From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 12 Dec 1992 20:54:26 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> >This is the only part of what you described I would not be comfortable
> >with, from what I'm reading.  
> 
> Why?  (This is not meant to be sarcastic or baiting.  I really don't
> understand how it might be considered objectionable.)

The other parts (cooking, singing and playing baseball in the park
together, are non-loaded examples of 2 people who like/love each 
other (looking from a child's point of view) that has no connotations 
to them; it could very easily fit 2 gay lovers, or a single father 
and a non-gay roommate that are good friends and sharing expenses.
The last part has more connotations attached to it, that, if not
then (the child may be too young to catch them, or may not) will
lead to the issue being brought up, and not at the time the parent 
is prepared for it.  At these early ages, (IMO) a child is too young
to understand the sexual aspect of all this, let alone all the
emotional ones.  So they are read this story in school and that
night at the dinnertable, tell their Jehovah's Witness (for an extreme
example) parents about what they learned in class today.  What do 
you expect happens next?  Or suppose the parents are of a less-extreme
faith, but still feel homosexuality is wrong?  But, because they 
also want to respect people's right to be different (even if they
disagree with how they are different) they have not shared their
negative view with the child; instead they have taught the child
that all people should be respected no matter if they are different
from you, or if you dont like some of the things they do.  And the
parents were planning on waiting for the child to get older, so 
he would be more mature and be able to make up his own mind 
better.  All of a sudden the issue is forced, and most likely the
parents will end up telling the child that it exists, but they
believe it is wrong.   

> 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.  

> The children educated in grade schools today are almost
> certain to encounter gay people in nearly every walk of life as they
> grow up... 
> I don't think it's unreasonable to say that given the level of public
> ignorance about homosexuality, the schools have an obligation at least
> to make children aware of the phenomenon.  

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. 

> 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.  

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.

> 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. 

> 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.  


Whether the parents like it or not.  

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com