From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 12 Dec 1992 18:26:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

Please redirect followups to: alt.politics.homosexuality 

Joe,

Yours was definitly the best post on the subject so far.  I had a nice, long,
detailed response all typed up, but my news spool had some problems and it
got barfed...

joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis) writes:
> The text also has the
> image of one man in bed, covered, the other one turning out the light,
> and the caption "they sleep together".

This is the only part of what you described I would not be comfortable
with, from what I'm reading.  

> I remember a book (well, I actually remember almost all the books)
> from my childhood, the "Jennifer has two fathers" reminds me of the
> book where some children keep walking in and out of a magical clock
> that pops them out into different countries around the world...
> ...For children who have
> a traditional family, seeing a two-man household informs them that
> /that/ exists. It doesn't advocate or repudiate.

50/50...if a book was showing a 1-parent family to the kids, the assumption
(and reason) would be to show that it is "ok", which would be the default
message.

> Primary schools have long sought to give children a sense of
> being-in-the-world, and a sense of self-sufficiency. One method of
> this is to show children in unfamiliar situations so they themselves
> can overcome the anxiety provoked by an unfamiliar situations by
> inference and identity. 

True. 

> Exposure to unfamiliar religious situations
> can provide tolerance for those children who are not of a christian
> majority. 

True. 

> I doubt if you would
> find a curriculum that would shy away from showing children in a
> shinto temple, or that would fail to explain what a menorah or dreidl
> represents. 

True. 

> Schools have long treaded on religious-problem issues by
> having christmas pageants and easter vacation. That isn't a useful
> argument in a multicultural society.

Although those were the 'majority' cases.  And those are now starting 
to be looked at. 

> One purpose of schools is to guarantee that children are nurtured
> intellectually whether or not their parents want it. 

Hmmmm...if the majority of parents are against a certain type of
'intellectual nurturing', it isn't likely to get taught.  

> Some may not want their
> children to learn about religious beliefs other than christianity,
> believeing that it is the only valid religion.  

True.  And those people could just as easily turn that around into:
"some may not want their children to learn that the bible condemns
homosexuality, believing that homosexuality is something innate to
the person and not a matter of choice".  And they could then say 
"since these people are in the distinct minority, they should put
their kids in a private school that teaches that, if that's what
they want them to learn."...it all depends on which end you're on...

> In all these
> cases, it is the parent's original ignorance and desire to keep their
> own child ignorant which damages the child's intellectual growth.

This I cannot disagree with more, and am rather suprised you would 
infer such an intent to a parent.  If anything, its a matter of parents
thinking they are helping their children, not setting out to keep 
the child ignorant.  

> It is what comes out of how a person leads their life
> which makes them good or bad. A star quarterback can beat his wife. A
> solitary woman discovers a cure for AIDS. An aggressive businessman
> alienates his family. A gay doctor works to fight malaria in Burkina
> Faso.

And this I can't *agree* with more. 

> Parents shouldn't have the right to keep their child intentionally
> ignorant when the child has the capacity and the need to absorb the
> information. 

Think how this would work in reverse, like in the example I gave above.
We're not talking keeping them ignorant of algebra here, we're talking
about something that a significant number of the parents find morally 
objectionable.  

> I am talking about that these children should know that, in the
> context of other children having different happy, productive household
> lives, that some have two men who love each-other and the child, and
> and some have two women who love each-other and the child.

Some of this I buy, some I don't.  You can teach that some kids have 
1 parent that loves him, or 2 parents that love him, or whatever; 
you can force the parents to deal with an issue (when the child gets
home) that they are not ready to go thru with the child at that point.
Or is that the whole idea?  

> When homosexual advocacy comes (and it will) it won't be nearly as
> subtle as "Jennifer Has Two Fathers". It will look like cigarette
> advertising, or AT&T mini-dramas. That's the tragedy. The comedy is
> that it will work.

Not sure what you mean here....

Again, I think this was the most useful followup I've seen yet.  It managed
to cut thru the issues better than any of the others.  


Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: soc.motss