A Massachusetts family has filed a lawsuit over their kindergartner bringing home a book that features gay parenting from a "diversity day" baggie that was given to children. CNN has a great article on the story. The father has been arrested for refusing to leave school property when he demanded an answer on the matter. To me, the family is looking for a political fight, more so than a personal one over their child's education IMHO. If it wasn't for political means, I don't believe that the father would've set himself up to be arrested.





Questions for debate:

1.)Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?

2.)What makes it necessarily wrong that children should know that there are other kind of parents and that we all have rights in America?

3.)Are the parents concerned or political?

1. No. I'm responding in the negative not because I think homosexuality is wrong, but because unless the school is going to devote substantial time to discuss a foreign lifestyle with these children, I think it is manifestly unfair to hand a kid a book on the subject and make daddy and mommy explain it to them at home, which appears to be the case here. The parents may have been planning to wait a few years before explaining to their kids sexuality (again, as looks like was the case here).

2. Notwithstanding my explanation in #1, however. I would oppose such a talk at school. If this were middle school or high school, I would probably not oppose it. But kindergarden IMO is much too young. Many of these kids would be completely foreign to the concept and thus would force the "talk at home" much earlier than the parents may wish. How about we teach the kids some colors and shapes instead?

3. Too little information to tell if the parents are trying to be political. However, unlike the OP, I don't believe there is evidence to indicate that they are. The fact that the father was upset enough to go to the school and demand an explanation very likely means nothing more than he was upset and wanted an explanation. The fact that the school subsequently had him arrested looks almost like a political statement by the school. However, if the father was disrupting class and was warned, then I fully support removing him from the building. There is an appropriate place and time to voice a complaint.

1.) Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?

That would depend on the book in question. Something tells me that a book geared toward kindergarten kids is not going to go into much detail about the sex lives - never mind the sex acts - of the family represented. Indeed, I suspect that this is something as innocuous as showing a family going about their daily lives, Dick and Jane fashion - in which the parents happen to be of the same gender. If that's all it is, there's nothing less appropriate about this than a book showing a family going about their daily lives - in which the parents happen to be of the opposite sexes.

Any questions arising from such a book could be answered simply and truthfully: "Well, dear, most families have a mommie and a daddy, but some have two mommies or two daddies." If this is followed up by a predictable "Why?", it is up to the parent to continue being honest - "Because they love each other" - or to then start injecting "morals" of their own: "Because they're bad people who hate God." But there is no need whatsoever to discuss "sexuality" or acquaint children with a "foreign lifestyle", whatever the hell that means. My kids were surrounded by a "foreign lifestyle" (heterosexuality) all their lives - and it doesn't appear to have damaged them in the least.

I thought it was quite rich that one of the opponents of gay marriage had this to say - without irony: "It's like you're dealing with people from Mars, people who feel they're so superior they can use your child's mind as a sandbox for their own personal ideologies." At what age is it appropriate to start educating one's children about rank, unmitigated hypocrisy?

2.) What makes it necessarily wrong that children should know that there are other kind of parents and that we all have rights in America?

Nothing makes it necessarily wrong. By simply presenting the reality of family life in the 21st century, there is much that is both necessary and right about familiarizing our children with the world from as early an age as possible. That's what education used to mean. The notion that ignorance = enlightenment is, so far as I know, a relatively recent development in educational theory.

3.) Are the parents concerned or political?

Unless this book depicts the parents performing sex acts (which I rather doubt it does), they are being unquestionably political. By getting themselves arrested and initiating a lawsuit, they are also ensuring that their poor innocent children will be incessantly bombarded with the issue for the next few formative years of their lives. If, on the other hand, the book simply shows a family, say, having a picnic, their "concern" borders on psychosis. And I wouldn't let them within five hundred yards of my kids.

Believe it or not, a large portion of mainstream America is not accepting of homosexuality. Is it politically driven to publicly protest something being taught in schools that you believe is wrong? Maybe, but no more than a sit in at a lunch counter or a bus boycott.

The reality is that if the parents believe that it's wrong to teach homosexuality as a mainstream notion in public schools, I APPLAUD their passion on the matter. Getting arrested for your beliefs is something ordinarily applauded by liberals in America... but in this case the parent seems to lean to the conservative side... how dare he object to leeching homosexuality into his childs values????

I suppose that next they should have books where Billy's dad wears womens clothing and paints his finger nails while going on picnics. Then the following day could include a book about chain smoking and incessant beer drinking parents that can't hold jobs, so they go on picnics during the work week. The Finale of the diversity week would be where Billy's dad ordered a bride on the internet from Russia, but his mother didn't really love his dad and really wanted citizenship, so she left. Now they're picnicing alone. Great conversations for parents that want to just let their kids be kids and raise them well....

Aevans, you make a good point, then you sully it by making a bad one.

You are right, for a culture that professes to applaud people for the strength of their convictions we are all too quick to dismiss those who champion views that we disagree with. However, liberalism isn't univeralism no matter how much you would like it to be. South Park actually capture this nicely on in an episode where NAMBLA comes to town.



Now, you could argue that I'm making your point for you... and in a sense I am. We obviously can't be accepting of each and every value under the sun. There needs to be limits on what we, as a society accept. Where you and I differ Aevans is on the standards we use. You feel (or at least your arguments suggest that your position is) that the standards for what we accept should be some sort of majority community morals, in most cases deriving from some sort of judeo-christian ethic.

I feel that the standard should be what is measurably best for the children. The fact is that there are homosexual parents, and there is little evidence (of which refutation is easy to find) to suggest that this is harmful to children. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the social stigma that persists because of outdated community morals (which you would like to see reinforced or at the very least insulated from the march of time) are the primary source of stress in these families.

The very essence of early childhood education is twofold, to give children the skills to continue their learning, and to teach them about the environment around them... and the environment for children includes same-sex parents, and other children with same-sex parents.

I guess that is why I asked the third question. Would it have been that ruly difficult for the lawsuit happy parents to tell their child that there are different family structures? Is it wrong to state that there are different family structures and that everyone should civilly respect that?

