From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Summary: Walter is disingenuous
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:37:05 GMT

In article <1ikq7sINN43j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
writes:

>After reading in this group and in soc.motss that the Children of the 
>Rainbow books "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather has 2 Mommies" only 
>teach that "homosexual families exist" and don't pass any value judgement 

Perhaps you have difficulty reading?  The argument is not that the
books "merely teach that homosexual families exist" -- after all, many
people can get a (tendentiously negative) version of THAT in church.
The issue is one of respect in a pluralist society, where YOUR values
are not taken (*may* not be taken) as controlling.

>For the most part, "Daddy's Roommate" was quite benign; I didn't see 
>anything that I would object to having my daughter taught in 1st grade. 

Which implies that you DO have a problem with what comes next, that
you *do* object to -- you quote:

>"I didn't know what that meant, so she explained it.  Being gay is
>just one more kind of love.  And love is the best kind of happiness." 

If, in your mind, "respect" for homosexuals is to be "taught" with a
constant codicil that "despite their claims to be loving couples and
parents, they are not to be granted truthful statement of their own
love, then you are infinitesimally different from the Oregon Prop. 9
that insists on "teaching" that homosexuality is "unnatural."

Again, what do you OBJECT to in this?  Do you claim that love is NOT
of great importance, possibly of theologically ultimate importance?
Do you claim that -- again dismissing our testimony on no grounds
whatsoever -- being gay is NOT another variant on the loving relation
of mommy-daddy couples?  And if you have such an objection, is it not
a religious dogma with no place in public schools?

The teaching of respect for others MUST include at least a willingness
to grant sincerity and human value (even if one is steadfastly opposed)
to forms and patterns of life that YOU would not use, yourself.  In the
case of the Catholic example, the USN&WR "parallel" isn't similar --
Very few Catholics become nuns, after all.  Children with gay or lesbian
parents are to be assumed (just as we "assume" by default of children
with heterosexual parents) to have loving homes.

In a pluralist curriculum designed to foster respect for Catholics among
those (e.g., Protestants in small-town America who may have only heard
about Catholicism in the context of religious wars) who are ignorant, one
would read of saying the rosary or singing Marian anthems or going to Mass
... all presented with a "positive spin" -- namely, giving a simple version
of what the community in question says about ITSELF (avoiding the points
that have occasioned wars, and also avoiding as far as possible judgment
on the accuracy of that community's self-understanding.  That issue may
arise in some more critical context (high-school civics classes, for
example), but judgment in THAT situation must depend on a foundation of
understanding the other position and at least initial willingness to give
it the benefit of self-description. Anything else is NOT teaching respect.)

I might, with a sufficiently autonomous and well-prepared class of high-
schoolers (who have already SHOWN an ability to practice intercultural
respect), raise the question [and assign readings on this] about whether
fundamentalist Christian emphasis on original sin and "spare the rod,
spoil the child" [or modern variants like "tough love"] have negative
consequences for socialization and human development.  Those who have a
theological objection to homosexuality could, again GIVEN a class with
a demonstrated ability NOT to indulge in gay bashing, raise their own
theological objections [these I must admit I have never found these to
be anything by incoherent] in advocacy of negative legal positions on
gay rights.

What the Rainbow Curriculum is after is the foundation which must underlay
any such discussion in our society -- that is, you MAY NOT BEGIN by elim-
inating all positive statements which our part of the social mosaic makes
about ourselves.  That is not respect -- it is merely the continuance of
the same old bigotry which we are fighting.

Positive statements are not the same thing as advocacy.  If you edited
out all "positive" statements about Jews or Catholics or Blacks or ...
in a school curriculum you would, IMHO, be rightly charged with a bias.
Nothing in the book you saw suggests: "say, Johnny; why don't you see
if you can get YOUR parents to divorce, so YOU can have two daddies."
All the statement does is acknowledge the reality -- that there can be
a loving family AFTER a divorce and remarriage (regardless of gender!)
The "other" side of this is known to all children who have had the proper
exposure to the Grimms' maerchen.

>There was also an article in USNews and World Report, that said:
>----------------
>"These are not books about tolerance - letting people alone and not 
>picking on others because of sexual orientation or family structure. 
>They are books that celebrate the wonders of double-mommy and 
>double-daddy households.  But surely schools can generate respect 

This is idiotic.  In an environment that ALWAYS places an exaggerated
halo around the "ideal" Mommy-Daddy family, and gushes inanely about
the "miracle" of childbirth [the most common and ordinary biology is
a miracle? come off it!] and about the nobility of ordinary Mommies
and Daddies, anything LESS than gushing about

	"Being gay is just one more kind of love.
	And love is the best kind of happiness." 

would come across as critical.  I admit this is sappy.  So is almost
EVERYTHING about heterosexuality in our schools and our culture.
In context, this is very restrained.

>Despite what some of the gay posters have claimed, these books 
>do more than teach that "queers exist".  The school curriculum book 
>itself says that it is meant to do more than that.  

You have not been reading the posts on soc.motss with much understanding
(I will note that you have been TOLD this, repeatedly, there.)  It is
not our existence which we insist be taught -- Pat Robertson and his
ilk are all too ready to go on in vile slanders about our existence.
It is the EQUIVALENCE of our rights and lives with yours.  If you wish
YOUR families and aspiriations and rights to be respected by others
in this society, IT IS YOUR DUTY to accord others the same respect.
One would think this obvious to Christians who are asked to love others
as they love themselves.

If society is going to gush all over heterosexual families, it is pure
dismissal to object to the statement that gay and lesbian couples love
each other and provide loving homes for their kids -- and that this is
a matter of EXTREME importance to them.  You may be as upset as you
like about the existence of same sex couples living and loving together;
you may also indulge distress about Catholics burning candles before
the statue of Mary or crossing themselves as they take Communion, or
whatever it is that distresses Protestants about Catholics.  You may
NOT thereby insist that public schools are out of bounds if they have
materials which illustrate (for Catholic and non-Catholic students,
alike) the general tone of Catholic self-understanding AS IT WILL BE
ENCOUNTERED by these students in their day to day lives.

[rhetor's note: I have used "Catholic" as the comparative term here,
as it is presented to me from the USN&WR bullshit.  One should also
speculate on other categories that have been often discriminated
against in America, Jews for example.  Or, in a case that gets too
little current attention, Muslims.]
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss