From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Children in Same-gender Families
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:34:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <14DEC199200091566@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>	Anyway, what you seem to be proposing is a neutral position.
>Don't let the schools teach anything about family units, and don't 
>encourage parents to teach their kids anything about family units,
>specifically same-gender family units, since it is bound to backfire,
>and the kids will hate the parents anyway.

Excuse me but where did you get the idea about Parents not teaching?  
Parents the only ones that should be teaching this stuff, as they see fit.

>
>	I will, of course, disregard a general conclusion that "it will
>always backfire," since I know of lesbian families which have had success
>in helping their kids through the peer persecution bit.  So, I know it will 
>not always backfire.

I did not say it will always fail, I said it won't always work, not the 
same thing.  I was responding to the posters assertion that attitudes to 
towards gays is all relevant to what they are taught as children and I 
said - nonsense, people teach kids things all the time and they very often
still pick up the ciggies, the drugs etc etc.  and sometimes they reject
their parent beliefs for just the sake of rebeling and it happens to gay
parents too.  People will eventually make determinations about behavior 
no matter what you teach them and no matter who's doing the teaching 
and that's not likely to change anytime soon..

>	So, basically, kids will hate, and making them aware of a minority
>group only gives them one more object to hate.  This notion has a certain
>appeal, because we all know that kids do tend to make fun of other kids and 
>other groups.

The problem with most of what you post, IMHO, is that it's based mostly on
the false analogy between gays and blacks situations.  Until that false
assumption is addressed there is no way to resolve the differences.  People
have, and always will, make judgements of others based on the behavior of
others.  I'll bet I could list a dozen types of discrimmination based on 
behaivor that you wouldn't object to and the reality is you (not you specificly)
are trying to convince people that some type of behavior they beleive is
wrong, is really Okay and their the mentally ill or morally deficient
person for believing it.  Don't you ever make value judgements based on 
a persons behavior that you don't share?  Do you, for instance extend the
same trust and maintain the same type realtionship with say a crack addict,
that you would someone that's drug free? 

Forget it, you're wasting you time and you'll never convince them.

PSG
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11873 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10416 alt.politics.clinton:18838 alt.politics.bush:14717 alt.politics.homosexuality:8147