I absolutely love the bolded portion. In between my chuckles, it states a valid point. A parent can still relate that they object to Timmy having two mommies, while at the same time, allowing their child to know that people have the right to live their lives how they see fit according to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who knows, perhaps Timmy's friend won't be a hateful ogre who when he is older, yells epithet's at Timmy regarding his parents when he is older.

And, believe it or not, a large portion of mainstream America is not accepting of interracial marriage, either. Were these parents burning crosses on the school playground, I'm sure you'd be applauding their passion. I accept that bigots are passionate. Do you have another point?

And, by the way, do you have any foundation for your repeated assertion that these children were being taught about homosexuality? So far as I can tell, this was just one of several free books that were thrown into a bag. Was there anything to prevent these parents from simply tossing the book with the two mommies - or the black mommy and white daddy, for that matter - into the trash and forgetting about it?


If letting kids be kids is the overriding objective here, how are these oh-so-concerned parents going to explain Daddy's arrest? How are they going to account for the amount of time and money the family is devoting to bringing this fatuous lawsuit? How are they going to explain all the media on their front lawn? Why subject these poor innocents to all this hysterical nonsense? Wouldn't their energy be better spent sitting at home with their children misinterpreting the Bible? Why can't they just let their kids be kids??

nebraska:

Funny that you should speak of the parent[s] telling the child that he/she/they view things differently. Reminds me of that part of David Shipler's Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits In A Promised Land, wherein mom, in response to a rather horrific example of vigilante activity on the part of certain Israelis, tells her child that it was wrong and we should feel sad, whereupon the child goes to school, returns home, and then tells mom, you are wrong, my teacher said that it was a good thing and we are supposed to be happy...

And that's the problem here.

And, nebraska, by definition, Timmy's "two mommies" are not his parents. His parents are his father and his mother. So you need not worry about Timmy's friend[s] being ogres and speaking smack against his parents.


Wertz:

There are actually two families involved. The other family concerns a 2nd grade child who was read "King & King" by his teacher, with such work being the "heart-warming" story of the good prince who sought a wife at his mother's urging, but who ended up marrying a man. The story ends with a pictoral depiction of the "King & King" engaging in what some have called a "passionate" kiss. And then they live happily ever after [and otherwise give the proof to our saying that if the Queen had EDITED TO REMOVE NON-MEDICAL TERM FOR ANATOMY she'd be the King (as it were)]. Now, does that depict "homosexuality"?

The teacher in question attempted to justify the reading by claiming that she was using "King & King" to teach "a unit on weddings." However, the child's parents went down to the local library, looked up children's titles on weddings, but didn't find "King & King" listed. Instead, "King & King" was found to be listed under "Homosexuality -- Juvenile fiction." So you were saying something about proof that someone was TAUGHT about homosexuality? Sorry, but the state's own library system says that such occurred. As Jeff Jacoby relates the matter:

""This is a highly charged social issue," Robin and Robert Wirthlin told them. "Why are you introducing it in second grade?" Kramer said she had selected the book in order to teach a unit on weddings. When the Wirthlins checked the Lexington Public Library, they found 59 children’s titles dealing with weddings, but "King & King" wasn’t among them. The library’s search engine listed it instead under "Homosexuality -- Juvenile fiction."

Please see: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/je.../28/195371.html

And here are some of the pictorial depictions from that work. Please note the last one and then tell me that the 2nd graders were not taught about homosexuality:

http://www.massresistance.com/docs/issues/..._king/book.html

And, Wertz, there is otherwise no "misinterpretation." And for that reason [to wit, ishshah was taken out of ish so that ish might be taken out her], a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined [in sexual relations] with his wife and the two [via egg and sperm] shall be for flesh one [that child over there]. And that is the simply indisputable biological reality that explains why we have the "sexes", yes? So not only is there no "misinterpretation," there is also no "acceptable alternative lifestyle" here, since if we all were to limit ourselves to strictly homosexual relations, then homo sapiens would soon be extinct and the cockroach would inherit our world.

And, Wertz, that is the rather fundamental distinction between the matter of race and homosexuality, though you and some others do your best to obscure that reality. Our ancestors had zero excuse regarding racism since white male slavemaster could successfully mate with black female slave, thus demonstrating to all concerned, or hopefully so, that black and white are members of the same species. But that won't work with respect to homosexuality, for the reason stated in the foregoing paragraph [last line of the same].

And so nice of you and some others to toss out the word "bigot" and never mind that not all discrimination is equal, since certain discrimination has a rational basis while some other discrimination does not. We have marriage to promote and protect families. By definition, same sex couples cannot bring a family into existence. And so I am clear, eat this mushroom over here and you die, but if you eat this other one ever there you'll be just fine. We call that "discrimination". And if mushrooms don't work for you, there are those bacteria that live in your intestines and without which you would die, and then there's the strep A bacteria... Are you suggesting that I am "bigot" because I have all the time in the world for the bacteria lining my intestines but none whatsoever for the strep A bacteria?

You might as well simply speak the truth and tell us that you are asking us to exchange English for Newspeak...

And please, do me a favor, please tell Rosie O'D's adopted son Parker why he can't have a daddy, since according to Rosie, he keeps asking for one...

That logic being used... why not talk about sex with second graders? Why not have sex-ed in Kindergarten? Why not talk about heroin addiction and domestic abuse in pre-school??

If we're going to force the notion of homosexuality on small children for political gain, why not press the idea of sexual liberty as well? Free love... yeah, great idea. "Come here Billy... let's talk about the problems with monogamy"...

The money being spent on law suits, the media on their front lawn, and the arrest of their father is an easily understood conversation, even for a small child.
Daddy is standing up for what he believes. Horrible... I know.




This logic only applies if you believe that teaching small children about homosexuality and same-sex parents is teaching them about their environment. Guess we should also talk about illegitimate children, families with parents in prison, or maybe even families where the daddy beats up on mommy. Teaching the kids about their environment in elementary school should be comprised of teaching them to read, add, not cross the street without looking, and in the south... which snakes are poisonous (etc, etc). Teaching them about same-sex parents is a politically driven attempt at changing public perception via small kids. Great...

Your morality and sense of homosexuality shouldn't be imposed on children that cannot distinguish the roles of their teachers. Small kids see teachers as role models, pillars of knowledge, and authority figures beyond impunity. They have our children in a captive audience mandated by law. If we allowed our teachers to discuss creationism openly, the ACLU would sue the school district in a split second... but talk about two daddies kissing and we're supposed to think it's ok???

If a teacher believed that smoking cigarrettes was great, should we allow them to read a book about smoking in a positive light? Who'd be happy about that?

Funny enough, a part of society and culture in general is a sense of morality shared by a majority. Fortunately for us conservatives (used on AD as if it's a dirty word!), the United States still hasn't embraced homosexuality as a mainstream and acceptable concept. Hence, elementary school teachers shouldn't push it on our kids.

I find it entertaining that in order to teach kids about sperm meeting eggs, parents often have to sign a document allowing it to happen, but a teacher blatently endorses same-sex relationships and we're defending her...

I can't say that I know of the Shipler thing. What I do know is that it would not be terribly hard to teach people in America that inspite of our differences, there is something that is greater than our individual clans and that is the notion that we are Americans. The parents could express that to the child that they disagree and that there are proper ways to do so-political activit, writing letters to the editor, etc. It's about teaching children that there is a right way, and a wrong way to disagree with people that you don't agree with. In this age where we are afraid of America fracturing, why not use books that highlight our differences and what unites us?




Once again, acknowledging that differences exist and that it doesn't justify you acting like an ogre to someone is just too hard to handle? Stating that people should be respected in public and not be harassed is akin to pushing everyone to accept that which they ultimately disagree with? I thought that it was something everyone would be for.



These aren't graphic pictures. It won't cause children to desire to be gay. It just points out that not eveyone is the same-I have no objections whatsoever about it. In regards to the last picture, that is showing kids that gay people are affectionate and that they love each other and their children. How is that any different than any chilren's book where the parents kiss? If a picture shows a father kissing a mother, is it pushing sexuality? That's a Snake river jump in reasoning to me.

All the dad wanted was to be notified if homosexuality was going to be presented to his child and I stress his child. What is so wrong with that?

1.)Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?

First of all, what exactly the kindergartner saw is nowhere to be found in my search. Was it a cartoon drawing of two mommies or two daddies? Was it just a picture of a group of people and kids? Who the heck knows?!?! I’m sure there were no words, as kindergartners don’t READ. And big deal if there was a picture. (And a btw to those who think acknowledging same-sex parents is the same as teaching drug use and deviant sex …kids are far more likely to be exposed to same-sex parents in their daily lives than those things. )

Everyone keeps lumping the two stories together (the other one with the 2nd graders at least gives the “outraged” parents somewhat of a legal leg to stand on –it was a poor choice on the teacher’s part…she had to know she’d face a crapstorm for it).

2.)What makes it necessarily wrong that children should know that there are other kind of parents and that we all have rights in America?

Nothing. Kids aren’t born hating things or people who are different. It is learned behavior. Sadly.

3.)Are the parents concerned or political?

Who knows? More likely they’re in it for the money.

He wants to be notified? Where did you find that in the article.? I looked through and didn't find any mentioning of opt out options or anything. According to the article, they didn't want *sexuality* to be taught to their child, which if you look at the pictures, is a big stretch to be considered seriously.

I very much agree. The younger we allow these children to see that there are different kinds of people in the world perhaps that will make them more excepting of the people around them. For when they get older they are going to have to deal with gay people.

Actually, KivrotHaTaavah, Timmy's two mommies could well be his parents. Adoptive parents and foster parents are parents. That's why they're called parents. Argue about biological parents if you must, but please don't issue a blanket denigration of the millions of willing parents in this country and around the world. Before you start touting your "definitions" next time, maybe you should invest in a dictionary - or even a word recognition course.


Not in the title of this debate (Parents sue over gay family book to kindergartner) nor in the questions framed for this discussion (Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?). But if you must drag the second grade book into the debate, I need only point out that, were the children reading a fairy tale in which a prince and princess married and lived happily ever after - even if their "passionate kiss" weren't hidden behind a heart - not a single parent would be demanding that schools should have notified the parents before "human sexuality issues" were taught in class. The "longtime lesbian activist" that Jacoby quotes (by way of somehow condemning the book) says of King and King, "There's no proselytizing, no big lesson. It just is." Exactly as all the happy endings of heterosexist propaganda like Snow White and Cinderella just are. Seeing pictures of Sleeping Beauty being awakened by a "passionate kiss" from a strapping youth in tights didn't turn me into a heterosexual any more than The Frog Prince prompted me to start grilling my parents on amphibious bestiality.


No misinterpretation? Not to get into a discussion of religion here, but simply as a matter of scholarship, the passage to which you refer (Matthew 9:4-6) is in answer to a question about divorce (Matthew 9:3) and the fact that the words of Jesus are contradicted elsewhere in scripture - the answer to which (Matthew 9:9) is "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery". It is a passage about fidelity, not homosexuality. Trying to make this some sort of judgement regarding affectional preference could pretty convincingly be described as "misinterpreting" - or, even more accurately, "misinforming".

Your exegesis about the biological necessity of two sexes for the purpose of reproduction is self-evident and hardly exclusive to the Saint Matthew. It is also irrelevant. No one is disputing how babies are made - nor, I might add, are we discussing the fact that homosexual behavior is natural, widespread and commonplace throughout the animal kingdom whereas homophobia is not. We are discussing whether or not it is appropriate to include the reality that there are same-sex couples in the world in books given to kindergarten children.

My position is simply that reality is preferable to ignorance, regardless of age. Come on - we're talking about a book in which the "sexuality" doesn't even extend beyond gender. There are no sex acts (or any other reference to how babies are made - or not), there's no full frontal nudity, there's no apparent argument that same-sex couples are in any way happier or healthier than opposite-sex couples, there's - Ah, wait! That's it. There's no judgement. I expect it would be a different story were this book indicating that same-sex couples were unhappy, unhealthy I'm sure even King and King would be perfectly acceptable to these parents if the story hadn't ended with a kiss, but with the two princes burning in the fires of hell.

