From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:26:11 GMT

In article <1ge0mvINNfph@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> > 
> > From a practical perspective, failing to teach children about the
> > existence of gay households *will* have the effect that kids in grade
> > school who have gay parents will be teased and ostracized.  That's
> > Greg's point and mine.  
> 
> How will the kids (the ones teasing) know that the other kid's parents
> are gay?  I don't recall ever hearing a kid when I was young saying, 
> "your parents are fags" or anything like that.  It was generally 
> something about the kid (meek, small, efeminate if male, etc) that 
> caused it. 

  True enough. However, I think you need to look beyond this a 
bit to understand the way this operates. Children naturally look
up to their parents, and adults in general, for roll models which 
are acceptible to follow. When there are no positive roll models
for children to look at in the adult world (which for gay roll
models is essentially nil) they are left with nothing but that
effeminate boy or tomboy who is just *different*. 
  It seems pretty much clear to me, that children like to attack 
others which they figure out are different from them unless there
is some amount of positive reinforcement that those differences are
not bad. This is done through parental/adult dissuasion/disapproval.
To the extent that does not occur, or worse, is encouraged is to
the extent that children find that the there is no moral consequent 
of their behavior; and hence, is OK.
  Hence if you present Heather with a two mommies (ie lesbians)
they might later question whether it's OK to call a tomboy a "dyke",
or a effeminate boy a faggot. If mom and dad further reinforce
that they shouldn't be making judgements like that, which seems
a reasonable thing in *any* case since not all tomboys turn out to
be lesbians and not all effeminate boys turn out to be gay, we
reduce the hostility level across the board. 
  At the point that active hatred is neutralized from childhood,
an adolecent and young adult can actually think rather than just
react about the why's of the situation's moral implications. At the
very least, one would expect some modicum of tolerance out of this
situation even if they were to still come to the conclusion that
homosexuality was immoral; this in itself would be a vast improvement
over the current situation.

 Teach kids to accept others, and you start breaking 
> that sort of thing down. But the parents thing, except for close 
> friendsm how much did you know about your friends' parents when you
> were a kid?   Not to mention the fact that in a lot of schools
> nationally, small ones away from cities, I'd guess there are plenty 
> of schools where there *are* no kids who come from homosexual 
> households.  What is the reason for the curriculum there, or are 
> you advocating it there?  

  Of course this isn't the real point. It's not about pandering
to statistics that n percent of the population is X, and X is
rather noisey therefore we have to appease them. It is all about
teaching tolerance in the face of diversity. That diversity unto
itself is a great strength, not a weakness to be scorned. It's
about "ye who is without sin toss the first stone."

> Which is what I meant.  For the majority of people, that sort of 
> lifestyle is not an acceptable one to them, and they won't want it 
> taught to their kids that it is.  (Which, by default, this book 
> does)  On the other hand, the majority of people are more than 
> content to 'live and let live'.  They don't want a lifestyle they
> find objectionable taught like that, but they have no interest in 
> forcing gay people to be straight.  If they will teach their kids 
> to be respectful of others, and their differences and uniqueness, 
> why isn't that enough?  

  This is an inherent problem with public education. I suggest that
that a cogent argument can be made why this is a good indictment
of them. However, if we must have public schools (and this is
an operating assumption that even I am willing to concede) We must
define what a public school should and should not teach. Morality
will always be taught in school, and it will always be at odds
with one set of peoples belief in morality vs. another's. 
  Thus the challange is to determine what is an acceptable baseline
(least common denominator, more likely) of morality that will be taught.
I think it seems to be a fairly held compromise that public schools
ought to stay away from religious arguments (ie anything that is 
based on an appeal to faith) and stick with "scientific" data, with
the general goal of having a more tolerant society. Clearly the
science of ethics is a matter of great debate, both within religious
circles and elsewhere, but education has taken the science route
for better or worse. Considering the alternative, I think this
is probably the best compromise that we are going to get. 
  "Scientifically", the subject of homosexuality has become a
non issue since around the early 1970's. Thus it would seem
incumbent on schools to teach homosexuality in at least a 
"factual" manner, ie homosexuals are not "depraved", or 
"child molestors", or "fairies" or any other myth which 
has no substinative backing within the scientific community.
   Consider the identical thing that happened in the south
wrt blacks. "Scientifically" there was no real dispute for
50 years that blacks were inferior in any way. But this was
not what schools were teaching through de jure separation.
Was it right to say "Enough. We don't care what your bigotry
is telling you, there is no basis for this."? 
   The fact that we are all paying for public schools, and
the equal protection clause of the 14th seems to imply that
indeed we as a society do have that right. The situtation
with gay hysteria is much the same.

> > The book that's been
> > proposed is not "Heather's Mommies Perform Cunnilingus on Each Other."
> > :-) The book simply addresses the fact that people of the same gender
> > can love each other, ignoring the questions of what those people
> > actually *do* with each other in bed.
> 
> But that question *will* come up, and I can't believe that this book 
> is not meant to encourage a more positive image of that.  Not directly,
> but by positive inference.  

  Oh really? I think a 6 year old child who deduced that would be
positively precocious. This is a very weak argument, and I think 
you'd be well served to give it up.

> > How are schools to teach that "all" people are valuable and should be
> > respected?  Just say "all people are valuable?"  That doesn't leave a
> > terribly strong impression on the students.
> > Typically, lessons of diversity are taught by comparison: white people
> > are no more valuable than black people, men no more so than women, and
> > so on. 
> 
> Correct.  Use the differences among the children in the class to show 
> that people are different; some are better at some things than others, 
> but all are valuable and deserving of respect as people.  Do it with 
> something they can relate to, not using other kid's parents, people 
> they don't even know.  

  Ah, but the rub. Clearly there are people who are bad, and should
be shunned. We can't be neutral on the subject of kidnappers and
molestors and the like. What should the standard be though? Perhaps
a start would be classify things into consentual/nonconsentual terms,
the latter being the object of disapproval. The rest are taken on
a more individual basis and maybe just teach kids what we don't
know/agree upon as well as what we do? It is not a sin to not
be omniscient after all. 
  But absolute silence is just as bad as approval though. It
only serves to reinforce the status quo and stifle debate
(since no one knows about it, no one debates too much, right?)
Admitting that certain things exist, yet are the subject of
controversy is not tantamount to promotion. In fact given
the knowledge of controversy we are more likely to move toward
getting the facts of the matter straight and precipitating a 
conclusion one way or the other in short order. I would think
that this is a Good Thing, wouldn't you?

> Keep working (harder) on putting an end to the teasing when they are 
> young like that, and the problem will continue to get better.  When 
> little kids call someone a faggot, they don't know the meaning of 
> the word in adult context; they mean it as someone different; usually 
> someone they view as weaker than themselves.  How is handling the 
> word from an adult's persective (grown men in romantic love who
> sleep together) going to relate?  This is part of why it is 
> interpreted as an attempt to propagandize young kids, instead of 
> an effort to help people get along.  

  Yes, but of course children use(d) epithets like "kike" and "nigger"
for exactly the same rationale. It is no longer acceptable to use
those terms in their previous context. Are children the worse for
it? I think not. I mean really, losing a few streotyping words
is not going to sink the english language's richness and completeness.

> But kids that young don't know what it MEANS to be gay, lesbian,
> straight, or bisexual.  They're just *people*.  Whats the sense of 
> using an example like "daddy and his roommate sleep together" to 
> get kids to stop teasing each other by calling them *faggot*?? 
> Teach them using what it means to the *kid*.  

  Both are important. One without the other is rather vacuuous 
don't you think?

> A couple of things to keep in mind; race is something you are born 
> with, something that no one denies.  Ditto gender.  But the idea 
> that sexual orientation is the same, that is not accepted the same
> way. 

  But why? I mean really, why do have reason to doubt it? Shouldn't
it be incumbent upon you to disprove the claim, rather than the
opposite and far more difficult task of proving it in the positive?
Shouldn't morality as a whole err to the side of tolerance and 
inclusion?

> Also, a first-grader, whom this curriculum is aimed at, is capable
> of dealing with issues like gender and race, but not sexual orientation.
> Teach them using things they can deal with and relate to, not something
> that is beyond their level of development.  

  I think you underestimate what children are capable of assimilating.
We're not talking about first graders understanding full moral consequents
though, so your objection is a strawman.
  Peace Walter, I am happy to see that you are pursuing this matter
in a thoughtful way.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality