The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I didn't think this was a case of when this information should be shared with one's children, but by whom.

The government (any government) is not responsible for teaching my child. Period.

Please don't feel free to assign untrue motives to my statements. You would most likely be quite wrong.

Well, then why the heck aren't you demanding that Spellings resign immediately and the entire education department look for work in the private sector?

But I'm pleased you guys don't find any problem with homosexuality in the community.

I think that the last thing I would ever try to do is tell someone how I think they should raise their children, especially since I've never had any myself.

I'd like to return to the issue of Margaret Spellings, under her newly minted imprimatur as Secretary of the Department of Education, telling others how they should raise theirs.

Let me begin with a question:

When is a cute educational TV show featuring a bunny who visits different families all over the United States actually an insidious plot to burn American morality to the ground?

Less than week on the job and Madam Secretary is already pressuring PBS to pull an episode of "Postcards from Buster", not because Buster was committing the heinous crime of learning how maple syrup is harvested, but because the people teaching Buster about maple syrup were a lesbian couple and their children.

Gasp.

Spellings wrote, "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode." Um, what about lesbian parents? I'm pretty sure they pay taxes too. Still, I guess Margaret knows best -- she can divine what "many parents" are thinking, and therefore can dictate what everyone else can and can't see based on that.

Score one for big government.

As I pointed out earlier, a consequence that MUST follow - logically must - from Spellings' claim is that there must never be any portrayal on a television show that kids pre-school would see where Mary Cheney is seen with her partner. So, Christmas at the Cheney house is out.

How is kids seeing a reflection of the reality of family life around them on TV sex education being taken out of the hands of parents????

Will you try to shield them from seeing same sex couples in the supermarket? Rush them from the cinema if a same sex couple have kids at the show?

It seems to me that some of you are, in reality, asking that TV censor family reality, beyond what one expects them to censor in kids TV - like blatant sex and violence - while you think you are asking them not to expose your kids to stuff.

Given that family reality DOES include same sex couples, can you really not see that point? I know that some of you are not anti-gay - especially you Lash - I am not actually attacking your general stance, just your logic on this one.

I must be missing something.

These women weren't making out while discussing maple syrup, right? They are just discussing how syrup is made or something, right? How is a 3 year old watching "Buster" supposed to figure out they are a couple? That they have sex? That the sex between two adults of the same sex is good/okay? Sounds to me like someone is projecting things onto the scene that do not exist, and that a 3 year old viewer wouldn't even have enter their mind.

JW wrote:


Tell this to the Supreme Court when they make a ruling about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, JW. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

But you can't have it both ways.

I knew you were latent squinney...can we have that threesome now?

LOL Bear........you and Squinney are the naughtiest.

I asked:


I'm thankful that several people replied, but I dont think anyone actually ventured to answer this question.

Lash did answer:


This is a reiteration that the parent has a right to keep his children from sex (ed), but doesnt answer the question: how does seeing two happy lesbian women (not making out, just making maple syrup) become "sex talk" or "sexual images"?

I mean, of course parents have a right to want to shield their children from explicit sex. No argument there. But how are "sexual images" involved in visiting that nice lesbian couple to learn about making maple syrup? That was my puzzlement.

I am starting to suspect that to those so inclined, its not a question of "how"- it just is. Gay couple = sex. The key is probably in how, typically, Lash next lists:


"Homos" - yes, that nice couple that lives around the couple too, the happy lesbians making maple syrup in the kitchen as well - are instantly listed, as if self-evidently so, in one category with "rape, Monica Lewinski, alternate uses for cigars and Form 1040". (I dont actually know what Form 1040 is, but the rest is easy enough to conjure up.)

If seeing a gay couple is like seeing rape or Monica's testimony about cigars, then yes, of course you would want to shield your children from it. But my puzzlement is lessened none. How is seeing a gay couple pottering about in the kitchen like being confronted with "rape, Monica Lewinski, alternate uses for cigars and Form 1040"?

Lash, laudably, does note that


Yep. Or whatever parents are in their world. And why would a lesbian couple thrown in the mix that (I presume, as Lash tolerantly implies) also includes single parents or what not, suddenly constitute a "confusing, sad or frightening issue"? What's sad or frightening about seeing a happy couple of two women? Or more sad or frightening than seeing a single mother? (Or should those not appear in cartoons either? And how would that make children of single mothers feel?)

The only way it can be frightening, I suppose, if its something thats just always whispered about, strenuously kept from you, considered "abnormal" and described as something like rape or cigar fetishes - then it becomes a pretty scary thing for a child, I guess. But why would you make it so, in the first place?

OK, I'm repeating myself now.

Oh Lord - I'm 4 pages behind.

OK - one more Q already - if parents have the right to shield their children from "alternate lifestyles" - and seeing a lesbian couple (respectively, a couple of lesbian parents) constitutes such a confrontation with alternative lifestyles already - then how do you deal with real-life gays?

You have pre-school aged children, you dont want to expose them to those alternative lifestyles; are you going to ask your gay friend/neighbour/cousin to please not come over to your house? Or not the two of them, anyway? Will you not be going over to theirs with your child? Just how far does this go?

For starters, we teach preschoolers that men are men and women are women and kids' mommies and daddies are the boss. That's all they need to know at that time. We don't teach them that "daddy is heterosexual" and "Jane's mommy is lesbian". That's way more than they need to know at that age. If Jane's mommy is a friend that we've socialized before, she is likely to have the same opinion about that or we wouldn't have enough in common to be close enough friends to visit back and forth. My gay friends, for instance, agree 100% that young children should not be sexualized.

I don't know who this "we" is, but I've been teaching my kid that sometimes kids have a mommy and a daddy and sometimes they have a daddy and a daddy and sometimes they have a mommy and a mommy and sometimes they have a mommy and a grandma and and and since she was born, practically. She doesn't seem bothered much.

"Parents are the boss" doesn't depend on the gender of the parent.

Seems more difficult to explain that only some kinds of families are valid.

I tried to answer my children's questions honestly but not given too much information too early generally postpones such questions until the child is old enough to more easily understand.

But what's to understand? What's so difficult?

The difference is that which differentiates heterosexuals from homosexuals is sexual preference. Gender is almost always visually obvious and something easily understood by young children. They don't need to know about sex until much later.

And all this time I thought heterosexuals had a sexual preference, too.

"Gender is almost always visually obvious and something easily understood by young children." Yes, children learn early on to differentiate between men and women.

But I don't get where your next sentence jumps to knowing about sex.

Do they need to know about parents?

What does need to know mean?

I have been reading a book called "Everywhere Babies" to sozlet since she was a baby, herself. It's a great book which shows babies in all kinds of familes, including gay and lesbian parents.

Since then we've talked about how men can marry men and women can marry women (she adores weddings) after seeing some photos of such weddings in the paper -- she thought that was interesting.

I don't talk about, like, slot A tab B (or slot A and slot A), but there is evidence everywhere of families made up of mom, dad, and bio-kid(s), what on earth is the harm of including evidence of families with other make-ups? My husband's favorite cousin adopted a baby with her lesbian partner -- when we all got together, sozlet was totally fine with the concept that BOTH cousin + her partner were the baby's parents, not one mom and one non-parent. What on earth is wrong with that?

It's just my preference to teach my children about sex at a time of my choosing. I think it sufficient for children to identify as a gender without prompting a lot of questions about why other parents are 'different' and having to explain that. I think if the question isn't forced, it won't come until later. If the child is confronted through normal activities with lesbian or gay parents of a classmate, then I'll deal with it. But to force the issue on very young children, serve no purpose other than indoctrination, intended or unintended, and I think it inappropriate at that age. That is my preference as a parent or grandparent and I would expect others to respect it as I would expect to respect your wishes about what treats were served to your child or what s/he was told about religion or whatever.

(Edited to amend a sentence.)

But how is showing lesbian parents teaching them sex any more than showing them heterosexual parents?

The wedding discussions happened when sozlet saw pictures in the newspaper -- wasn't "forced". She was ~3?

And again, what on earth is wrong with her being fine with the concept of both lesbian parents being parents rather than a mom and an "other"?