The apparent suggestion that acquainting children with the mere existence of same-sex parents will somehow lead to the extinction of humankind must set some sort of world record for leaps of logic.


This argument baffles me. The debunking of the notion that blacks and whites are of different species removes any "excuse" for racism?? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but racism is based on the notion that there are differences between the races, not differences between species. That's why it's called racism. The sobering realization that all homo sapiens are... well, homo sapiens has hardly stopped generations of prejudiced whites from feeling that blacks, as a race, are naturally "inferior" in any number of regards.

And is this bizarre argument somehow supposed to imply that we can't prove homosexuals are of the same species as heterosexuals because if heterosexuals were homosexual they'd become extinct? I must admit that I find your logic somewhat elusive. Maybe I'm too far removed from kindergarten.


But there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from promoting or protecting families (except, of course, opponents to gay marriage). Indeed, that is one of the main reasons that many same-sex couples are seeking gay unions - to protect their families, to protect their children. Your mushroom and bacteria metaphors are inane. Same-sex couples are not destroying families - or the species. They are seeking to create families. These couples are, by definition, promoting the family - and many of them are doing so specifically in order to provide a stable, loving environment for the purpose of raising children that have been abandoned by the ish and ishshah that squeezed them out.

Homosexuality, as you seem to be arguing, is not a contagion. The fact that same-sex couples exist - and raise children - is not going to lead to widespread homosexuality and extinction. And simply acknowledging the fact that same-sex couples exist - even in a children's book - is not going to lead to extinction either.


Bigotry is based on intolerance and intolerance is based on a fear of those different from oneself, whether they're blacks, homosexuals, Jews, women, or intellectuals. Discrimination against gays is no more rational than discrimination against blacks - even if we can't prove that homosexuals are homo sapiens.



I don't see how an innocuous representation of the real world leads to sex-ed or pre-school discussions of addiction and abuse. But I must admit that I've never really succumbed to the Siren-like appeal of slippery slope fallacies.


Two people raising children together in a loving environment (horrible... I know) also sounds like a pretty easily understood conversation, even for a small child. In fact, "happy family" strikes me as being somewhat easier to explain to a child than than "lawsuit", "media", or "arrest". Well, okay - maybe not in Republican households.

Wow, I come out of a deep sleep to see enough mud being slinged that I could make an adobe house...

First, questions. Then, rant.

1.) Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?

No. Adressing scenarios that involve children asking questions about their environment at school, (i.e. "Why does he/she look different", or other questions about race or physical appearance) is appropriate because they are going to question what they see to be physical differences of kids and adults they see at school.

Now, growing up in the early 90's when there wasn't a level of stigma as there was in, say the 50's, I can tell you with certainty that I never asked once if "Timmy had two mommies" because I had no clue about what homosexuality was when I was five years old and since I didn't know about what that was, I didn't logically deduct that Timmy had homosexual parents.

That being said, since homosexuality is something a bit more complex to explain to a freaking five year old, and since it involves something beyond the scope of what the child sees at school, the school should not take over the parent's job of explaining it, when it's the parents right to explain to their kids.

I mean, we're talking about five year olds here. Shall we begin allowing schools to explain about "Why daddy wears mommy's clothes on the weekends?" or "Why daddy looks different every six months?"

I was not taught as a child, and especially at five, what homosexuality was, what racism was, or what sexism was. I was taught that God (or whoever) made people differently and that's the way it was.

Billy was white, Victor was yellow, Daniel was black, and Jose was brown, and in the end, I still had to play Shredder while they got to be the Ninja Turtles. That's the kind of perspective I had as a child. I was less concerned about who Timmy's parents were than I was about having to always be Shredder and being mad as hell about it. (Was it too hard to let me be Michealangelo or Leonardo for a change? )


I was fortunate enough to grow up in an environment where the idea of hating someone based on how they looked was completely foreign to me until I was in 2nd or 3rd grade. But regardless of whether or not I was taught as a child that hatred based on race is wrong, it's my parent's right to teach me ideals that they see fit to teach. Is there a potential chance that he will be raised with hatefull ideologies? Sure. But's it's their right. Sooner or later in the real world, that kid's gonna learn that his parents steered him the wrong way anyhow and that discrimination won't get him far in life.


When the school, a local government institution under local, state, and federal direction, steps in and wants to expose my child to something I think he/she isn't ready for yet, you're damn right it's out of line.


2.)What makes it necessarily wrong that children should know that there are other kind of parents and that we all have rights in America?

Nothing, aside from the fact that it's my decision to decide when my kids are ready to grasp that concept. If I don't feel it's acceptable in kindergarden, then I shouldn't be put in a position to where I have my kid askin me what homosexuality is.

3.)Are the parents concerned or political?

I think it's a little from column A and a little from column B. I imagine they share the same concerns I mentioned above, but if they're they politico type that sees an oppertunity to push an agenda, they'd obviously take this oppertunity to do so.

....[rant]






Wow...Cinderella is heterosexist propaganda ? Where did my parents go wrong?

I never read Cinderella or Snow White in class. I read about a hungry catipillar, and about how snails live in your nose and if you pick your nose they'll bite your fingertips off (bonus points for the person who points out the author of my reference ). If you, as a teacher want to reccomend that you as the parent maybe want to explain (or flat out lie, whatever floats your boat) about why "Timmy has two mommy's" because you live in an area that has a significant number of same-sex parents, great. But if that's not the case, what's wrong with "heterosexist propaganda " being shown to kids who are more concerned about how to kill that black dragon from Sleeping Beauty than whether or not "Prince Charming" is looking for Mr. Right.



Uh, I call that a good nutritional decision. Kivrot, if you eat one of the mushrooms, you will get sick or die. If you eat the other, well, if you like mushrooms, you'll be quite the happy camper.

Now if you eat a white guy for dinner...kidding folks....come on now...If you sit next to a black guy on a bus, you won't die. If you think it'll kill you, now that's discrimination. And I don't want my child to be taught that it's ok to hate or discriminate against "Timmy's two mommies" because the teacher thinks that way, and I don't want my child to be taught that Cinderella is "heterosexist propaganda " becuase that's what the teacher thinks.

I wan't my kid to be taught that 2+2=4 because the teacher thinks it's a good idea to know how the hell to add by the time he reaches 1st grade.

And not to start a dogpile on ya, Kiv, but the ability to procreate and the ability to raise a family are as different as night and day. A man who lives with "his baby's momma" and sleeps around anyway does not a family make. And so I'm clear, here's something you can examine by definition.



While you may be right about the "dirty word" (it's any wonder it passes through the profanity filter) you're wrong, IMO, about what is and is not fortunate "for us conservatives". What's unfortunate, IMO, is that there is a legit concern about the rights we are able to have as parents about raising our children how we see fit in our own homes, and it's being passed over to espouse the belief that since homosexuality is morally wrong, the "two mommy concept" should not be exposed to our kids.

I think it's hypocritical to dictate to kids at school (or at home) of any age that homosexuality is morally wrong, when the divorce rate in this country is at 50% (lest we forget that in the Bible, the sin of divorce is right alongside the sin of homosexality on God's Top Ten List).

And as far as "acceptable" or "mainstream" goes, it was ABC who aired "Ellen", which came long before "Will and Grace", or "Queer Eye". The fact is that homosexuality is accepted in society as a lifestyle. You don't have to tolerate homosexuality, if you don't want to, but the sooner conservatives accept that it's a lifestyle some people live and that their status as Americans trump their sexual orientation, the more "fortunate" conservatives will be.

...[/rant]

1.)Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?

Is it appropriate to have black poeple in books, to tell kindergartners about chinese poeple in a school with no chinese poeple? Seems like a ridiculous question today- but it wasn't 30 years ago- and this question, I am betting will seem just as alien in about 30 years.

2.)What makes it necessarily wrong that children should know that there are other kind of parents and that we all have rights in America?

It is not a "what" question- but a "who"- this is what the religious right gets it's donation money from - homophobic bigots they can whip into a frenzy that will cough up money to church leaders so they can keep thier limos and white on white suits

3.)Are the parents concerned or political?

Totally, 100% political- no doubt about it. Seen it about 5 times now at (usually boring) school board meetings. I show up at school board meetings fairly regularly, because they are a) close by involve my tax money, expecialy when teh attendence is light!

That all changes when the local republican activist/baptist minister decrees a 'moral outrage/jihad" of the day (the waste of oxygen on this site http://www.ancbt.org/) - then we get some attendence at a board meeting!

It is usually when the good reverend needs some more CEO size deposits in his account- or he is looking for compaign donations to his favorite republican for giving him new tax exempt status on more property he owns http://www.adn.com/news/government/legisla...-7624904c.html)

Now- last time I was at the latest book burning/banning meeting, we had the usual self righteous homophobes in attendence, this time it was over an honors level english lit book that was for 17 year olds in honors english. The proclamation of jihad goes out- lots of parents attend to argue and burn said book.

And, as the wise acre I am, at some point, I have to stand up and say "okay, name the rest of your kids teachers. Name three books prior to this one that your kid was required to read. How did you find out about this book? - well, it comes back to said preacher, who has a competing school with the public ones, with his own indoctrination program, which, appropriately in this case- the parents pay alot of money for.

I grew up in this culture of needing frenzy for dollars- so it is pretty obvious to me. How in the world would the American church even survive without these controversies to whip the congregation into a donation frenzy?

1.)Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?

K students cannot read. It is inappropriate to the age level, for most people. Also, very few families are gay. Parents might be gay; individuals might be gay, but generally there's a mixture. Hetero-looking families can have homosexuality in them. My sister's family is like this.

2.)What makes it necessarily wrong that children should know that there are other kind of parents and that we all have rights in America?

Kids figure things out all the time without adult help. They are keen observers. Hey, I knew one of my uncles was suffering from post trauma syndrome. Nobody had to instruct me, and back then it was termed being shell-shocked. Nobody talked about it, which was true about homosexuality too. That I learned about by observing a Catholic priest and gym instructors. Later on I read about human sexuality.

Also learned that libraries are pretty cool and that books are more reliable than most adults.

The whole thing about diversity awareness is that people are diverse. We are different. Live with it.

3.)Are the parents concerned or political?

The father is crazy. I feel sorry for his kid: "Daddy got upset over something I brought from school. It must be my fault."

He's killing his kid while seemingly trying to protect. It's pretty sick, but common. This is more about the father than the child. Having children is often more about the parents than the child. I guess that's human, but it still messes up a lot of kids.

Take this father, for instance. He's obviously working out an issue.

Maybe the kindergartner needs a picture book on dysfunctional families. Something like Daddy Is A Raving Lunatic, and I Need to Be Careful.

To clarify: I was being a tad ironic. I was simply turning the opposite argument on its head. King and King has been described (in the piece cited by KivrotHaTaavah) as "blatant propagandizing", as the teaching of "human sexuality issues", as promoting "an agenda" (yes, that heinous Homosexual Agenda again). The mere fact that a picture book includes same-sex parents or a fairy tale features two princes is apparently the equivalent of a long-term, widespread brainwashing program with the intent of leading the species to extinction.

Okay, I toned down the hyperbole somewhat in describing every other children's book in the known universe as mere "propaganda", but the argument that our society reinforces the prevailing norm is hardly new. Feminists are well aware of the struggle to depict women as anything other than subservient, weak, available domestics in our art, media, entertainment, advertizing, and, yes, children's literature and that such cultural oppression surrounds us all from birth in almost every image and text to which we are exposed. African-Americans will be aware of the same forms of oppression of blacks in our culture. Things have changes - slightly - for women and people of color over the past few decades, but not for gays.

