawmakers, blame the girlfriend/boyfriend etc. Parents: do your job and parent! Quit allowing the mental growth and development of your children to something or someone else. It is so easy to have your babysitter, nanny, teacher, many forms of mass media or anyone/anything else do the heavy lifting that is your primary responsibility. People have a ton of excuses but there is one excuse that many parents don't use: admit to yourself that you don't know what to do or say when it comes to your children. If you as a parent are lost when it comes to teaching your children anything, especially about this particular matter, you need to get assistance.

There are millions of parents who don't have a clue what to do. I see kids all the time in public terrorizing the atmosphere and the parent does absolutely nothing. I guess the solution for many is Ritalin. Kids don't come with instructions but if you need it, please get help and develop your parenting skills. Don't wait until "something happens" that totally surprises you later on in life with your kids. Yes, that "something" will probably happen but at least you can say that as parents, you have continually taught your child all through their childhood years.

Remember: Times may change, things may change, but everything stays the same.:think:

[yewberry]

174. "Formidable"-adj.

1. causing fear, apprehension, or dread: a formidable opponent.
2. of discouraging or awesome strength, size, difficulty, etc.; intimidating: a formidable problem.
3. arousing feelings of awe or admiration because of grandeur, strength, etc.
4. of great strength; forceful; powerful: formidable opposition to the proposal.

(from dictionary.com)

Perhaps you're thinking of "formative."

[FlaxieB]

175. I wanted to use the word "formidable"

Thanks for the definition. I wanted to use the word formidable because many parents fear their children. As I said before, parents need develop some courage and teach their kids throughout their childhood until they are adults, first and foremost. Don't let your child become a formidable opponent. Parents have this problem. Quit being afraid of them, talk to them, get to know them, set standards, guide them, use discipline etc. If you as a parent, don't have past experience when it comes to these matters,(being sheltered or strictly controlled) get help. My message is clear. Do your parental job!

[LWolf]

21. I have several thoughts.

The first being: what a ridiculous, spring-loaded weapon of a question! This question wasn't formatted to get reasonable responses. ALL responses could be spun to look damaging or ridiculous.

Response #2 comes from the librarian part of me: Don't ban a book about 2 princes marrying if you can still read the storybooks about the prince and princess. That's blatant bias.

Response #3 comes from the teacher part of me, who did teach 2nd grade once upon a time: Part of the teacher's job, as the responsible adult in charge, is to respect the parents who are entrusting their children to you. Reading storybooks to young children guaranteed to push a community's hot buttons is professionally irresponsible, and, I'm sorry, stupid. For many young students, the outcome will be an ingrained distrust of teachers as they advance through the grades, having been exposed to it from home all of their lives. Conflict that asks parents of young kids to take sides isn't going to do a school, a community, a classroom, or the educational experiences of the students any good.

A better choice for primary teachers is to nurture thinking, kindness, and cooperation among the young students in the room as part of a broad, general expectation of respect, caring, and tolerance.

[PresidentObama]

22. I have no problem with it.

I think we need to start educating our children about differences between us at a very young age. This will teach children the importance of equality and not discriminating against someone else who is different. We teach kids at young ages about good touches and bad touches so they can know better than to let a stranger molest them. Why not teach them the good and bad ways to treat other individuals? Kids learn by being taught.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. The only thing that concerns me about this is whether it opens

up the flip-side.

My kids were given quite matter of fact, what's the issue information on homosexuality as very little children. As in, oh yes, that friend of mine is a man who loves another man, or yes, she has two mommies. No big deal in either case, just another example of the variety of people to meet in the world. My youngest, always full of questions, needed quite a bit of detailed information at a very young age -- he got it.

But does asking a teacher to address this open up the possibility of a teacher who is anti-gay using the opportunity to skew things in that direction? I know I'd be steamed if I heard even so much as a hint of that!

I don't think this is a "private" issue, like confronting some theological issue ought to be. I do think children should be taught to expect that there is a wonderful variety in the human race, and to respect that. But how much can we depend on a teacher to adequately represent an open-minded and inclusive view to young (and impressionable) kids?

[eyesroll]

27. Every single other similar story teaches children about opposite-sex marriage.

When the prince marries the princess, kids are learning about opposite-sex marriage. Should we ban Cinderella from school?

Does the teacher have a picture of her husband and kids on her desk? She's flaunting her straight lifestyle.


Hopefully after a generation or two, this won't even be an issue. The book about the two princes will be just another book about just another family.

[Sandaasu]

28. It's fine, religion should not define curriculum

The only reason anyone out there has for opposing tolerance of homosexuality is religious when it gets down to it, and if we went though and struck everything out of schools that someone has some religious problem with, the resulting curriculum would be pathetic and very inadequate. It would gut science, history, and as we see here, civics. By the second grade, the basic concepts of romance and marriage are already known, so there's no logical reason to not inform them that such things don't always involve people of differing genders.

Part of the reason such things are taught is because we can't always count on parents to do it. Plus, if such things should be left to the parents, why should we teach any kind of tolerance and civility at all?

[dugggy]

29. No wonder our kids are failing math & sciences

or at the very least far behind other industrialized
countries. We spend to much time obsessing about sexual
issues and athletics. Sexual issues should be handled
by parents or if parents are lacking in a child's life,
should be handled by trained counselors. Not fricking
every teacher.

[mitchtv]

31. off topic

this is not a sexual issue

[noamnety]

33. Absolutely right.

Characterizing the story of that family as being "about sex" is like characterizing Cinderella as being "about sex" cause they are attracted to each other. May as well ban teachers from telling their students if they got engaged, or married - and omg, we need to go back to the good old days when pregnant women weren't allowed to teach our children, lest they ask questions about that.

What this is really about: Bigots want gays marginalized.

What I'd like to see happen: Instead of banning that story, let's ban Beauty and the Beast and other similar story lines, because kids at that age REALLY aren't able to properly process that abusive partners are not magically going to change from monsters into loving caring gentle partners, no matter how patient you are.

[HardWorkingDem]

35. Not a bigot, nor want gays marginalized...just...

wonder if second grade in a public school is the place for this discussion instead of at home and by parents.

I personally think this is a discussion best left to parents at the appropriate time for the appropriate child. Not all children are of the same mental age in the second grade and I would like my wife and I to be the ones discussing this with our children rather than in a public school.

And I don't know where people here get the idea that feeling this way makes people any less tolerant because they don't think a child is ready for these types of discussion.

[noamnety]

37. By definition, you want them marginalized

You want them partitioned away from "normal" parts of society so people aren't exposed to the concept that they even exist.

Marginalize: To relegate or confine to a lower or outer limit or edge, as of social standing.

You are okay with kids being exposed to the idea that heterosexual couples exist, and you don't view that as being "about sex."
You are not okay with kids being exposed to the idea that homosexual couples exist, and you do view that as being "about sex."

Sorry, but if you can't tolerate the thought of your children being exposed to the reality that homosexuals exist, that's bigotry.

[HardWorkingDem]

46. BS...

Where do I state that I can't tolerate that homosexuals exist? And where do I state I can't tolerate the thought of my children being exposed that they exist?

What I want is for my spouse and I to be the ones that explain this to our children and this is because WE know the mental and intellectual level of OUR children. NOT some school teacher.

This is not the "job" of some second grade school teacher to be doing. And as I said, if MY children ASK a school teacher why another child has two mommies or two daddies, then I expect that teacher to inform us.

And it's like another poster replied - how would YOU feel if some conservative public school teacher taught about gays from THEIR perspective to YOUR children?

I bet you wouldn't be happy, nor would want that to happen and certainly wouldn't call your self a bigot.

[noamnety]

47. By "taught about" do you mean acknowledge their existence?

If someone said they didn't have a problem with women having jobs, but they preferred that schools didn't expose their second graders to the idea of women working outside of the home ... they'd rather address the issue of women working outside the home with their own children, I'd call them sexists.

If someone said they didn't have a problem with blacks drinking from the same drinking fountain as whites, but they'd prefer schools didn't show photographs of black people sharing fountains with whites, cause their kids weren't mentally ready to deal with that issue, I'd call them racists.

If they tell me they'd prefer schools censor all stories referencing families who aren't heterosexual, I'd call them homophobes.

It's beyond me why you'd expect a teacher to inform you if a child asks why someone has two moms or dads. It's a pretty straight-forward answer - because that child's parents love each other and decided to spend their lives together. If you see that as cause for concern, that's homophobic. The good news is that kids don't see it as "an issue" unless someone has taught them to be homophobic. (Of course, that's also the bad news.)

"And where do I state I can't tolerate the thought of my children being exposed that they exist?"

You gave the impression you thought second graders shouldn't be exposed to their existence through books - that you think they should be scrubbed from the texts - and that you think only certain people with certain intellectual and mental capabilities/readiness should know of their existence.

It's insulting. I'm insulted.

[HardWorkingDem]

51. Oh, wow...

The top third to your reply is completely off base and off topic. Completely. It is not even relative to this discussion. Women, jobs and water fountains. This isn't 1950.

But since you brought racial issues up. Do you then think it is okay for a 2nd grade teacher to show pictures of lynched black people to children? That fits your comparison.

They are so off that I won't even spend time rebutting them.

And I guess in your book illustration you think all books are good for all children.

[noamnety]

55. Lynching is violence, not a depiction of equality.

There was no violence in that book that I know of. If you are aware of some, I might object to it on those grounds.

Drinking at the same water fountains, women holding jobs, etc. are exactly relevant to this discussion. Lots of people historically have objected to their children being exposed to women and minorities being treated as equals. The schools have no obligation to appease them by marginalizing those people. If you think all people should have equal rights, even gay people, why would you want to hide the fact that they have equal rights from your child? Is that so you can teach them it's kinda sorta wrong, or deviant, but you are tolerant and progressive, so you put up with it? That seems like a good way to teach them that gays are "The Other." I imagine it being taught in hushed whispers.

I don't know why you are equating images of lynchings to images of two men who care about each other. That certainly wasn't MY comparison. I hope you don't think a story about two dads is comparable to lynchings in some way. One is about love, the other is about hate crimes.

[HardWorkingDem]

56. My point was....and gets back to...

when is the appropriate time to discuss these issues with children, especially when it is done by an outside person?

I don't think in today's time frame your linking to women and jobs and blacks and water fountains is a relevant comparison to the topic of introducing same sex marriage to seven year olds.

Or let's take the 2nd grade teacher example one step further. Let's say the teacher starts reading this book and then the children start asking further questions dealing with this couple having children and so on.

I'm sorry, but this is a topic I believe is best left for parents and their children and not to an outside third party and as this discussion goes on, in my case, I believe has nothing to do with bigotry, discrimination or exclusion.

I just want to be sure MY children are of the appropriate age and maturity to discuss certain topics with. And this includes this one and matters of imagery.

[noamnety]

64. "these issues"

"Let's say the teacher starts reading this book and then the children start asking further questions dealing with this couple having children and so on."

By that logic, we shouldn't read any stories about families, about married people, or about children, because children might ask sex questions, and our teachers can't be trusted to discuss families without graphically describing sexual positions. Right?

You have an issue, if you think a nonsexual story for children is about SEX just because of a character's orientation.

If you are treating a story about a gay couple differently than a story about a straight couple, you are more than likely passing on your prejudices to your children. Please don't contribute to that cycle.

[HardWorkingDem]

72. Why do you keep...

Bringing up sex acts? Also, why do you keep accusing me of being prejudiced or anti-gay or with no tolerance?

My issue is I do not think it is appropriate for an outside person, a school teacher, to be involved in the education of matters I feel best are left to parents for a variety of reasons. It is not their job to figure out when students are collectively ready for this type of discussion; that is a parents job. It's not the job of the neighborhood, the gay couple down the street or some wacky religious zealot relative.

And it's not their job to introduce this subject to children either. Not all 2nd grade children are at the same level as each other.

And if a teacher reads a bock about married people and my child would start asking explicit questions, I expect the teacher to tell my spouse and I about this and let US deal with the questions (unless there is something that absolutely makes this impossible).

[noamnety]

80. You don't need to be on a "level" to understand that families exist.

And you don't need to be on one level to understand that some men love women, and a different level to understand that some men love men.

If you think those are two radically different scenarios, requiring different levels of maturity, that would answer your question about why I am suggesting you might be prejudiced. Now you asked that question in a straight forward way in your OP, so there's no point in acting offended that you got a straight forward answer.

It's like asking if these pants make your ass look big. Don't put on a pair of pants with 5 layers of padding in the butt, and then act offened if I tell you yes, yes they do.

[NMMNG]

68. When you read stuff like "Cinderella" and "Snow White"

Do the children go off on tangents asking about how many kids they had after the respective women married their respective princes?

[shimmergal]

89. Hey, whoa on that last paragraph.

Beauty and the Beast is NOT about abuse; it's about looksism (sorry, awkward word) and how one can't judge a potential mate by surface appearance; that you need to look into the heart.

The only thing wrong with that is--where's the reverse-B&TB story?

[noamnety]

93. The guy kidnaps her

Tears her away from her father, tries to force her to obey him by screaming at her, locking her in a room, keeping her as a prisoner, and withholding food when she doesn't do what she is told. He is a classic abuser. And she falls in love with him.

In Mickey Mouse Monopoly, they video tape a group of young girls watching it. You can see the fear on their faces. At the end, they ask them what they think the moral was. It's gut wrenching to watch one girl slowly say if a guy is mean to you, you just have to be patient and love him, and eventually, he will change.

You, as an adult, are able to process things differently than a 3 or 4 year old. What you intellectualize as the moral (because you know that other thing - men who terrorize women will eventually change if you just love them enough - couldn't possibly be the moral) is different than what a 3 or 4 year old sees, which is more direct. And the thing that makes the biggest impression is not that he's ugly - but that he is terrifyingly mean and abusive. There's nothing that's about "surface appearance" in his behavior.

[dugggy]

42. But exactly the reason why our students are falling behind

in math and sciences when time is wasted discussing
2 mommies, 2 daddies, 1 daddy and 1 mommy, only 1 mommy,
only 1 daddy etc etc. All completely irrelevant to
competing in todays world economy.

[noamnety]

48. LOL!

We should totally stop reading to our children, and instead teach them little 7 year olds how to compete in the world economy!

That's funny.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. Absolutely.

We never read stories where princes married princesses when I was in school.

Fucking perverts.

[ruggerson]

30. This topic is about families

not about sex. So, yes, it's very appropriate for second graders, as they are very aware of who and what families are.

And many of their FRIENDS in second grade have two mommies or two daddies. So this topic makes THOSE kids feel included and understood.

[Pushed To The Left]

32. I think children need to be taught early that prejudice is wrong

Some people seem to think that talking about same-sex couples is somehow bringing sexuality into the classroom. Do these same people think it's "sexual" when a teacher talks about his wife, or about a heterosexual couple? I doubt it. The earlier children are taught not to be prejudiced, the less likely they will be to be influenced by bigoted people in the future.

[HardWorkingDem]

36. The OP is not about sex, which some keep taking the leap too..

it's about discussing a topic and what is the appropriate setting and age for a child. Not about sex or sexual acts. But I agree with the prejudice part and think there are many ways to introduce that aspect in a broad way dependent upon the mental and maturity level of the child.

[Book Lover]

129. And you have been answered *repeatedly* on this point

yet because you aren't getting the answer you want, you keep asking the question, like a poor marksman who keeps on shooting, thinking eventually that you'll hit that target.

Here it is again, simply put. The age it is appropriate to teach a child that there are gay people in this world, and that they love each other, is the same age that it is appropriate to teach a child that there are heterosexual people in this world, and that they love each other.

[swimboy]

131. Exactly.

Thank you.

(And yet all of us keep missing our target, too, apparently) :evilfrown:

[HardWorkingDem]

138. And this was a great reply, really...but the next part is...

when is that time and who should be the one to determine that? THAT is what I'm trying to get at.

When is this time and who should determine it? The child? The teacher? The parent?

[Book Lover]

140. Let's attack this from a different angle

And please forgive the several assumptions I will be making here. Do you remember the first time you understood your parents were married to each other? And that there were married people in the world? Probably not, because you were exposed to these facts before you were aware of your surroundings. Do you feel you were harmed by this knowledge at such a tender age? Probably not, I again assume. Whence, then, the harm from knowing, again from a tender age, that there are homosexual as well as heterosexual couples in society?

[HardWorkingDem]

142. Thank you...sincerely....

Out of all the replies here, yours have really been helpful.

And your assumptions were dead on. But the sad thing is, I am of an age where when I was in second grade, it was the norm back then to hide all of the other seemingly described "non-traditional" couples you mention and I can't really recall when I became aware of them. (Other than for the cruel things from adolescence directed at each other.)

Luckily for our country things are moving forward and for the better. But while I still want my spouse and I to be the ones to broach this subject with our children, you have shown me a starting point and some things to be aware of.

Sincerely, thanks again.

[Withywindle]

168. You could look at it this way too.

If you were in a same-gender relationship raising a child, your child would be aware of the existence of such families from day one. From preverbal times. And would be thinking that's the normal way of the world, and probably by the time s/he is attending preschool or kindergarten and meeting other kids with families that are configured differently (which they all are anyway - some kids only have one parent. Some are raised by grandparents. Etecetera. All are families, and all are normal, and none are an "issue" that needs to be broached delicately at home). S/he wouldn't have to wait for some mystical age of "maturity" to receive that information.

Your child may have friends from same-gender households already. Also, by second grade, kids are already teasing each other about "boyfriends" and "girlfriends" and "do you 'like' so-and-so." It's pretty innocent, but they've definitely noticed that romantic relationships exist in the world. Why is saying, "Some boys like other boys and some girls like other girls and that's OK?" so complicated and sensitive? They've probably already noticed.

[MadHound]

34. Why do you think that teaching tolerance of any group of people who are "different" is a bad thing?

We teach second graders lessons on race tolerance, religious tolerance, political tolerance, etc. Why not lifestyle/sexuality tolerance? If it is done in an age appropriate way, there is no reason not to. You want to make progress on this issue, end the hate, end the bigotry, then you must start teaching children lessons about tolerance, the younger the better. Hell, you know that there are parents out there who are teaching hate to their children, both formally and informally, since the day their child was born.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. I wish I had been taught about it in 2nd grade, I called lots of kids "fag" in middle school...

Because while I knew what the word meant I really didn't understand it. Truth be told I was indoctrinated with so many bad stereotypes about gay people at a young age that I'm amazed that I grew out of it and didn't turn out to be a bigot. Unfortunately many people don't grow out of it.

[Clintonista2]

39. Reading a book about a straight couple getting married isnt controversial

So why would you be offended with a book about a gay couple getting married? IMO, yes, it does make you a bigot.

[janx]

41. Um, I don't think that it should be a separate matter.

Sexuality is sexuality, period. When I taught my kids about it, just about everything was included over a period of a couple of years.

