From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:13:58 GMT

I have set followups to alt.politics.homosexuality.

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

>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.  

Why?  (This is not meant to be sarcastic or baiting.  I really don't
understand how it might be considered objectionable.)

>> 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.  

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.

>> 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.  

I'm not so sure that it's different from keeping a child ignorant of
algebra.  The children educated in grade schools today are almost
certain to encounter gay people in nearly every walk of life as they
grow up: the neighborhood cop, the corner greengrocer, the principal
of the local school, their neighbors, or even themselves.

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.  If a significant number of
the parents find this morally objectionable, then I'm afraid that's
too bad.

>> 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?  

I don't think it is.  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.  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.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: soc.motss