The Jacoby piece that KivrotHaTaavah cited contains this amazing observation: "When it comes to the education of children, there is always an agenda - and those who don’t share that agenda may find themselves belittled, marginalized, or ignored." Jacoby was referring to the poor, beleaguered parents who are being subjected to the Homosexual Agenda, but he was describing with lethal accuracy the experience of every gay child and every same-sex couple in America. We are belittled, marginalized, and ignored. The exclusion of the reality of homosexual experience is ubiquitous in our popular culture, in our political structures, in our religious institutions, and in our education system. The reinforcement of opposite-sex couples and a preference for the other gender as the only option is part of our indoctrination from birth. And, yes, Cinderella is part of that very real brainwashing - whether, as children, we are consciously aware of it or not.

The Parkers and their ilk are just making damned sure that not a single exception to their propaganda slips through the cracks. We can't allow reality to creep into our classrooms - and God forbid that a gay boy or girl (or the child of same-sex parents) actually encounter an image of his or her experience in one of the books available to them! If we allow that, the seas will fall into the sky and the species will become extinct!

AuthorMusician is absolutely right. This is not about the kids, this is about the parents. I pray to God that none of the Parker children are gay. I have little doubt that they would end up as part of the 33% of gay youth that attempt suicide.

I'm sorry, but as the father of a 7 year old in first grade, this is a bad, bad idea.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting it should never be addressed. But at Kindergarten? This is simply forcing a social agenda on kids that in this stage in their lives, is completely irrelevant. All they care about is a stable home. They don't care about the "who" and the "why". They don't even think at that level.

As an example, Ruby Bridges visited my daughter's school this past week. And I didn't like it even a little bit. Not because I'm a racist, but because I don't want my kid dealing with social issues like this when it really doesn't matter to them at this point in time. She's learning how to read, be respectful, and all the basics of life.

Until last week, we never even discussed race in our house. The reason was not to avoid the issue, but minimize the difference in people. She was content knowing some people were darker than others and that was that. Now, she's repeating the evils of a completely defunct irrelevant relic of the past in the KKK. So instead of ME teaching her how color makes no difference, the school has forced a black activist - who's contributions to civil rights is duly noted - to teach my kid about the KKK, race hatred, and bigotry. At 7? We really really have more important things to deal with now before we have to deal with these important social issues.

I'd be as <insert your favorite PG-13 rated term here> as the dad too. People whine about parents not being the role models and bringing their kids up correctly, and then force their social agenda on them without us having a choice.

Children need to be taught about race, homosexuality, and other very important relevant social issues. But can't we teach them how to read first, or is that asking too much?

1.)Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?

Yes. Homosexuality is a fact of life and gay people are a fact of society. People need to get off this idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality.


2.)What makes it necessarily wrong that children should know that there are other kind of parents and that we all have rights in America?

Irrational fear.


3.)Are the parents concerned or political?

Or possibly both?

The rub is, their concern will not prevent their children from being gay if that is the way the cookie crumbles (I love that saying). I have little doubt that should this be the case then they will seek to find blame in such things as childrens books, TV shows or other exterior causes. They would be better served accepting that life does not take our wishes or prejudices into account and there is no reason to waste time and effort 'protecting' children from homosexuality.

Their efforts should be turned to the real threats which face our children, such as the traffic, sex offenders and bullying.

Wertz, using a tad of irony? Really?


While I disagree that the book is "blatant propagandizing" of homosexuality, I do believe that it should be left up to the parents to explain to their kids why Timmy has to mommies.

And while I do believe that, at a certain age/grade level, it may be appropriate for a teacher to address this (with the permission of the parents), kindergarten is not that time.



Seas falling into the sky, huh? Wow, this is serious!

Again, I think that something this unique should be handled at home, at least at this age. Human Sexuality is barely taught in 5th grade. I barely grasped the concept of divorce in third grade, after my own folks split. Not too long after, I was exposed to the concept that the man I called father was not my birth father when I ask why we were getting money from someone I had never met. (birth father) The statistic you pointed out Wertz is itself geared towards teenagers. The idea that a 5 year old is going to grasp anything beyond the fact that he or she has two loving parents seems a bit flawed.

Talk about seas falling into the sky, I'm agreeing 100% with Dayton Rocker...

1.)Is it appropriate to have kindergartners read books about gay families?



I agree with Dayton’s statement with a major caveat. Suggesting that all but the brightest kindergarten student could “read” much of anything is a stretch.

Note: Although kindergarten students tend to be chronologically the same age, mental ages vary widely. A five year old with a 90 IQ (the low end of normal) should be the equivalent of a 4.5 year old. With an IQ of 100, the child's mental and chronological age will match. At he outer edge of normal (IQ=110) the child's mental age will be 5.5 years of age. When we get into the Mensa range (IQ=150), the mental age will be 7.5 years.

With an IQ range of 90 to 150, there's a three year gap in mental age.


I do think, however, that students (even as young as kindergarten) should be aware that not all families are alike. There are times when, a child can have two mothers or two fathers, based on economic conditions, not necessarily, a sexual arrangement.

To ignore this to stick one’s head in the ground. Sooner or later, the child will view a non-traditional family. I think it is important that children know that such exists and should be taught as much as possible with whatever details are appropriate to that’s child’s intellectual development and without moral judgment.

3.)Are the parents concerned or political?

The parents are probably offended, but then it seems that there are those people out there who are just waiting for someone to offend them. Customs change with times. In her new book on Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin tells us that Lincoln often slept in the same bed with other men while on the legal circuit in Illinois. Apparently, this was quite common on the 19th frontier, probably for economic reasons, and didn’t become an issue until later.

I really think people are too uptight about the issue of homosexuality. They should take a deep breath and try to relax. You know, I lived in half a duplex, whose other half was occupied by a female homosexual, for about five years. I knew nothing or her sexual orientation until she died and the obituary mentioned a “life partner.” How does this revelation impact me? It doesn’t.



KHT:

I’m sure Wertz has unlimited access to O’Donnell’s family. This is totally irrelevant and very close to taunting someone.

And, if you go back to my first post (and the original article), you'll see that no one is trying to "explain" anything to anyone, the teacher is not "addressing" anything. The kids were given several books, one of which featured same-sex parents. That's it. No one, if you'll pardon the unfortunate imagery, is trying to force "the homosexual lifestyle" down their throats. They are simply including people who exist in a picture book.

As I argued above, the parents can - and should - "explain" as much or as little as they choose. You're absolutely right that a five-year-old is not going to grasp much beyond the fact that they have two loving parents - or beyond the fact that the children in the book have two loving parents, regardless of their gender. It is only the parents in this case that are trying, rather successfully, to make more of it.

And I realize that most of the suicide attempts are among teens, but I doubt you're arguing that the sort of oppression or stigmatization that leads four times more gay kids than straight kids to try to kill themsleves emerged over night. The impulse to end one's life often emerges as the result of forces that have surrounded one since birth. These young suicides weren't made to feel marginalized in the five minutes prior to their attempts on their lives, they've been marginalized since their earliest cognitive memories - through media like children's stories reinforcing over and over and over that they are different, that they don't "fit in", that people like them don't - and perhaps shouldn't - exist. Trust me, growing up gay is no family picnic. And people like the Parkers are doing everything in their power to make it even worse.

I won't go as so far to say that it's being forced dow their throats, but I'd wager that the people who put the bookbags together and included this book wanted to expose the children to the basics of a concept that many parents believe their children aren't ready for, without the parents consent.



And no, I'm not arguing that, but I've never seen a gay kindergartener, and I've never seen a kindergartener tease someone's parents for being gay. We've all experoenced how ruthless even grade school can be. I was taunted for most of my grade school life into junior high because I was smart, because (they thought anyway) I had a huge noggin, etc.) and I won't dare compare my run-ins with those of a teen or a "tween" who is discovering his or her sexuality, but while educating about the perils of discrimination early and exposing children to a tolerant environment early is important, kindergarten isn't the age to do so.

Titus, I think you are making too much of this parents consent thing. We have 50 states with 50 different educational systems and countless independent school districts within these states.

Should parents have a veto on curriculum? If, for example, J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye is required reading in a high school English class, should parents who object to the book have a veto? I don't think so.

I'm not impressed with populism impacting school curriculum.

I'm not sure anybody is disputing what our children should be taught - it's a matter of when. As usual, if we - as parents - choose to wait until a time in a child's life where we're a little more comfortable, we're suddenly responsible for gay suicide.

I RTFA and didn't see anything about the parents blowing a gasket over the curriculum - only the timing:



Emphasis is mine. However, they've been labeled as the typical lowlifes that oppose gay marriage when I never really saw any evidence that was the problem.

There are a ton of things I don't want to discuss with my daughter yet - online predators, serial rapists, mass murderers, divorce, the threat of Muslim extremism, sex, what that thing is between a boy's legs, what else that thing between her legs is for, puberty, taxes, cancer, racism, retirement, the job outlook in her lifetime, and 1000 other things. I don't want to tell her Sleeping Beauty, Santa, and the Tooth Fairy aren't real and growing up to be a princess isn't a really plausible option.

But the gay agenda pushes itself to the front of the line and whether I like it or not, gets shoved down my kid's throat.

DR and Wertz, I am sympathetic to both your views- as a parent myself, with, possiblly the best kids on this planet (of course LOL) and I want them not to be harmed by anything. I also have a couple family friends that are gays raising kids. And my kids plays with them. I am a divorced single father. My family is worse than thiers from my viewpoint- because my kids get shuffled betwen thier parents house. I am more worried about pervo step fathers and boyfriends access to my children than any gay friend I have. You see, I had some serious problems with a couple step dads myself. One raped my sister, the other beat me mercilessly.

DR- your kid is older than mine. How did you explain MLK day- and why he died? It was an epiphany in child rearing to me.

You are in the entertainment industry right? I am sure you have one gay friend or three raising a child somewhere?

To be fair, this issue hasn't come up for my daughter yet- but she does if "Papa is going to get us another Mama"- and my heart breaks in half every time she asks it.

When she has a play date with her buddy, who has two mommies- she just notices that her friend has two parents living together, while she only has one. And it breaks my heart again.
Two loving parents in the same house- something I would give anything for, but can't have. It is very sad for me.

She asked me why MLK had to die. I told her "you know Mr Bellamy? You notice his skin color is black? He couldn't be our friend and our "extra grandpa" without poeple like MLK.

The same applies to gay parents.

It doesn't teach homosexuality dude- it teaches that her friends are normal, and that having two parents is a good thing, as long as they have a loving household, something I can only wish for at this point, and do the best I can as a single dad.

CR, you are dealing with these situations on your own terms as they come up in your day to day life. When somebody pushes an agenda on my daughter I don't feel I want to deal with yet (because I haven't gotten through dealing with Sleeping Beauty, Santa, etc), I've been denied the opportunity to deal with a sensitive subject on my terms.

Maybe your kid needs to know why someone has 2 mommies and that's ok. That's a reality you choose to deal with. My kid doesn't. When she needs to know, she will. It's not up to the school to force a controversial agenda on her - that's up to me. I find homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice. Obviously, many disagree, but many agree with me. So, at a minimum, it is controversial and I should reserve the right to deal with it as I wish.

Look, a friend of mine talked me into taking a job with him a year ago (that's a good thing). It's a small family owned business with only 6 people working there. Everybody but 2 are family. Out of the 4 that are family, one is gay and living with his partner. I don't deal with the gay issue because frankly, it's nobody's business. It's no secret and nobody really cares. I don't point to my boss and say, "Sarah, there's Uncle Chris. He is a heterosexual". I work with the gay guy everyday and his sex life is none of my business no more than mine is his. My daughter doesn't ask who his friend is because everybody is "Uncle" whatever. She is not at a stage in her life for any of this to make a difference. As far as my relationship with the gay guy, he's no different than anybody else and in most ways, we're a little closer because of his interest in music. He is usually the one that coordinates the event when everyone comes out to a gig I'm playing for a good time. Do I agree with his lifestyle? No...not at all. Does it make a difference in our relationship? Not at all...it is not a factor (until he starts talking about his health issues related to anal sex - a topic for another thread. But it does gross me out).

As far as MLK, that's easy. We just told her that MLK was a great American and we celebrate his life by honoring him with a holiday. You might feel the need to explain why when I don't even feel a need to explain what the white guys did. They are all just great Americans.

