From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:09:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.172225.2131@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>In article <1270@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>> Ah Duhhh!  Bill we're not talking about a choice between classes that teach
>> homosexuality as something evil and classes that teach it as a something 
>> good.  We're talking about the choice between not teaching it at all and
>> teaching one set of values.


>Actually, it's neither.  What is being taught is that there are a diverse
							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>variety of lifestyles out there.  I have heard of no attachment of values,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>such as to say that one is any more "good" or "evil" than another.  =That=
					^^^^^^^^^^^
>is what appears to be getting the religious right all riled up... the fact
>that it says that homosexuals exist =without= putting them down.
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	
	Right you are, Greg!  The whole point of the curriculum
	is to expose youngsters to the variety of lifestyles
	and behaviors that are out in the big big world!

	Hopefully, with enough exposure the children will have 	
	a chance to develop their own ideas of morality.

	You say, "there are [is] a diverse variety of lifestyles out there"
	and that's 1 0 0 % right!  ON TARGET !! 

	See, what most people don't realize is that there's
	a LOT more to the curriculum than homosexuality and lesbianism.

	They think that the curriculum picks them out and mentions them
	to be some sort of brainwashing method, in the hopes that
	it'll convince children to sway from their family morality
	and be tricked into accepting something some people
	may consider sort of immoral.

	THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!! 

	The only peoplethat think that gays are being given special
	attention are the ignorant!

	No value judgements are made.  For instance, in "Johnny's mom
	has a shiner" there is no judgemental text promoting or desparaging
	Johnny's father, who is a wife beater.  Likewise, in 
	"Daddy's best friend touches me" no disparaging language is
	used to discuss one of the main characters, a brutal child molester
	with a taste for bbreaking pelvic bones the hard way.

	My personal favorite is a hard one to say. While I like the 
	storyline behind "Sams Uncle's friend" about a reckless drunk
	who (accidently, of course) runs down and permanently maims
	a young teen (scott), I can't say I like it any better than
	the equally amusing "Mary's mother cuts herself" or 
	"That red splattered spot on Mary's front window" (which,
	tastefully, addresses suicide). 

	I should probably mention "Hey, that's not a lolly pop!"
	and "What's that funny black shirt and white collar that
	the sluts father wears supposed to mean?" 

	Oh, I forgot "Steve's visits his dad in prison."
 
	The thing I like best about all of these books is that they're
	all about diversity--the more diversity the better!--without
	making any arbitrary value judgements.

	(I.e. they don't pick something to be bad just because the 
	majority says so).


>Show me where a value is being attached to the fact that something (such as
>homosexuality) exists.  Yes, young people must be taught to "accept" that
>they exist, just as we must "accept" that Aryan Nation exists and has a
>right to exist, but simply stating the fact does not automatically imply
>that one must approve of them.


	Right you are.  In fact, I forgot to mention "That white hood
	hidden in daddys underwear drawer" when I was trying to
	spread the truth about the *OPENNESS* and not the 
	specificness of the curriculum!

  
>And, since no "values" (only facts) are being taught, what's the problem?


	Who could *possibly* object to such a diverse and 
	valuless curriculum.  I don't understand either.


>The only "value" they are promoting are those that we, as a society, all
>should be sharing... that people should be judged not by some arbitrary set
>of prejudices, but as individuals.
>
>Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

	That's what's really important, after all.  Sharing the diversity
	of the world with the young without hiding or burying things 
	we (personally) may find unpleasant because we don't want
	to encourage the development of bias.

	Keep up the good work, greg!  We're with you!!

-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?