From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:34:39 GMT

In article <1gdji2INNt2u@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> > I think that in fact it *is* a desire to keep children ignorant of
> > certain things.  A child who is kept unaware of the existence of queer
> > families, non-Christian households, or non-white public officials, is
> > by definition a child who is kept ignorant of those things.
 
> If you teach proper principles, like respecting *all* people, then
> things like gay families, non-Christians, and non-whites etc
> become a non-issue.  

But we are talking about children who have not developed the ability to
extend abstract concepts of inclusiveness . Anti-gay bigotry is clearly
demonstrated by children of very young age, they pick it up at home, they
pick it up from other kids. In order to develop a generation of individuals
who do not carry prejudice against their queer peers, the young generation 
needs to be given clear and unequivocal guidance, and that guidance needs to
focus on those areas which are clearly problematic.

> IMO, 1st graders are too young to really understand what it means to 
> be gay.  If the purpose is to remove biases against gays, instead of
> working on a plane they won't understand, why not teach that *all*
> people are to be honored and respected?  That way *everyone* is 
> covered, not just LBG.  And you avoid setting anyone off. 

They need to know that it means two men or two women living together .

Do they need to understand what it means to be gay in order to use the term
faggot as an all pupose term of derision? I don't think that the material 
is designed to push the kids beyond their undestanding of what couples
do together, its designed to teach them to be inclusive of same sex couples
in their lessons regarding these things.

> > If a significant number of
> > the parents find this morally objectionable, then I'm afraid that's
> > too bad.
 
> I'd have to disagree with that, simply because the public schools should 
> not be teaching what over 50% of the people in the country think is 
> not an aceptable lifestyle.  They should not teach it, pro or con.  

Our constitutional government was designed to prevent the tyranny of the
majority in just this sort of case. The reality is that our lifestyles are
natural expressions of relationship, normal for those of us who live them , 
whether you accept that reality or not is your problem.
As has been pointed out to you several times, you have the right to provide
an alternate educational experience for your children if you so choose.

> Also, what you are saying is exactly what the religious right jump on,
> and use to say that "gay people want to shove their lifestyle down 
> stright people's throats.".  What I still don't understand is why it is 
> not 'ok' just to 'live and let live'; to say "I think homosexuality is
> wrong, but so are a lot of other things people do; they should not 
> be harassed or discriminated against for it."  Why the need to 
> present it as an equally 'good' alternative, against the parent's will,
> if the parents do NOT feel it is an equally 'good' alternative.

Thats ok for you to say Walter, but in the classroom those are judgements
which would not be acceptable if you were talking about any other oppressed
group of people. The negative bias is thinly covered in your statement,
I'm thrilled that you feel principled enough that you can choke out the 
"they should not be harassed or discriminated against for it." part, but
the fact that you have engaged in this dialogue to the degree you have shows
me two things. One that while you phrase your postings as questions, you
are not paying much attention to the answers you are being given. Two,
that this is a very important issue to you and statements you made in other
newsgroups support suspicion that you have an agenda you are not showing
to us in thsi newsgroup.

> > To be truly honest, I *would* prefer that
> > parents deal with this issue with their children on their own time.
> > Realistically, however, that's simply not happening, so the
> > responsibility is left up to the schools.  
 
> I disagree.  Most parents I know, and knew as a kid, said that *all*
> people are people and should be respected, regardless.  They did/do not 
> condone gay-bashing, etc.   The people that are actually *anti* gay 
> and favor discrimination, I think are a small minority. 

You are free to disagree, but the figures for anti-queer violence, 
and the findings of profesionals who study this topic show you are
incorrect.

> > Parents who are angry with
> > such a decision would be better off directing their anger at those
> > parents who refuse to deal with this issue at all.
 
> Instead, they end up getting fed up with those on the religious right
> who want to drive gays out, and equally fed up with the gay-rights 
> people who basically are telling them "raise your kids right or
> we'll take care of the parts we think you should be doing for you.".
> Whether the parents like it or not.  

what you are missing Walter is that you definitly have an anti-queer bias.
Your words sound just like the things that were said about other
oppressed groups in past situations. What is real is that your kids will
have to live in the world of tomorow,  and whether you like it or not the
world of tomorow is going to include queers on an equitable and acceptable
level. 

LUX ./. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "