From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:56:38 GMT

In article <1ge3vhINNjit@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>> The point of the curriculum is to introduce these concepts not at the
>> time which is most convenient for the parent, but at a time when it
>> seems most important to the child's development.  
>
>When you go teaching something agaisnt a large number of parent's will, 
>you'd better be sure about it. 

I'm sure that kids know what "gay" is used to mean.

>> Contrary to what a
>> lot of people seem to think, children learn terms and concepts like
>> "gay" and "faggot" and "dyke" very early on.
>
>But as I said in another post, they have *no* concept of what it means 
>in an adult's sense; they mean it differently.  As they get older, they 
>begin to pick up more of it.

Kids often do use these words as generically negative terms, but I
believe that they have an idea of how adults use them.  An effeminate,
meek, or shy boy is a "fag."  A girl who is overly aggressive or
strong, or keeps company with a particular other girl too often is a
"lez."  Kids don't focus on sexual acts the way so many adults do, but
they are familiar with the general concepts involved.

>So if you are trying to deal with kids 
>calling each other faggot, you have to deal with it on their terms.
>Telling them that Heather's mommy and her roommate sleep together 
>isnt going to do that.

In fact, I believe it is.

>And the majority of people do *not* find that an acceptable lifestyle 
>choice, and do *not* want it taught to their kids as if it is.  They 
>are willing to live and let live, but don't want their kids taught 
>something they do not find acceptable.  Why the need to force it, 
>if they are willing to live and let live? 

As Greg said: they are willing to live and let live, but they don't
want their children taught to live and let live?

>> "Heather
>> Has Two Mommies" doesn't attempt to present homosexuality as a
>> positive or negative phenomenon; it merely presents it as a phenomenon
>> that exists.
>
>You're telling me that the intention isn't to present it in a positive
>manner, so that kids will be acceptive of kids who's parents are gay?
>Come on.  When doing something like this, if you present it is a valid 
>thing, it is by default considered positive.

This, I suppose, is where the Oregon Citizens' Alliance came up with
their "positive or neutral" complaint about literature on
homosexuality.

>If it didn't present it 
>as positive, WHAT good would it be doing the kids you are supposedly 
>trying to help with it?  

It would expose them to concepts they either hadn't heard of before,
or hadn't thought out for themselves.  That might at least encourage
some among them to ask questions, either of their parents or of their
teachers.

>> For the most part, I believe parents are not addressing the
>> subject of homosexuality with their children.
>
>And if they don't do it to your satisfaction, you will see to it that 
>it is done for them, if they like it or not? 

Yes.  That is the job of a school.

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