From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 01 Jan 93 18:50:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1hv22dINN4ie@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     Your wife doesn't understand bisexuality.  Not a bit.  Bisexuality
>> is not about getting laid more often, at least not for most people.
>
>I don't disagree; and I have no more of an understanding than she does. 
>All we have to pull from is our own experience, and whatever we happen 
>to read on the subject.  My only (known) exposure has been in usenet...

     So noted, and understandable.  As someone noted earlier, bisexuals
are virtually invisible in our current society.


>>      What is an "active bisexual"?  Is that any bisexual person that
>> is sexually active, or only one that is sexually active with members
>> of both genders at the same time?
>
>The 2nd.  

     I don't agree with the definition, but let's work with it
anyway, for the sake of argument.


>> >It is the question of sexual monogamy. 
>> >Most people I know of think that marriage should be monogamous.  Not that 
>> >it always is, but *should* be; we're talking an ideal.
>> 
>>     Most people also believe that marriage should be opposite-sex.
>> So it seems like we're back to square one with this.
>
>Meaning?  That there's no point in talking about it?  (not a flame, just 
>missing your point.)

    I mean we're back to square one.  If the argument is "more
then 50% of the people don't believe it, therefore it shouldn't
be taught," then this whole argument is futile - what you have
is essentially a religious position, on which debate will
be useless.
    Basically, though, if we're going to teach that same-sex
families exist, we should also be teaching that families
with more than two partners exist, because they do.


>> >sexual *practice*  and fidelity, along with orientation.
>> 
>>      If we're going to teach about different kinds of families,
>> we may as well teach about them.  Not all families have monogamous
>> parents.  Not all families have only two parents, either.
>
>So what exactly would the teaching on this subject include? 

    How about "Heather has two mommies and a daddy?"
    Seriously, though, I'd like to see the curriculum get even
more general.  Something to the effect of "Families come in all
shapes and sizes.  Some don't have two parents - they might have
one, or three, or four, or more.  Some don't have a mommy and
a daddy - they might have only a mommy, or only a daddy, or
two mommies, or two daddies, or two mommies and a daddy, or
two daddies and a mommy, etc etc etc"  The individual examples
are much less important than the general statement - not
all familes are necessarily like the child's own.


>>      Once again - "Practice" has nothing to do with bisexuality.
>> Bisexuality is a sexual identity just like heterosexuality is.
>> You can be a celibate bisexual.
>
>maybe what we need is a better set of terms, that differentiate 
>better between orientation and practice.

    We do.  They're called "orientation" and "practice".  Bisexual,
homosexual, heterosexual, without modifiers, all refer to orientation,
not practice.  You can be celibate and be any of the above.


>> >So, looking at it that way, do you think (or anyone else who has an 
>> >opinion) that bisexuality should be brought up as well?  
>> 
>>      It seems as valid as any other type of family.  Why shouldn't
>> it be brought up?
>
>How and at what age would you do it? 

     The same age as the rest of the program.  We're teaching about
_families_, not about sex.  Children can deal with the concept
of multiple parents - they already do in the case of divorced
children with remarried parents.


>The main reason I would cite is that it conflicts with 'social norms' to 
>the degree (on sexual orientation *and* monogamy, if actively practiced) 
>that it would be either better left for older kids, or dealt with outside 
>the classroom.  

     So if it differs from two societal norms, it shouldn't be
taught, but if it differs on only one it's OK?  How about teaching
about polyamorous families in which all of the parents are
heterosexual?

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12533 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10954 alt.politics.clinton:19272 alt.politics.bush:15113 alt.politics.homosexuality:8603