You've displayed examples of why I have a problem with this issue. You feel the need to politicize at a very young age, and I don't.

Edited to add:
This has nothing to do with sticking one's head in the sand or denying reality. It has everything to do with dealing with it when I, as the parent, feel it's time.

I hear you- you want to deal with it on your terms, at your time, which, is of course, as a parent, appropriate. However- don't you think this guy's reaction was, oh, a tad worse than the book? Seriously- if he hadn't freaked out, and just removed the book from the bag, kid would have never noticed, and then raised holy hell, instead of HIM going for the martyr thing on school, and acting all out of control and violent? Who do you think, in the end, had the more harmful message? had he not freaked out, he could have made a political statement at the right time- school board meeting or what have you.

Only reason I explain stuff to my girl is because she asks, and I try to answer in terms she can understand, because if I don't answer it, and she is not satisfied with the answer- don't you think she is going to ask someone else in the school yard?

And, as folks pointed out- most kindegartners can't read, and would have had no real impact on the kid.

And Wertz brought up a valid point- why all the hetero propaganda in the books?

Should we sterilize childrens books from any sexuality or relationships? After all, there are far, far , far more "bad" hetero relationships, with violence and all kinds of dysfunctions- in fact, donn't you think that it is a far better situation to have gay parents that love each other and raise thier chidlren well than have an abusive hetero relationship?

If, at age 7, you haven't discussed with "Gay" or "homosexual" is- I will bet dollar to donuts that someon in the school yard has!

Fact is, gay poeple exist, this book didn't say anything about 'gay" in the text, even if it did, the children can't read, and it is no different than portraying someone of a different race in a book. Should we not have black poeple in a book until you have had a talk about black poeple being just like you and I, except thier skin is a different color?

Well, the reaction may have been over the top, but that's not what the issue is here. I believe it is a question of boundary. At what point are schools crossing the line when it comes to what they decide is appropriate for their education, and into the domain of individual families' rights to teach their children their values or ideals?





Now, I remember the term propaganda was described as being used as more of an exaggeration in this debate than a valid description. But if that's changed, I feel obliged to point something out. Even if Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty (which was never read to me in school) was read to children, there's no mention of "hetero" in there. It's not like the book reads "Prince Charming was a strapping heterosexual male who would adequately attend to the biological needs of Sleeping Beauty, a heterosexual female who shares a common interest with the Prince; keeping the homo sapien species going."

And yet it's hetero propaganda?

Either they're both propaganda or they both are not.

And call me crazy, but having a different skin color and having a different sexual orientation is very much different. One is an inescapably visable physical characteristic, the other is an often conciously hidden biological characteristic that doesn't appear till puberty. Anyway you look at it, it's an issue that's rather complex for a five-year-old to understand. And I'd perfer to have my child ask me about it from his own curiosity than from having it be thrown at him.

Well, if there is no sex and hetero content with the cinderella story- why is it a "homo" story if it simply depicts two women or two men in the same setting?
How about Cinderella and the princess doing the same thing instead of the prince?

Firstly, to Titus:

There is a simple and clear reason why none of what you have to say has even the slightest validity or connection to reality:

Shredder was awesome. I though he was one of the coolest characters in the B&W when I was growing up, before the whole thing was poisoneds by a bad movie and animated TV show of course. If you disrespect Shredder, I am sorry, but I cannot take anything you say seriously.




ANYways...

We need to keep a few things in mind here.

-Is there any description of sexual activity in these books?
-Is there any reference to human sexuality in these books?
-Does the word homosexual or heterosexual, of for that matter just sexual, appear anywhere in these books?
-Are any of these pictures graphis or sexual?

The answer to all of these is no. The main causes for discrimination is simply difference, people seeing something they are not used to. Most of the time you get over that, but other times people get told, either overtly or through subtle means, that difference is bad. Wheither the call to judgement comes from fear or ignorance or religion of just bigoted parents, it is this message which makes 'different' into 'bad'.

This book is trying to portray a single-gender couple as normal, so it won't be perceived as 'different'. I use the term single-gender here carefully, because it is ENTIRELY the opponents who have brought sex into it.

Is kindergarden too young to teach about sex? well lord knows suggestions vary, but most parents have not done so yet. So how is this different? On the off chance the kid asks his parents about the two men or two women in the picture, the answer SHOULD be 'because they love each other, just like that man and woman couple do'. And thats the end of it. I mean, how would you answer the question if your pre-schooler asked why that man and woman were kissing in public? would you be FORCED to go into a graphic explanation of the mechanics of vaginal penetration before you wanted to? How is this any different?

There is no need for sex to be brought into it, no need for divergent theories of sexuality, no need for any of that until the parent wants to have that talk with the child anyways.

Now of course, the answer the parent MIGHT give is 'because those two people in the book are sodomites and evil, and Leviticus says they should be executed'. But if that happens, who here is the source of the problem, is it the book, or is it the parents?

Nobody is forcing anybody's hand here, nobody is compelling anything upon the parents at all. The book is trying to normalise something for a pre-schooler, to prevent later discrimination based on perception of difference.

If you think that homosexuality is biological or a lifestyle choice or whatever, you can explain that to your kids. Its when you start trying to explain to them that homosexuality is wrong or evil that there is a problem. But like I said, at that point the problem there is NOT with the kindergarden book...


Remember the episode of the original Star Trek that showed the first interracial kiss on TV? The best thing about the kiss was that th show presented it as no big deal, it wasn't shown as groundbreaking, just another kiss. Of course that did not stop the flood of letters from angry people about how their children watched this stuff and how evil it was.

I'm in France at the moment researching, and there is this great French expression that is very relevant:
"le plus ca change, le plus ca reste le meme..."

It is in the second paragragh, read it again. The man was arrested after refusing to leave because the school officials refused to meet his request that he be notified when homosexuality was being discussed in his son's class. Whatever side of the issue you are on it seems to me that this would be a reasonable request as a parent. So I ask again what is so wrong with the dad asking for notification? I really want to know why it is not okay for him to have the right to it?