From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 13 Dec 1992 00:38:55 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> 
> From a practical perspective, failing to teach children about the
> existence of gay households *will* have the effect that kids in grade
> school who have gay parents will be teased and ostracized.  That's
> Greg's point and mine.  

How will the kids (the ones teasing) know that the other kid's parents
are gay?  I don't recall ever hearing a kid when I was young saying, 
"your parents are fags" or anything like that.  It was generally 
something about the kid (meek, small, efeminate if male, etc) that 
caused it.  Teach kids to accept others, and you start breaking 
that sort of thing down. But the parents thing, except for close 
friendsm how much did you know about your friends' parents when you
were a kid?   Not to mention the fact that in a lot of schools
nationally, small ones away from cities, I'd guess there are plenty 
of schools where there *are* no kids who come from homosexual 
households.  What is the reason for the curriculum there, or are 
you advocating it there?  

> >There's something that doesn't fit here, either.  From "Heather 
> >has 2 mommies" kids aren't supposed to pick up on any sexual/gay
> >overtones, just that heather has 2 mommies that love each other
> >and her?
> 
> That's not it.  No sexual overtones, but I think that the "gay"
> overtones are meant to be clear, at least insofar as it's clear that
> Heather's mommies love each other romantically.  

Which is what I meant.  For the majority of people, that sort of 
lifestyle is not an acceptable one to them, and they won't want it 
taught to their kids that it is.  (Which, by default, this book 
does)  On the other hand, the majority of people are more than 
content to 'live and let live'.  They don't want a lifestyle they
find objectionable taught like that, but they have no interest in 
forcing gay people to be straight.  If they will teach their kids 
to be respectful of others, and their differences and uniqueness, 
why isn't that enough?  

> The book that's been
> proposed is not "Heather's Mommies Perform Cunnilingus on Each Other."
> :-) The book simply addresses the fact that people of the same gender
> can love each other, ignoring the questions of what those people
> actually *do* with each other in bed.

But that question *will* come up, and I can't believe that this book 
is not meant to encourage a more positive image of that.  Not directly,
but by positive inference.  

> How are schools to teach that "all" people are valuable and should be
> respected?  Just say "all people are valuable?"  That doesn't leave a
> terribly strong impression on the students.
> Typically, lessons of diversity are taught by comparison: white people
> are no more valuable than black people, men no more so than women, and
> so on. 

Correct.  Use the differences among the children in the class to show 
that people are different; some are better at some things than others, 
but all are valuable and deserving of respect as people.  Do it with 
something they can relate to, not using other kid's parents, people 
they don't even know.  

People, and kids, by nature, tend to treat people that are different 
poorly.  Go to a typical early-elementary classroom, and you'll probobly
hear a lot of insults back and forth, with *faggot* being the one of 
choice to really hurt someone.  Adults tell them not to, and as the kids 
grow up, this happens less and less.  Unfortunately, as people get older,
they tend to add more violent actions to the insults.  

Keep working (harder) on putting an end to the teasing when they are 
young like that, and the problem will continue to get better.  When 
little kids call someone a faggot, they don't know the meaning of 
the word in adult context; they mean it as someone different; usually 
someone they view as weaker than themselves.  How is handling the 
word from an adult's persective (grown men in romantic love who
sleep together) going to relate?  This is part of why it is 
interpreted as an attempt to propagandize young kids, instead of 
an effort to help people get along.  

> Simply by being told, "all people are valuable," children
> might easily nod and say "okay" without realizing that "all" really
> means *everybody* -- gay people and straight people too!

But kids that young don't know what it MEANS to be gay, lesbian,
straight, or bisexual.  They're just *people*.  Whats the sense of 
using an example like "daddy and his roommate sleep together" to 
get kids to stop teasing each other by calling them *faggot*?? 
Teach them using what it means to the *kid*.  

> I don't see why the curriculum shouldn't attempt to address those
> specific cases in which injustice is already widespread, such as
> prejudice on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, and
> then expand in coming years as the need arises.

A couple of things to keep in mind; race is something you are born 
with, something that no one denies.  Ditto gender.  But the idea 
that sexual orientation is the same, that is not accepted the same
way. 

Also, a first-grader, whom this curriculum is aimed at, is capable
of dealing with issues like gender and race, but not sexual orientation.
Teach them using things they can deal with and relate to, not something
that is beyond their level of development.  

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com