Political foo: Reading time at school

[alpharaposa]

Two princes wed in a fairy tale read to children at school.

The school superintendant's response when parents got upset? "This district is committed to teaching children about the world they live in. Seven-year-olds see gay people."

I just wish the schools could stick to facts. They gypped me plenty when I was in. Looks like the next generation may be getting even less real information. If it's something that's seen every day, why are you teaching kids it exists? Except you're not. You're teaching kids that gay marriage is just like all other kinds of marriage, including the kissing and living happily ever after.

I don't know how I would have reacted if the school my kids were going to did something like this. I guess it's something I need to start thinking about. A lot.

Comments

[anatomiste.livejournal.com]

"If it were North Carolina, this would be a whole different story. But the law in Massachusetts is that gay marriage is legal. We have lots of gay families in Lexington."

I was about to say something different until I read the article and got to that last line. I live in North Carolina...

I was going to respond by saying that I didn't even know gay people existed when I was seven, and that if my children were being brought up in a place where they were never aware of homosexuality in any form, I would strongly object to their school being the place where they first found it. Many other places would be fine--but the school, especially one's child's own teacher, is in a position of great authority over one's child, in ways that can't be written in legal language. This is a great responsibility, and one that is often forgotten when it comes to teaching children Important Things that fall outside of academic education, things on which people do disagree and about which teachers are often no more qualified to teach than anyone else in the child's life.

All that, I still hold to. I just wonder how much gay marriage seven-year-olds see in Massachusetts--whether the superintendent is actually describing a real situation or if he is just describing the world as he wishes it were.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

I was admittedly a little torn on this, however, given the way the world works... it is likely that a child will encounter another child who has a gay/lesbian parent, and they will have questions. I don't know what I'd rather have, truthfully. I don't want the state to be teaching what are acceptable relationships, and what aren't--it's not the place of the state to determine who has the right to be in a relationship with one another, regardless of the genders involved. At the same time, I don't want schools to be filled up with volumes that are not taking into account the child's age, ability to emotionally digest some information, and what the point of the book really serves.

Is a relationship merely physical, (meaning if you don't have boobs you are not worth my time)? Or is it deeper, with interconnected emotional, intellectual, and spiritual connotations? I think a lot of people try to justify their marriages by putting down other kinds of relationships, and if terrorism has taught us anything--you cannot build something up when all you market is destruction. A relationship has to be more than the body parts involved, and I can say with some confidence that if my daughter grows up to find women more attractive than men I will love her and accept a person she finds special into our lives.

I cannot teach her that marriage is about love, and then tell her that some kinds of love are wrong. Love cannot, by definition, be wrong. (Please note I am talking about love, not lust, not something one-sided, not something between humans and animals, or adults and children, or with anything not able to conciously be aware of the impact of their decisions.) I don't know the story in the book, so I really can't comment directly to it. Ultimately, however, I think humanity needs to come to grips with the idea that not every human being fits the same mold. God made man, the story is told, in His image. That means the capability to love, the appreciation of the individual, and the ability to accept a person for who they are. I think too many people forget that, and instead choose to embrace a life of hate, detesting others, and denying the humanity inherent in us all.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

*edit*
Just look at the goings-ons in Black Jack, Missouri when the government decides what is a family, and what is not.

[muffinmaneric.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to argue with your post as a whole (I agree that this is not the state's job at all), but I find it a bit disturbing that you seem to equate any sort of disapproval of homosexuality with "hatred." Have you seen South Park's "Death Camp of Tolerance?"

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

The question is, then, is it really something that is yours to disapprove of? Forty years ago, we might have had this same issue regarding a black man who was going to get married to a white woman. It's not my place to disapprove of consentual acts between committed adults. That is God's role, not mine, to decide.

I did not, however, mean to equate someone uncomfortable with it as hatred. I think it's just another stepping stone as people evolve, grow, and attempt to make sense of their place in the world.

[muffinmaneric.livejournal.com]

Yes. I can disapprove of whatever I like. That doesn't mean that I'm an asshole about it -- I have several gay friends, and get along fine with all of them.

It really is possible to disapprove of something someone does and not be an asshole to the person himself.

And if you didn't mean it, then I'm sorry for having read into what you said. I didn't mean to do that, for my part. :)

[stryck.livejournal.com]

Love is not sex; sex is not love. Much of the debate about acceptance of homosexuality confuses the two.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you've said there. I also wonder, idly, if people are more accepting of a guy who goes around having sex with multiple female partners, versus a monogamous gay couple that are devoted to one another. That would make for a very interesting societal poll...

[stryck.livejournal.com]

I'll tell you straight up.

I'm not.

And I don't base my morals on polls.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I find polls interesting, but I don't think it's wise to live my life by group consensus.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

it is likely that a child will encounter another child who has a gay/lesbian parent

Is it?

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

Perhaps more dependant on location (for example, being a 'California boy' at heart, I was exposed to much more of this than a small-town person in the heart of the bible-belt. The news article quotes this having taken place in Massachussetts, however, which has historically been a very liberally-minded state. It is very likely that in a state where gay marriage is legal, a child would be exposed to that kind of relationship from their peers, teachers, or neighbors.

I consider that a logical extrapolation, and should not have inferred it was nationally at the same level.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Not all relationships have to involve marriage.

Not all love relationships have to involve marriage. If more people realized that, even heterosexually, there would be fewer problems with adultery/divorce.

Love, genuinely felt, is always a gift. But how it is expressed by individuals and how it is sanctioned by society is a different matter.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

The problem is that society genuinely views marriage as a means of legitimizing a relationship, which is the incorrect focus in my opinion.

For example, we all know the line about no sex before marriage--that certainly leaves some people in a predicament (in fact, my wife's parents got married specifically so they could have sex--and had major relationship problems as a result). Marriage is a means of formalizing a relationship as well, to all one's family and friends.

Since it is highly unlikely that people will suddenly begin saying "Sex without marriage is fine", the problem persists. The same with the pageantry that weddings have become--who doesn't want to get dressed up, looking their absolute best and surrounded by family and friends on one special day? 'Unions' sounds too clinical, and marriage is a very warm word to it, as well as carrying substantial history with it.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

A fairy tale with princes and a kingdom?

I would have ended that story, "And then, since there was no succession and no heirs, after the death of the princes the country collapsed into civil war."

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

*laughs*

It would be a good way to introduce kids to Shakespear later on...

[zeeth_kyrah]

The marriage lie always starts with "happily ever after". Any good relationship takes work, and there will be unhappy times now and then.