Oh just remembered something I'd wanted to say yesterday. In one of the passages from Lash I already quoted and addressed, there was a line, "Its something new. Something they don't understand."
We're talking about kids, right? Especially with young kids, that goes for a whole lot of things -- a lot of their life is spent finding out new things. Snow is cold. Check. If I push down hard on my marker, it breaks. Check. A red bird with a crest is called a cardinal. Check. Some kids have two moms. Check.
I don't see this as the slightest justification for not teaching them that a red bird is called a cardinal.
I'm not saying that failure to teach these things to kids results in a warped kid, at all. Kids are adaptable and resilient and can figure things out, especially if the core of empathy, curiosity and tolerance are there, as I have no doubt all of your children have been taught. It's the other way round -- how on earth does it DAMAGE them if they are taught these things in an age-appropriate manner. (I don't say, that is a Cardinalis Cardinalis from the genus Cardinalidae, I say that's a cardinal. I don't say, those two women have sex, I say they love each other.)
sozobe wrote:I'm just so confused about how you guys think this works.
You watch a TV show with your kid. There's this kid making maple sugar. The kid has a couple of moms.
...and?
What earth-shattering thing happens?
The kid asks, "why are there two moms?", maybe. You say, "well, there are lots of different kinds of families."
That might be the end of it.
The kid might say, "I thought only a man and a lady can get married." You say, "most of the time, that happens. Sometimes two men or two ladies get married."
That might be the end of it.
The kid might say, "Why? Why would two ladies get married?" You say, "because they love each other."....
OR
You watch a TV show with your kid. There's this kid making maple sugar. The kid has a couple of moms.
...and?
What earth-shattering thing happens?
Your kid asks if the two of you can make pancakes cause now they sound really good!
A much more likely scenario, IMO.
Those of you who think Lash or JW or I think there is something wrong with being homosexual are simply wrong. Or at least I can speak for myself there, and I haen't picked up the least sense of homophobia in the other two ladies.
Do I think homosexuality is a deviance? Of course it is. If it wasn't, there would be a gene pool for it and there isn't. Would most gay people choose to be gay had they a choice? Most that I know would not.
Not long ago our company receptionist was openly gay--an ex-Marine which isn't pertinent but makes her a very interesting person--and she said she wouldn't have wished it on anybody. Nobody else in her family is gay, she has a worderful mom and dad, and she tried to deny her sexual orientation even to the point of at one time being married to a guy. She finally gave up and accepted herself for who she is. My husband and I attended her and her S.O.'s symbolic wedding.
So what does all this have to do with pre-schoolers and Buster's program? In college classes on health, biology, sexuality, etc. we were taught that young children are curious about gender and it takes awhile for them to work out their own understandings of male/female relationships and what it is to be one or the other. Mothers and Fathers relate to their children in different but important ways and the child benefits from experiencing both and is likely to achieve and understand a more complete and healthier understanding of his/her own gender and subsequently his/her own sexuality in that kind of environment.
(And no, I am not saying that single and/or gay parents cannot do a heroic and commendable job of rearing children. It's just that, as I have argued on other threads, a loving mother and father are the ideal arrangement. It isn't always possible to have the idead.)
While children are sorting out and coming to an understanding of their gender--little girls learning to appreciate their femininity; little boys learning to appreciate their masculinity--there is no benefit and it may be unbeneficial to confuse them in that part of their development. There is time a few years down the road to understand that eerybody isn't the same in their sexual orientation. For pre-schoolers, I see no reason to bring it up.
If that makes me homophobic then so be it.
Quote:Following on her protest last week against a PBS cartoon character's visit to Vermont, where he encounters a lesbian couple, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced at a press conference today that her department was not engaged in a "trivial" or "merely symbolic" campaign against a children's television program.
"Buster Bunny is not the problem," said Spellings. "Though I note with some dismay that Buster travels the country accompanied only by his father because his parents are divorced, and I do not see why our children should be subjected to yet another glamorization of the divorce lifestyle. No, the problem is Vermont itself. It is Vermont to which I object. Christians everywhere should be outraged that it was represented in this children's program.
Quote:Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, had warm praise for Spellings. Knight said. "Mrs. Spellings has given notice that left-wing lobbies will have to find other ways to peddle their pansexual propaganda. Let's hope that other leaders in federal and state agencies find a backbone thanks to her courageous example."