Is sex ed taught that early in the schools now? (My kids are grown.) I thought it was reserved for fourth grade or so, no?

I can understand your point of view; I made sure I educated my kids about sex before the school did so they wouldn't be surprised and so I was sure that everything got covered.

Edited to add: Now I see what this article is really about.

[cali]

44. I can't even believe that this is still an issue amoung liberals

When my son was in 2nd or 3rd grade, the teacher read the class "Heather has two Mommies". Do I live in some liberal enclave? No, I do not. I live in a very rural community in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. It's comprised of about half local farmers/loggers/"rednecks", and half "hippy"/transplants. This was 13 or 14 years ago, and no one had a problem with it.

[Cameron27]

52. You're wrong,

I'd never call a DUer a bigot, but you should read through the replies and think about it. It's a question of love and families and no one's ever too young to learn about that.

[DrFunkenstein]

53. I Think The 2 Princes Should Have The Same Legal Protections

But there is a cultural-historical foundation of our society that has a prince and princess being married. In our Judeo-Christian beliefs, these people are directly related to God in what we understand as the divine power of kings (and their kids). If it were between two peasants, then whatever. And I sure don't want these "fairy princes" calling shots on military matters. What would that do for morale if our troops are on the front lines and they look behind them and see their leaders staring at their butts? It's commander-in-chief, not commander-in-chiffon!

There. I think I've pretty much summed up what this debate would look like on Free Republic. Well, actually, this is much more liberal then anything they would go for. And I'd hate to distort their positions. What a bunch of nellies...

[sniffa]

57. in my opinion, yes it makes you a bigot

unLess your objection is based on teachers possibLy teaching your chiLdrens that gay peopLe are unnaturaL, etc.

homophobia is best nipped in the bud.

aLso, what if some of the chiLdren have same-sex parents? what if the chiLd at that age knows he's straight?

[HardWorkingDem]

61. That's part of it...

For one thing, I want to make sure it is done right, but for the other part, I don't think all teachers have the greatest knowledge of knowing every child's mental and maturity level equally. And if this discussion were to take place, I would not want to see a teacher start a discussion about things I don't think MY children would be ready for yet.

See, so many here have then lumped this to mean "not ever" and that is the farthest thing away from my beliefs. My thoughts are "when they are ready." And this does not mean there will not be lessons involved about how all people should be treated well and that people are different and treating people badly because of race, gender or sexual orientation is bad.

[bpeale]

58. parents just like you

are the ones who didn't want the schools teaching sex. period. but the bad news was they didn't want to do it either. now we have a whole generation of kids out there getting pregnant without even having a modicum of facts regarding sex. STDs are rampant. babies having babies. there is nothing wrong with schools teaching sex education. this is about sex education too.

[HardWorkingDem]

60. Oh great, another one...

who jumps to all sorts of conclusions, et cetera.

So I guess you want a second grade teacher teaching YOUR children about all the stuff you accused me of not wanting to teach other children about?

All this while they are six or seven years old, eh?

I suggest you ask, rather than jumping to the rude accusatory BS you resorted to.

[KansDem]

62. Last Thanksgiving, my then 8-year-old son was asked if he were a "homosexual"

He, my daughter and wife went to her family's Thanksgiving (I don't go to that family's holiday functions anymore for reasons I shall not go into at this moment). My son wore a pink T-shirt with a graphic on the front that looked like a note. The note read, "Note to Mom: Separate reds from whites." (Perhaps you've seen these T-shirts? They're at retailers like Target).

Well, anyway there's a kid who's 10 and the son of a career military couple. This kid looks at my son and asks him, "Are you a homosexual?" My son doesn't know what he's talking about. The kid further says, "You're wearing pink, you must be a homosexual." My wife and I discuss this when they arrive home. We conclude the parents are homophobes, brought on by either their upbringing or their participation in a gay-intolerant career. I wonder out loud to my wife what kinds of conversations this family has at the dinner table. The kid already associates "pink" with "homosexuality" and accepts that "homosexuals" are somehow removed from society. At age 10, how could this kid learn otherwise, except from this parents? Knowing what little I do about the dad, I summarize that he has been gay-bashing in front of this son.

So now I have to sit down with my son and explain what "homosexuality" is and why he shouldn't be offended by the kid's remarks and how it is the kid, and not he, who has "the problem."

And my son was in the third grade then, so maybe second grade isn't too out of line...

[sniffa]

65. not at aLL

i think back to my chiLdhood - we grew up fast.

[NMMNG]

66. You're right

In fact, kids shouldn't learn about marriage at all--straight or gay. Nor should they learn about women having babies (I don't mean the nitty gritty of it, I mean the mere fact of pregnancy should never even be alluded to. If they ask they should be told to ask their parents about it). And here are some other things kids should learn about only from their parents:

Race/ethnicity and interracial/ethnic relations. Parents should teach this stuff based on their personal/religious beliefs, not some BS PC crap the school trumps up.

Sex-ed of any kind. Those kids don't need it--they aren't supposed to be having sex--particularly in school. :wtf: do they need to be learning about sex in school for? Let them learn about that from their parents on their wedding night.









Just in case anybody is confused; :sarcasm:

[swimboy]

71. In my estimation

you have received sufficient responses from posters to answer your question if you are willing to accept their comments honestly.

Kids don't have to be protected from encountering heterosexual families in books, movies or real life. Their minds don't go directly to wondering what goes on in the bedrooms in those households. But you appear to state that children need to be protected from encountering the concept of homosexual families.

It doesn't make me feel accepted at all that someone wouldn't want their young child exposed to my family.

Please think about the ramifications of saying that you don't believe children should be exposed to a family like mine and reflect on whether or not that is truly an unbigoted stance.

[HardWorkingDem]

76. In my estimation...

Show me where I state I don't want my kids "exposed" to a gay family? People here certainly take great liberty with the comments of others. I have never stated that, typed that or even believe it.


I simply don't believe that a public school teacher should suddenly be the one to automatically decide without a parent's input, "Hey, I think with my second grade I'll start reading this or that to all of my students." That is the job of a parent.

But why is that so many here jump so quickly to accuse others of being prejudiced, homophobic or whatever just because of a differing opinion?

[swimboy]

83. You have a hair trigger.

I'm not sure anyone could answer to your satisfaction unless they used only your exact words back or said simply, "Yes, HardWorkingDem. I agree with you 100%.

