This sounds like some sort of organization this is trying to get those that may be in support of same sex marriage to support this ban. I live in Massachusetts and it would not fly that they would teach such things in kindergarten. They don't even start any sort of sex education until 5 or 6th grade and this is about menstruation and wet dreams with boys and girls separate - no sex stuff.
I think sozobe is right. But you know that is probably already going on and I would venture not only in Mass. I have seen this in Pre-K too. Basically they just explain what a family is - and a family can be any combination of people who live together and care for one another. There is no longer any one mom and one dad structure of family. Even in my daughter's Christian school, they discuss different types of families - probably not the same-sex thing, but indirectly most schools do this already.
Although there are mostly nuclear families, I have been seeing more children's TV shows and books that do show different types of families. Look at Lilo and Stitch - the older sister is raising the younger sister, for example.
Referring to it as "gay lifestyle" makes it sound as though gays are fundamentally different from straights--which, other than some sexual activities, is false.
Teaching about homsexuals requires an alteration in the terminology that we have lazily accepted. Calling it something that it's not, leads children to believe it's something that it's not.
Just like multiculturalism, some generalizations can be derived, but we all know how accurate generalizations are.
Teaching about same-sex unions can be done without referring to "lifestyles", as if gays live in a vaccuum, isolated from straights.
Two Mommies or two Daddies is a good place to start, but centering the debate around love may be too simplistic for those who create the curriculum on these matters.
I think that ' teaching the gay-lifestyle' is a horrible statement... for most of the reasons quoted...
BUT... I almost want to give power to the statement .
The only time children need to 'understand' a lifestyle is when they are being tormented in schools about it. Either becuase they dont have a daddy/mommy household.. or because they do..
We as parents , need to inform and empower our children against such behaviors. We need to give them the tools to survive the awful teasing children can give each other. We need to give them the education and love they need to feel comfortable and safe with thier home environment. And we need to remind them every day that no matter what the sex of your household is... YOU ( the child) are number 1. That is something that teachers can not do. And we shouldnt be looking to them to do it.
If you want to consider that type of action teaching the lifestyle, then I for one am all for it.
Well, our media is hardly conducive to such an end.
We have the leader of the most powerful nation in the world putting his foot on the heads of pro-choice advocates and making a sweeping ban on same sex unions. We have popular comedians, musicians and newscasters consistently making a parody of Michael Jackson's life and image (in spite of the fact that he has never been found guilty of anything thus far), and parents who will make off the cuff remarks about different ethnicities, clothing and hairstyles.
We are a nations that teaches intolerance, albeit convertly.
Welcome to a2k, candidone. I agree that messages are passed covertly and it makes me insane.
And I agree, shewolf, we can't expect teachers to deal with it alone - it has to start at home.
I do worry that Mo will be teased at school.
I'm not gay but Mo does have two mommies and two daddies and he is happy to announce it to everyone. We get some comical reactions to this announcement - especially when Mr. B and I are together!
I was completely dumbfounded when Oregon joined in with the constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. Oregon has always prided itself on its independent and inclusive spirt and now this! No wonder talks of "Cascadia" are cropping up again.....
There's been a fair amount of media attention in Toronto the last few days regarding controversy over anti-homophobia education. The Toronto District School Board has declined to exclude some students from participating in discussions, although parents requested this because they believe it violates their religious convictions. I'm posting a link to a Toronto Star article (Toronto Star is one of the local dailies). Registration is free if anyone has a problem with the link.
Premier calls for 'gay-ed' class tolerance
My initial response was to applaud the board's decision, but I've been wondering ever since if this kind of moralizing is a desirable aspect of our school's curriculum.
Has the board overstepped its mandate? If the issue is one of fundamental rights, why is there a "gay parents" qualifier? Why not Holocaust deniers or Satanists? I'm not suggesting that gay parents are the equivalent of either group, just wondering where we draw the line in our education system.
Does anyone else see this as problematic?
Oooh, that's a toughie. An important part of education is breaking the cycle -- if the parents have been taught racism, say, and are trying to teach the kid racism, the schools can step in and do something to break that cycle, expose kids to other perspectives, etc.
So I think it's really dangerous, in general, to say "fine, if the parents don't like it, the kid doesn't need to be taught that subject."
Separately, my educational philosophy is to mix everything together, take teaching opportunities wherever they present themselves, rather than having discrete blocs dedicated to a subject that is never mentioned at any other time, but that's neither here nor there...
But yeah, it gives a lot of power to the schools if you say, as a general rule, "the parents have no say, the schools are gonna teach what we want to teach, period."
cavfancier wrote:Oh, you know, kindergarten kids will be taught all about anal sex and fisting, and be forced to turn over to the dark side. They'll be taught to be anti-Jesus and their souls will be doomed to hell.
Some people really should get new hobbies, as it's clear they have wayyy too much time on their hands.
well maybe I'll stay in the heavy metal business a little longer...sounds like I have a new demographic on the horizon..... :wink:
sozobe wrote:Oooh, that's a toughie."
Yes, for me, too.
When did we decide that our public educators are, and should be, the purveyors of moral instruction? I am uncomfortable at the idea of denying parents the right to remove their children from material they find violates their religious beliefs, even though, in this case, I vehemently disagree with their beliefs.
The only way to avoid this dilemma, as far as I can see, is to ask the board to cease and desist from this kind of instruction
in its entirety. Wow.
Anyone agree/disagree? Solutions?
