From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:00:22 GMT

In article <1gdateINNif4@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>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

Trash the barfing spooler, as Zippy the Pinhead might say.

>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.  

Children will learn that men sleep together, women sleep together,
women and men and children sleep together. The beginning of Melville's
"Moby Dick", a classic of American literature routinely assigned in
middle-schools, has two male lead characters who not only sleep
together, but one, a Maori, announces that they are 'married' the next
morning. What do the youth of America think of that one. (What was
that Doris Day movie where the two women shack up together, and she
ends up stroking a horse and singing "My Secret Love" - Annie Get Your
Gun?) People sleeping apart is usually a sign of luxury. I can't begin
to imagine what life was like during the Great depression. I shouldn't
deconstruct the idea of two men sleeping together any more.

Children are not easy to put one over on with respect to logic, except
for Santa Claus (I'm terrible around children, because I make up the
most disturbingly incredible and mythologically dimensioned lies about
the world and nature - parents are repelled and transfixed), and are
fascinated with bodily processes..  Probably a question that would
immediately arise is of the daddie's sleeping together. Again,
children of this age might subconsciously connect 'bedroom' with
'sex', but that is for the most part a very adult, literate view of
the situation. I think it would have about the same import for a child
as the child sleeping with a parent. (Or a pet: It reminds me of the
anecdote of the children who were morose when the mother told them she
was getting rid of the hampster 'danny' since she was the only one who
cared for it. When she was dumping the cage, the children were
terrorized and burst into hysterics saying 'they thought she said
"Daddy"')

I think an interesting case could be made for an analysis of these books
with the point of view of educating the /parents/.

>> 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.

Saint Paul attributed the phrase "If you are not with me, you are
against me" to Jesus Christ. Aside from the teachings of Christ, which
have little to do (as I see it) with modern Christianity, it is
interesting that the ramifications of something /attributed/ in this
manner to Christ have had such long-reaching implications for a
Judaeo-Christian logical outlook. Are there actually neutral
positions? It is a good question, one which I won't fall into the trap
of debating. Suffice it to say that what you question has daunted many
philosophers. I believe that there are neutralities. I can't quantify
this. You are correct to say that the presentation is a positive
point. A neutral point might be to have both a 'good' monogender
family and a 'bad' monogender family (A complete, classic
Wittgenstenian tautology). On the same hand, it would be appropriate
to show 'good' and 'bad' dual-gender families. The terms of the debate
would shift from existential questions to questions of accuracy and
thoroughness. I'll focus on the idea of 'OK' to sum up. (Remember:1)
Whether or not people /agree/, homosexuality is not in itself a
psychiatric illness (It can be, ego-dystonic homosexuality, which is
the homosexual equivalent of ego-dystonic heterosexuality or what we
would call 'being in the closet') nor does it limit a person's
capacity to have a socially-responsible, happy, rich, productive etc.
life. In that sense, the message is 'correct', that this arrangement
is /OK/.

There could be parallel arguments made: parents for whom a Hindu
lifestyle is not 'OK', a Buddhist or Janist or Islamic lifestyle is
not 'OK', a carnivorous lifestyle is not 'OK'. You can see where this
would lead.

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

This is where the rights of children are going to focus in the next
decade - complete information about their biology, history, and so on.
I'm sure a school populated by next-generation DAR types would not
want it taught that the first person to die for the American
revolution was not a white protestant from England, but Crispus
Attucks. Revisionist ideology will be gradually, but not painlessly,
supplanted in school curricula.

>> 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.  

"Ignorance is bliss." I cannot disagree with you more. Parents
willfully set out to keep their children ignorant of fundamentals of
reproductive biology, ignorance as a protective shield. Parents
willfully set out to keep their children igorant of social behaviors,
believing ignorance of human nature will keep them from repeating
those behaviors. Another truism: "those who do not learn from history
are doomed to repeat it." It is precisely by the parent's act of
proactive ignorance that the damaging behaviors are reinforced. That
parents believe they are helping their children is clear. That the
children are helped is clearly false. You have read my definition of
homophobia; its implications are evident.

>> 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.

A question which has long confused me: Why should the parent's
misconceptions and prejudices have greater precedent in the child's
education in the field of social science than a social scientist. Why
should a parent's psychological maladaptations have greater precedence
in the child's education than modern psychology? Morality is a
euphemism for prejudice, in this context. I'll extend the analogy to
race: many white households (I want to write 'in the South', but it is
as true in the North also) object to the idea that whites have the
same intellectual capacity as blacks. We don't teach the children
otherwise, however, because it isn't true. Homosexuality isn't /bad/,
as criminality is /bad/ (morally speaking: a non-prejudicial morality)
for the reasons I outlined in (Remember:1).  If homosexuality can't be
shown to be morally reprehensible, then it can't be taught to be so
from a moral, ethical, or more importantly, logical viewpoint,
regardless of what a parent's sensibility is.

Remember: logically, it is far easier to teach that heterosexuality
leading to reproduction is morally evil because it leads to population
disasters (think of mass starvations in Somalia, Bangladesh, China; in
fact, any religion which teaches that the human spirit is
intrinsically evil would lead to a conclusion about he inherent
amorality of heterosexuality; a heretical Catholic sect was based on
this during the pre-Renaissance era; we still use the term Manichean
to describe these ideas), to clans and warfare, and racism.

>> 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?  

That's the $10,000 question when it comes to homosexual advocacy,
isn't it.

>> 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....

It certainly hasn't worked to tell people that lesbians and gays have
been world leaders in government, science, sports and the arts; to
reach for what the best that they can be as people to 'join the
Pantheon'. Advocacy was more successful with the tactic of 'artifice
over nature' since camp has been 100% absorbed by the heterosexual
majority. It soon will all boil down to: being lesbian and gay can be
an awful lot of fun (Cigarette ads). The advocacy will assume
dimensions (analytically) of classic Greek tragedy, with a fabulous
cast of characters. The comedy (shock of paradox?) is that it will
work much better. "Heather has two Fathers" is an example of the warm
snuggly advocacy. I'm not sure this will all still mean anything to
you.

>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.  

Thank you. 
-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Newsgroups: soc.motss