In carefully crafting a minimally expanded response, I am not trying to put words in your mouth or your post. I am asking you to examine your thoughts behind your words. Those words seem to me to be saying, "Children need to be shielded from the literary concept of the existence of same-sex families."

One could infer from your concern that same-sex families are somehow unseemly. That seems to me to say they are not as good as mixed-sex families.

If this is all too much for you, I could always fall back on a simple and direct answer to the literal questions you posed.

You have a problem with the reading of such a fairy tale to a second grade class.

Does that make you wrong?

Yes.

Does that make you a bigot?

Unfortunately, yes.

In the future, when you ask a question, be sure you want people to answer it and that you will allow them to answer it in an engaging and conversational way and don't jump on someone for not restricting their answer to what you wanted it to be.

[Sparkly]

74. I can't think of a reason NOT to.

Why not? :shrug:

[Quixote1818]

75. Thomas Jefferson once said: "Never be afraid of the truth"

Why be afraid to teach a 2nd grader the truth especially when it's beautiful and part of nature?

[Mass]

77. The question was biased. They did not discuss about gay marriage.

but read a fairy tale that was a story between two men. Now, should we prevent ALL FAIRY TALES or is it only because they could include situations that do not fit our values (mix-raced couples, man older than woman or vice-versa, ...). Also, think of the message that it brings to kids who live in a same-sex family, that their family is abnormal as they should not speak about it in school according to the standards in question.

The only issue was that ONE RW family brought it to the media for the cause. Ironically, the family in question said they did not approve of mixed-race couples either. So should the school avoid reading stories about them as well so that this family was happy.

So, basically, I think that the question was another stupid question by Russert and that the candidates did not have the courage or knowledge to challenge it.

[Quixote1818]

78. In Italy you can buy pornography videos at the local gas station

Kids were in there looking at the videos on the wall. Yet Italy has much less rape than the US. In fact they have almost none. If you are open with kids about these things, it takes the mystery and intrigue out of them. It becomes no big deal and a regular part of life.

If you repress kids and never talk to them about sex or homosexuality etc. they grow up with this burning desire to break the rules. Why do you think so many Republicans have sexual problems? They fear all their emotions and thoughts and it fucks them up inside, so, they end up wearing dresses and stuffing cats up there ass while someone whips them and tells them how bad they are. And it becomes a HUGE turn on!

Talk to your kid and take the mystery away. Teach them about the beauty of touching and caring for one another. It's not a big deal!

[slick8790]

81. Do you have a problem with a teacher explaining heterosexual marraige?

Or is that somehow more moral than gay marraige? If you truly believe that gays deserve equal rights, then why not teach both at the same time? If you don't teach them early, the cycle continues...

[LeftyMom]

84. Since you asked: You're a bigot and you're wrong.

You seem to be of the opinion that stories about straight attraction are acceptable fare for small children, but that they must not be exposed to stories about same-sex attraction until some undefined point then they can handle "the issue," (I'm not sure how being gay is an issue, since it's simply who people are. At what age do kids get to hear about the blackness issue?) so something in you believes that straight and gay couples are not equal and equivalent.

[Lex]

86. Thank you. That's basically what I was going to say.

But probably not as well.

Very well stated. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

85. It is incumbent upon parents to teach their children -

to be accepting of families that are different than their own. Specifics aren't important at that age. Learning to be an open human being is.

[Bluebear]

88. You asked. Yes, you're wrong and yes, you're a bigot.

Any more questions?

[Steve_in_California]

90. The school system has no business teaching morality.

There is hardly a school in America that could qualify as a paradigm of moral virtue. Teachers are not paid to undermine the moral lessons taught to children by their own parents. A teaching credential is hardly an ordination. Leave the moralizing to families and clergy.

[JackBeck]

100. What does homosexuality have to do with morality? n/t

[Steve_in_California]

106. Go back to drinking your beer and watching your team . . . lose.

[JackBeck]

107. Ad hominem attacks hurt your cause.

And besides, I'm more of a vodka and scotch drinker.

Oh, and you still didn't answer my question.

[sniffa]

146. and why shouLd he?

quit being so uppity.

[JackBeck]

148. Silly me.

Looking for people to stand-up for themselves when they say misguided things.

I'll sulk into a corner now while contemplating how I will "get over it".

[NMMNG]

115. Teaching children that some people are gay undermines morality?

:rofl:

[LeftyMom]

118. "paragon"

The word you're looking for is "paragon."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. Isn't banning books involving gays "teaching morality"

Well, technically that's teaching and encouraging immorality, but the point remains the same.

[noamnety]

128. We could save a lot of time in the classrooms

if we just banned all books that have a moral to them. :)

Ban The Sneetches!

[Steve_in_California]

91. Empty-headed principles fuel the debate.

Many people say that the government has no business making decisions about who can and who can't get married. This is the commonly held argument in favor of allowing gay marriage. Trouble is, while the principle is a good one, the supporting argument is deeply flawed, empty-headed.

Consider this: America decides that gay marriage should be allowed under law . . . so far, so good . . . and the premise of the change in law is that government should not be telling people who can marry whom . . . so far, so good . . . . But, then, five or ten years from now, this same premise is raised by other people who believe that marriage should be an open institution available to anyone, citing "stare decisis" (the law of established precedent) in support of their argument to allow fathers to marry daughters; mothers to marry sons; brothers to marry sisters; cousins to marry cousins; uncles to marry neices; aunts to marry nephews; grandmothers to marry grandsons; grandfathers to marry grandaughters; and each and all of these and others to be able to marry muliple partners at the same time (polygamy).

This is not to say that opening the doors to gay marriage necessarily opens the doors to incest and polygamy, but only to say that how the argument is premised is of critical importance. Can't you just see NAMBLA fighting for the right of older man to "love" little boys?

Be careful how you frame your arguments in support of gay marriage.

[noamnety]

98. You ARE aware that cousins can marry each other, right?

Cousins can and do marry cousins in half the states, and pretty much most of the world, including every European country, Canada and Mexico.

But thank you so much for bringing the special insight here that gay marriages might lead to cousin marriages, which might lead to gay men demanding the right to marry children, if we aren't careful about our words.

Welcome to DU.

[Steve_in_California]

103. Twist it all you want: you're still wrong.

[Bluebear]

101. 'Be careful how you frame your arguments in support of gay marriage.'

'Can't you just see NAMBLA fighting for the right of older man to "love" little boys?' - No.

[Steve_in_California]

105. You really have nothing to say, but let's pretend no one noticed.

[Bluebear]

124. And you're being a jackass, and a lot of people are noticing.

Welcome to DU, you're a real addition here. :eyes:

[JackBeck]

102. Let's bring back Miscegenation laws while we're at it.

Slippery slope and whatnot.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[swimboy]

110. I think if you are going to use the tired "slippery slope" argument

you need to be able to address why we didn't begin to go wrong when we first let women own property.

[IndianaJones]

114. The arguments of the bigoted educated bigot. nt.

[LeftishBrit]

167. And I suppose ...

allowing gay marriage will also inevitably mean that we'll end up marrying dogs and turtles?

Methinks you've been listening too much to the right wing.

[shimmergal]

92. Sorry, the question was ridiculous, but

not for the reasons being discussed here.

First let me say I have no problem with kids of any age being exposed to stories of straight OR of same-sex attraction.

But that particular two-prince scenario is not a story ANY small child is going to be interested in.

Be it cultural conditioning or not, few boys are going to want to hear a story about 'mushy stuff', i.e. falling in love and marrying, much less one in fairy tale guise.

Now it's possible you could gin the story up with enough exciting stuff about fighting dragons or whatever to hold boys' interests. Even so, getting married isn't likely to strike them as a very cool ending. Far better for it to end with the two princes riding off into the sunset together in search of more adventures, a sort-of medieval buddy tale ending. (Tip of the hat to Fiedler's theory of American lit. here, but this is an independent observation of mine.)

Little girls DO like princess stories, with or without the obligatory HEA ending & handsome prince, BUT what most adult commentators miss is this: Marrying the prince is NOT what the story is all about. It's about the fun of fluffy dresses, going to glamorous balls, camaraderie with other princesses-in-waiting, and all the perks like fairy godmothers and wondrous fantasy events. It's about having adventures too, and coming thru knowing oneself to be braver and wiser than anybody gives a mere girl credit for. The prince is just an another fixture in the story, who seldom has much of a life of his own aside from yearning for the princess.

Little girls aren't going to like the two-prince scenario because there's nobody there for them to identify with.


I speak as an ex-librarian, a mother, and presently a grandmother of several kids in the "target audience" range.

By all means have stories about all sorts of families. But certain kinds of story lines just aren't going to stir many kids' imaginations no matter how politically correct they may come across to adults.

[Puglover]

94. I don't understand why you would even think of

"mushy stuff" Please. Why not keep it simple. Why? Because it IS simple. You would not need to say ANYTHING other then

"Families are families whether it's a man and a woman, two women or two men. It's about love and respect.

Why you need to "gin that up" is beyond me.

[noamnety]

96. Thanks

I am discouraged to see anyone on DU promoting the idea that all the stories we tell our children should reinforce strict gender stereotypes.

As a feminist, I'm not too thrilled with the notion that stories should depict boys primarily DOING things and having adventures (of killing things), while girls sit around mainly fussing over fancy dresses, with an occasional footnoted adventure. We don't need to train our girls to view themselves as ornaments.

[Puglover]

97. This whole thread has

both baffled me and amused me. The answer is so simple. I can't for the life of me figure out why it needs to be so complicated.

[shimmergal]

183. No, my point is that it's ADULTS who

see these stories as training girls to be ornaments. That's not how most little girls interpret them.
Actually, it's the _boys_ who're the ornaments to the little-girl readers (or viewers.) Just like Steve Trevor is in the original Wonder Woman comics. 'Course I'm a cynical divorced granny who thinks girls could do much worse than to grow up with this "Men are just desserts" idea! It's pretty good insurance against becoming a battered wife, among other benefits.

[Ninja Jordan]

108. Mandating this usurps parental autonomy in raising children in a specific religious tradition.

Like it or not, some religious affiliations have negative views on homosexuality. Allowing a public school to engage in this kind of moral conditioning unduly usurps a parent's autonomy in raising their child.

[swimboy]

109. Whoa.

When did "mandating" come into the formula?

Some families espouse racist beliefs. Is it up to the schools to repect those and steer clear of all discussions of equality?

[IndianaJones]

112. what absolute bigoted drivel. nt.

[Book Lover]

130. But the point we're talking about is the fact of

the existence of gay people, not pushing any ideas about the morality of gay relationships.

[Solon]

134. Mandating this usurps parental autonomy in raising children in a specific religious tradition.

Like it or not, some religious affiliations have negative views on certain races. Allowing a public school to engage in this kind of moral conditioning unduly usurps a parent's autonomy in raising their child.

To be frank about it, your attitude is disgusting, I just wanted to change one word and see if you agree with this statement, for consistency's sake, after all, its all about autonomy, is it not?

[Ninja Jordan]

147. Weird, considering religious traditions served as the genesis of the abolitionist movement

your analogy is off

[JackBeck]

149. Religion was also used to support the institution of slavery.

The analogy is spot on.

Just as Christians used their religious doctrines to argue for and against slavery, in our lifetime, religion is used to argue for and against homosexuality. Ultimately, though, what it comes down to with the OP is whether or not parents should be the penultimate factor in deciding the syllabus for a public school system.

Didn't we just see a Little Rock desegregation 50th anniversary a few weeks ago?

[Ninja Jordan]

154. Comparing a person's sexual preference with the historic struggles of African-Americans is offensive

[Puglover]

155. I suppose it is.

If you happen to be a homophobe.

[NMMNG]

158. Calling it a preference is offensive

And the hell and struggles we've gone through historically, and are still going through, are very much the same. Do some research. We're still being tied to fences, beaten and being left to die for who we are. We still aren't allowed to marry the person we love in 49 states. We're still vilified by religion over misinterpreted scripture. People still call for our deaths to satisfy their cruel, vindictive bigotries.

Don't ever try to claim our struggles have been paltry. It only proves you don't know jack shit, or don't want to.

[JackBeck]

159. My sexuality is as not a preference.

And as far as the comparison being offensive, Coretta Scott King, Amiri Baraka and Desmond Tutu would disagree with you.

[Duncan Grant]

160. It didn't offend Coretta Scott King.

"I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.

"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader. - Reuters, June 8, 2001.

And I wonder what Bayard Rustin would have to say about it?

[JackBeck]

181. I'm getting the feeling we won't gather a response from this one.

But at least you gave great quotes to counter the ignorance.

[Bluebear]

172. Your post is offensive. On many levels.

[NMMNG]

157. So bloody what?

Some of them prefer to believe that evolution is false (and evil), that people of other races/ethnicities are inferior, that the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old and other such tripe. Are you suggesting schools not teach science and the like to appease these nitwits?

[Laughing Mirror]

162. Well then send your kids to a homophobic church school, or homeschool them yourself

If you don't want them to know about gay love and want to shelter them from real life.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. "Does this make me a bigot? "

I don't see how it doesn't.

[HardWorkingDem]

117. After reading replies here...

I would agree if I were stating this was a permanent, 100 percent decision (to ignore and not tell our children about same sex couples), but I am not stating this at all. I believe that because all children have different levels of intellect and maturity, that it is not a teachers job to make a blind declaration that it is their job to start educating my children about the ways of the world in the second grade.

To me, this is the job of our children's parents, not a public school teacher.


No where am I advocating or claiming our children will be taught gay couples are bad, not good to be around or that they will ruin them. WHEN they will be taught will be our decision and what they will be taught will be good things.

And for the life of me, if you think this is bigotry, then you need to go look the word up in the dictionary, because after reading the replies here, it's shown me it is not bigotry and I shouldn't even have asked that question in the first place.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. I still don't see how that doesn't make you a bigot.

Are you against teachers reading childrens stories about princes marrying princesses?

[noamnety]

122. Playing with words

I would agree I was being bigotted if I were stating this was a permanent, 100 percent decision to ignore and not tell our children about interracial marriages. But I am not stating this at all. I believe that because all children have different levels of intellect and maturity, that it is not a teachers job to make a blind declaration that it is their job to start educating my children about the ways of the world in the second grade. I don't want them reading a story or showing a tv show with an interracial couple to my kids in a public school.

To me, this is the job of our children's parents, not a public school teacher.

No where am I advocating or claiming our children will be taught interracial couples are bad, not good to be around or that they will ruin them. WHEN they will be taught that interracial couples exist will be our decision and what they will be taught will be good things. Teachers should stick to stories with couples who are both white, or who are both black, and leave education about interracial couples to the parents to teach at home.

And for the life of me, if you think this is bigotry, then you need to go look the word up in the dictionary.

So. Nothing biggoted about that, is there? After all, it's not saying that interracial couples are bad.

[Ninja Jordan]

123. You're not a bigot.

Wanting parents to have authority in this area is common sense. Good post.

[Puglover]

161. Really Ninja?

What if I posted this?

Dem Debate topic - Teaching 2nd Graders about black american issues..
During the debate, one of the questions brought up dealt with some 2nd grade teacher discussing black american issues with students and reading a story dealing with a black man marrying a white woman.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/14313/democratic_debate_...

Now, Edwards was the first to be asked this and he replied he had no problem with this.

I'm sorry, but I do. First, I am all for interracial marriage and believe all Americans should be afforded the same rights and protections as every one else.

But what I don't care for is the potential of a teacher discussing this topic with seven year olds. To me, it is not the place or time for this discussion. What I don't have a problem with is children being taught we are all humans and we all should be treated fairly and humanely.

To me, this topic should be left to parents.

Am I wrong? Does this make me a bigot?

Somehow I doubt I'll get an answer here.

[Bluebear]

125. You ask a question, don't like the answers, which proves you shouldn't have asked it?

You didn't learn a damn thing from this whole exercise.

[HardWorkingDem]

139. You're wrong...

But not from you. But what I have learned here (which seems to be of late more and more) is that the supposed group of people who habitually claim to be the party of ideas, thought and free speech, often times turn out to be just like those we so often times disagree with.

I find it quite sad how members here have taken my words and questions and not only mis characterized them, but also taken great liberties with the type of person I am.

Never have I stated anything near that same sex couples are bad and should be hidden. What I have done is express that I think it is the PARENT'S job to teach children about certain things and not the automatic job of a second grade teacher. THAT is it.

And if that makes me a bigot to people like you, then so be it.

Booklover gave me the best answer...

"Here it is again, simply put. The age it is appropriate to teach a child that there are gay people in this world, and that they love each other, is the same age that it is appropriate to teach a child that there are heterosexual people in this world, and that they love each other."

But that brings me to the next part - WHEN is this and what is it dependent upon?

[bliss_eternal]

143. My opinion...

...we ALL have a responsibility to teach children about other human beings that inhabit this world--people of color, gay people, hetero people, disabled people, paraplegic people, etc., etc. There's enough people in this world that act like who they are is all there is--why create another?

No one can decide for you or anyone else "when" the "right time" is. That's for each individual parent to decide for themselves. But I would say the sooner the better. If a child is born gay, shouldn't they have positive affirmations all along that who and what they are is acceptable in the eyes of their parents? That they won't be "shunned" for their sexual identity?

I get that the overwhelming assumption when this question is asked is about teaching a hetero child about the existence of gay people and relationships. But we really can't assume that can we? We could easily be letting a gay child know that who they are is ok, great, wonderful, acceptable, etc. just by letting them know that there are relationships beyond the scope of the one's they might see everyday (i.e. hetero parents, family, friends, relatives, etc.).

[Withywindle]

170. Great point - why is the OP assuming his CHILD is straight?

Probably too soon to tell, but maybe not - kids that age are starting to feel crushes, puppy love, etcetera. Many GLBTQ folks say they knew something about them was different from a VERY young age.

Also, children aren't blank slates to be programmed by either teachers or parents like a computer. They're learning on their own all the time - from each other, from books and movies, from just sheer observation of the world around them; they have a whole inner life all their own, and some of the conclusions they draw would blow adults' minds. To think a 7 or 8 year old has no awareness of "gay stuff" at all unless some adult puts it there is...mind-boggling. A case of adults being deliberately naive about children, IMO.

[NMMNG]

156. Children learn about heterosexuals from the moment they're born

If not from their own parent(s), then from neighbors, people they see when they're in the community and so on. Therefore, why does there need to be some magical boundary age to learn about homosexuals? Gay people exist just like straight people, black people, Hispanics, Christians, Buddhists, people with blue eyes, people with blond hair, etc. Why should they be shoved aside as some deep, dark secret that a child has to be protected from?

[JackBeck]

180. You just got to the heart of it.

I can only wish that the posters who took umbrage with this would read your post.

[yewberry]

126. Kids of gay couples exist. Your kids will know them.

Second grade, fifth grade, kindergarten, your kids will know them.

Denying the schools age-appropriate tools to handle reality isn't going to help anyone. Kids of gay parents deserve the same treatment and validation of their family as kids of straight parents and kids being raised by grandparents do.

Part of the problem here is that many straight parents simply aren't doing a good job of teaching their kids about the different kinds of families that there are. And that's what this is about--it's not about sex, it's not about agendas, it's not about morality. It's about being able to understand and acknowledge the reality that we all come from different kinds of families.

[NMMNG]

127. When do you think they should learn about divorce?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x311693

[David Zephyr]

132. The obvious corollary is why should gay kids have to learn about princes and princesses?

Only a goon would suggest that seven and eight year olds should be taught about "sex" at school (gay or straight).

But it may be hard for you to swallow, but orientation is long established by that age and for many gay and lesbian youngsters seeing only prince and princess is equally confusing and negates who they are. Put that shoe on the other foot.

Moreover, unless you live in Hooterville, most kids today already are attending classes with children of gay and lesbian couples.

I don't think you are a bigot.

By the way, my second grade class project was a satin evening gown for a doll. This was in the 1950's in Texas. Guess what? I won not just first prize in my class, but for the entire second grade. That still stuns me even today. It takes a village...a tolerant village.

[Solon]

133. When I was in Second Grade, my best friend had two moms...

The fact of the matter is that kids at that age, like me, don't think about it, IF their parents don't make it an issue. This was in the Mid-1980s, and I hung out at his townhouse all the time, mostly because he was the first on our street(dead end cul-du-sac for poor folks) to have a Nintendo Entertainment System. It made him very popular with all of us neighborhood kids. The fact that he had two moms just didn't register with us, and none of our parents have ever made it an issue. So to all of us, it was normal. In fact, I'm basically puzzled by your reaction, I would say it was bigoted, and ignorant at the same time.

It was no big secret, nor was it kept from us, the home situation at my friend's house was somewhat tragic, his biological mother left an abusive husband and found love with another woman. To our mothers, his mother did the right thing, they knew his father, and knew he was an asshole, and were just happy that his mother found happiness, period. It wasn't until 20 years later that my mom reminded me that he had two moms, who were lesbian. The fact was that I simply didn't think about it for all those years, but let's just say it explained a lot.

The fact is that same sex marriage, and same sex households and families aren't an issue with kids unless their parents make a federal case out of it. Its similar to bi-racial couples in this way, most kids at that age, to be frank about it, wouldn't think of that as an "issue" until the adults in their life make it an issue. In other words, bigotry, in all its forms, are LEARNED behaviors, you need bigoted adults to make bigoted kids.

[JackBeck]

135. Great post.

Your real life experiences reflect the general attitude of most of the responses in this thread.

[Solon]

136. I go into much better detail in my OP as a response to this OP...

I started a new thread about it. The fact is that because I only knew their family as a child, as explained in that OP, probably gives me either a clearer or fuzzier perspective on this so called issue. I mean, his moms were MOMS for crying out loud, they would do stuff like tell you to brush your teeth, stuff like that, the fact that he had two of them just didn't register as significant to me.

I think that also probably colors my perspective a little bit, I mean, at the time, when we slept over at each other's houses, we were always told by our parents to obey the parents at the other houses as if they were our own parents. So I guess, to me, they were my Moms as well, even if only temporarily.

[bliss_eternal]

141. How do I say this....?

Eeeeeuuuuuwwwww! :puke:

Um....yeah. Sounds bigoted....and frankly flat out hypocritical.

[Jersey Ginny]

150. I believe the book is "King and King" and its amusing.

You should read it. I'm happy to say that it is in our grammar school library. My boys picked it out randomly.

[JackBeck]

151. Hey neighbor!

Isn't integration beautiful?

Wonderful to see parents not standing over their children gnashing their teeth out of fear.

:hi:

[JackBeck]

152. Question about this statement:

"But what I don't care for is the potential of a teacher discussing this topic with seven year olds. To me, this topic should be left to parents."

What topic makes you uneasy for a teacher to discuss with a seven year old?

[flaminbats]

153. IMO this should go with sex education..

I don't agree with the argument that sex education should be left only for the parents to teach, I also think it's a huge mistake to wait until puberty to teach our kids about the facts of life.

I agree the Second grade is a little young to be teaching this, but I doubt using a fairy tale will have any kind of longterm effect..positive or negative.

[swimboy]

164. Um, what do you think the book is about?

I think it probably ends around the time that they lived happily ever after. None of the fairy tales I grew up with went on to say, "And later that night, one of them put this part of their body into a special place in the other one's body."

It's a fairy tale. Not a sex manual.

The OP expressed his uneasiness with second graders being exposed to the concept of certain people loving each other. He reserved the right to expose "these things" to a child to the child's parent, who will no doubt stay very busy reviewing the teacher's lesson plans.

[noamnety]

165. Are you saying

second graders can't read any stories where there is a married couple or a family until they have sex ed?

Why's that?

[JackBeck]

176. I'm confused.

What does reading a fairy tale about two same-sex princes have to do with sex education?

[JackBeck]

177. Delete.

Dupe.

The cat stepped on my laptop.

[SteelPenguin]

169. At first I was opposed, but then I thought about it

At first I thought that was too early to cover those sorts of issues with kids. Second graders. Seven year olds. Are they really ready to actually comprehend what that means? What's it trying to show?

You see if my daughter grows up and comes home sometime and tells us she's gay, it won't upset me. I also don't think that seeing a book or a movie about two men getting married when I was in second grade would have 'made me gay', which really is the worry of many people.

My daughter is only three, but she already loves movies. We'll watch various movies together. Her favorites vary, but almost always there is a relationship involved between a man and a woman. Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, Mulan, etc, etc, etc. She's exposed to the traditional relationship and marriage everywhere she looks.

What if the movie Toy Story ended with Buzz and Woody holding hands, heads together. People would have freaked out. Why?

Will watching it make you gay? Will it make a seven year old more predisposed to being gay? I don't know the studies on it, but I'm going to guess they don't. What they DO do is probably expose children to the concept that it's ok. It's not in the majority, but just because 90% of people aren't something, doesn't make the other 10% (or even 1%) wrong.

My main concern would be that I didn't know how the teacher would cover it. If one teacher covers it one way, what's to stop another one from condemning the behavior, or if not openly doing so, teachign it in such a way as to make the subtext of their thoughts obvious to even a 2nd grader?

[ulysses]

187. if it's only an issue for parents to address,

then ban books that talk about princes and princesses - or any other heterosexual relationship - from the classroom. They're only for parent discussion too.