Quote: "The whole show just looks queer to me,"
Hey kids! Here's a fun game. One of the quotes in this post is real and Not Made Up At All. See if you can find it! Here's a hint: it involves people having
sex with pans!
source
Is that the Mrs. LeHay organization? I would expect such comments from them.
So, how are the polite and reasoned discussions going, folks? Traction?
Let's drop this one into the mix...
Quote:HOUSTON (Reuters) - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President Bush's education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.
Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.
"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study.
The study was delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which commissioned it.
The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said.
"The jury is still out, but most of what we've discovered shows there's no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect," he said.
The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.
Abstinence-only programs, which have sprouted up in schools across the nation, cannot offer information about birth control and must promote the social and health benefits of abstaining from sex.
Pruitt said he hoped the study would bring about changes in the content of abstinence-promoting programs.
"These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that," he said.
One program technique has been to try to bolster students' self-esteem, based on the theory that self-confident teenagers would not have sex. Those programs, which sometimes do not even mention sex, have shown no effect, Pruitt said.
Other programs that focus on the social norms and expectations appear to be more successful, he said.
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7490040
Quote:"These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that," he said.
Really? Why I, I'm just shocked!
Maybe I missed something here. Has ANYBODY on this thread even suggested gays were perverse? Or that homosexuaity is not acceptable?
I am not actually saying that you and Lash are really homophobic, Fox - I am especially aware that Lash's posts on this subject have generally impressed me - not that I can remember them all - what I am saying is that your positions make no logical sense unless you do view gayness as in some way not ok.
Can you not see the illogic of your position otherwise?
Nimh and Soz especially have explained it again and again - and given analogies that clarify it further.
I, for one, am not assailing your general positions on homosexuality (I have no idea what yours is, politically speaking, Fox).
Thanks bunny--that sort of explains it, but to no avail I'll bet.
General Systems Theory (A dyslexic analysis)
Postulate I
Any system can operate in failure mode indefinitely.
Postulate II
Any system operating in failure mode for a determined length of time will be deemed to be operating in success mode.
Well, this has been, in general, an amazingly civilised discussion of this issue. I think it has been fruitful, even if nobody's mind was changed.
Fox - it appears, unless you were misquoted, that you DO think homosexuality "deviant".
Can you explain what you mean by that - and how it differs from perverse?
Foxfyre wrote:Those of you who think Lash or JW or I think there is something wrong with being homosexual are simply wrong. Or at least I can speak for myself there, and I haen't picked up the least sense of homophobia in the other two ladies.
Do I think homosexuality is a deviance? Of course it is.
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1158320#1158320
it's just back a page
not sure how homosexuality can be a deviance (?) but not be wrong
<shrug>
Foxfire wrote:
Quote:The thing is, I think if that cartoon was teaching a clear message that the best families have a mommy and a daddy who work and play and go to church together and that's what you should strive for, many of you so adamently defending the program would likely want it taken off the air.
Fox, I believe you're jumping to conclusions. Where in the program does it suggest that the best families are the ones with two mommies? Have you seen the program in question? Please! Come up with something better than that. If it showed a mommy and a daddy making maple syrup, that would be hunky dorey with me.
But you still haven't addressed my question about your argument when the shoe was on the other foot, have you? And I suspect you won't because you have no way to defend talking out of both sides of you mouth.
Somedays I can't stand to read these threads. They make me feel sick.
I wouldn't try to teach my child calculus before he knew how to add.
Get a grasp of the basic before getting fancy....<hee>
Complicated--no point of reference--a feeling of insecurity.
It doesn't involve a value judgement about gayness. It involves a particular method of raising a child.
You are free to raise yours as you see fit.
I'd like the same courtesy, and I'd like to be able to enjoy that courtesy without being accused of a vile motive.
I scroll around here, seeing the same questions and implications, and my same answers. I think anyone who doesn't understand--not agree with, but understand --the reason I hold this particular opinion has chosen not to understand. I don't want to waste any more time trying to re-explain.
Thing is lash, you assume these things as true -- the feelings of insecurity et al -- while the information I've gotten from a small sample (my daughter) and from a large sample (coursework) indicate that it's not true.
But I agree we're past the round and round part -- saying the same things in different ways -- so I'm happy to stop here, too.
