Some Parents Angry About "Gay Fairy Tale" Book In School

[MadelynIris]

What if you disagree with interracial marriage? Should you be able to ban such books that show that it's a normal lifestyle? What about being Jewish, Muslim, or even atheist?

Or Johnny is an Islamic Facist and Wants to Blow Him Self Up. Mostly targeted at the 5-10 year old crowd. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

 

[Dreadsox]

I do not think a majority of the parents are bigots. I think the word is thrown around to intimidate people. The parents I have spoken to, including a gay couple, felt that it was wrong to read the book to second graders without parental permission. The gay parents must be bigots.

Now there are people in this forum like myself, that equate homosexuality with civil rights. We look at the struggle for equality and believe the causes to be similar.

Almost every parent I have spoken to equate homosexuality with sexuality and sex. A topic which pretty much universally is not covered in school at that age. The "kiss" at the end of the book in their minds puts the "Fairy Tale" into that category. One that opens the door to the topic, at an age that to a T every parent felt should not be open to discussion without parental permission.

They do not look at this as a Civil Rights issue.

As for Fairy Tale bias, I have gone through the first and second grade reading programs we use, and found no story that has any characters smooching. So I would assume this would eliminate concerns about bias.

As for religion...I do not believe it to be in the same category as this issue.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The parents I have spoken to, including a gay couple, felt that it was wrong to read the book to second graders without parental permission. The gay parents must be bigots.

That's interesting, but does that mean the little boxes that some like to put people into in FYM are not 100 % accurate? Perish the thought

I think maybe it does come down to that-a civil rights perspective vs a sexuality and sex perspective. Just for me it's far more important to teach kids to accept all people and that homosexuals aren't who they have sex with and/or what they do sexually. It is just who they are and they LOVE too just like we do and sex is just one small part of it, that would just be my emphasis if I had kids. Civil rights will always be more important than sex and sexuality could ever be.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

I do not think a majority of the parents are bigots. I think the word is thrown around to intimidate people. The parents I have spoken to, including a gay couple, felt that it was wrong to read the book to second graders without parental permission. The gay parents must be bigots.
. . .

Almost every parent I have spoken to equate homosexuality with sexuality and sex. .

Did the parents say why they wanted to be consulted?

And just because there are no kissing Fairy Tale books in the written curriculum doesn't mean that teachers aren't reading them to their classes.

The GSA at my school had their Day of Silence on Friday b/c of NCLB testing early in the week ( ) The population of my school is mostly living in generational poverty and African-American. Many of my students equate homosexuality with sex. I thankfully didn't have to write any hate speech referrals this year but I did have to address tolerance and the idea that "gay just is" in my classes. Many of my African American students do not think discrimination, when directed at homosexuals, is wrong. It was a frustrating day.

 

[BVS]

Almost every parent I have spoken to equate homosexuality with sexuality and sex.

But heterosexuality is not? Here in lies your problem, the parents are extremely ignorant or hypocritical.

As for Fairy Tale bias, I have gone through the first and second grade reading programs we use, and found no story that has any characters smooching. So I would assume this would eliminate concerns about bias.

You don't read Sleeping Beauty anymore?

As for religion...I do not believe it to be in the same category as this issue.

True, religion is a choice.

 

[Dreadsox]

But heterosexuality is not? Here in lies your problem, the parents are extremely ignorant or hypocritical.

I fail to understand your point....

I think its wrong to call it hypocritical. Two men kissing at the end of a fairytale opens itself to discussions that parents feel they should have with their children at a point in time they feel appropriate.

 

[Dreadsox]

And just because there are no kissing Fairy Tale books in the written curriculum doesn't mean that teachers aren't reading them to their classes.

true...doen't mean they are either.

 

[BVS]

I fail to understand your point....

I think its wrong to call it hypocritical. Two men kissing at the end of a fairytale opens itself to discussions that parents feel they should have with their children at a point in time they feel appropriate.

That response was to this:

Almost every parent I have spoken to equate homosexuality with sexuality and sex.

Why don't they equate heterosexuality with sex?

 

[nbcrusader]

True, religion is a choice.

While probably left for another thread, that statement is not correct in a number of ways.

 

[BVS]

While probably left for another thread, that statement is not correct in a number of ways.

You can choose your path of faith. This is a fact. Now I understand there are many levels that are involved here based on geography and ideas of salvation, but when it comes down to it, we're given free will and we can reject or embrace whatever faith.

And just like you never chose to make the conscious decision that you were attracted to the opposite sex, neither do homosexuals.

 

[Dreadsox]

That response was to this:



Why don't they equate heterosexuality with sex?

Why take my complete thought out of context?

[Q]Almost every parent I have spoken to equate homosexuality with sexuality and sex. A topic which pretty much universally is not covered in school at that age. The "kiss" at the end of the book in their minds puts the "Fairy Tale" into that category. One that opens the door to the topic, at an age that to a T every parent felt should not be open to discussion without parental permission.[/Q]

Are you saying that teaching 2nd graders about sex period is a schools responsability?

 

[BVS]

Why take my complete thought out of context?

I didn't mean to, I just responded to the post the way it was presented, you made that comment and the kissing comment separate.

But I still ask why one kiss should be treated differently?

 

[BorderGirl]

Essentially, he doesn't think parents should have to explain why "those people" were wearing rainbow lays to their inquisitive children.

Maybe the children wanted some of those pretty leis and thought that someone had forgotten to give them one at the door???
Was there a polynesian theme to the party?
If not, why would "those people" wear rainbow leis?
If it was to advertise their gayness then I think therein lies a problem. I think it is divisive to attend an event and then use that event to make a statement about your orientation. Can't we all just BE.
Everyone should have worn the same color.

 

[Irvine511]

If it was to advertise their gayness then I think therein lies a problem. I think it is divisive to attend an event and then use that event to make a statement about your orientation. Can't we all just BE.
Everyone should have worn the same color.

how easy for you to say. divisive? that makes me want to scream. maybe if the Republicans would stop dividing us in the first place and stop treating gay people like 2nd class citizens then there wouldn't be a need to stand up for ourselves.

the whole point of wearing the leis was to demonstrate that, yes, gay people exist and they have families and children as precious and worthwhile as the families and children of straight people, and when you're talking about an administration that has made straight up discrimination against gay people -- the anti-marriage equality amendment -- at the very center of its social policy (which is in turn heavily informed by explicitly bigoted groups like Focus on the Family headed by James Dobson), it becomes a means of necessary protest. no signs, no shouting, no marching, no protesting, just a quick way to identify themselves and show you just how utterly normal and boring your average gay family is.

 

[Irvine511]

I think its wrong to call it hypocritical. Two men kissing at the end of a fairytale opens itself to discussions that parents feel they should have with their children at a point in time they feel appropriate.

what about the kiss at the end of Sleeping Beauty? he wakes up the princess with a kiss -- should this have to be discussed?

it is perfectly fine for a 3 year old to understand that their mommies and their daddies love each other. also, that some people have two mommies and some have two daddies (and some one mommy, some two grandparents, etc), but that they all love each other very much. one way that people who are in love show their love for one another is to kiss them. that's all. there's nothing sexual about it, UNLESS a parent turns it into something sexual. there is kissing in every Disney movie i can think of -- do you feel the need to have a discussion with your children at the end of Snow White?

essentially, it comes down to this: if a small child can understand that sometimes a man loves another man, then the kissing between two men will be understood in just as simple and naive a way as the million-and-one heterosexual kisses they are bombarded with on a daily basis, in school and out.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]I find it strange that people think it's impossible for anyone that may not agree with homosexuality to not be a bigot, or intolerant. You can disagree with a lifestyle and still accept that it is ok for someone to live it because of their own choice. It's like first there was a stigma about people in the homosexual community, and now there's a stigma about anyone who doesn't think it's 100% right, when neither should be stigmatized. [/q]



there is nothing to "agree" with in regards to homosexuality. it exists, much in the way that people are left handed or have red hair. it's as natural as any of those less-than-usual human traits, and there's no discernable lifestyle that is inextricable from homosexuality. having a constitutive attraction -- which is to say physical and emotional -- to the same gender is not a lifestyle.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think it's a lifestyle either, from what I have read and just from what my gut instincts and my personal logic tell me. Not to get into that whole discussion, but it is germane to this discussion insofar as perhaps the parents in Lexington who are upset over this book to believe it is lifetsyle and a choice.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

essentially, it comes down to this: if a small child can understand that sometimes a man loves another man, then the kissing between two men will be understood in just as simple and naive a way as the million-and-one heterosexual kisses they are bombarded with on a daily basis, in school and out.

That makes sense to me. Life is complicated and messy, so why complicate it for kids? I do think sometimes it's the parents who do complicate it for the kids, again I am just speaking from my experience in my childhood. That definitely happened for me, but it did also help me to think critically and independently and to form my own, differing opinions as a result.

I don't understand sexualizing a kiss either- honestly I would much prefer that my kids, if I had any, read this "gay fairy tale" than to be exposed to the vapid, meaningless, cheap depictions of heterosexual love and sex that exist in our culture these days. A kiss is still just a kiss sometimes and can still symbolize love and nothing more.

 

[BorderGirl]

if the Republicans would stop dividing us in the first place and stop treating gay people like 2nd class citizens then there wouldn't be a need to stand up for ourselves.
the whole point of wearing the leis was to demonstrate that, yes, gay people exist and they have families and children as precious and worthwhile as the families and children of straight people,.

Who divided who by wearing colors to "demonstrate"? This was not a parade or a demonstration.
You show people how to treat you by the way you treat yourself.
You divide yourself when you come to an event and feel you need to let perfect strangers know you are gay, or straight, or abused, or whatever unless that event is for that purpose.
This need to identify your orientation, en masse, "to demonstrate that, yes, gay people exist" is a lack of personal boundaries in that you don't owe, or have to prove your worthiness. You are already worthy.
The message this sends is:
We gay people, (see leis) feel the need to separate from the group to let you know we are 'different' from you. It creates 'sides'.
ALL of us are unique. No one has the same history.
Find the confidence to respect yourself, and others, and that is what you will ultimately receive in return.

 

[BVS]

If it was to advertise their gayness then I think therein lies a problem. I think it is divisive to attend an event and then use that event to make a statement about your orientation. Can't we all just BE.
Everyone should have worn the same color.

That's easy to say when you can wear a wedding ring and show everyone you're "normal".

 

[anitram]

I find it strange that people think it's impossible for anyone that may not agree with homosexuality to not be a bigot, or intolerant. You can disagree with a lifestyle and still accept that it is ok for someone to live it because of their own choice.

Nevermind the lifestyle thing - I think to imply that's what homosexuality is really is a load of garbage.

But as for the rest? I don't agree with the lifestyle choice of consuming 3500 calories a day eating disgusting junk like donuts, Big Macs and refined sugar. In fact, it repulses me. But you don't see me politicking around and trying to legislate to people who enjoy this sort of thing what they can and can't do and then claim that I don't approve of their lifestyle, but hey, they're fine folks otherwise.

Let's call a spade a spade. If you disagree with the lifestyle but "accept" the person's right to live it, then stop trying to make them into 2nd class citizens and restricting their rights.

 

[Irvine511]

Who divided who by wearing colors to "demonstrate"? This was not a parade or a demonstration.
You show people how to treat you by the way you treat yourself.
You divide yourself when you come to an event and feel you need to let perfect strangers know you are gay, or straight, or abused, or whatever unless that event is for that purpose.
This need to identify your orientation, en masse, "to demonstrate that, yes, gay people exist" is a lack of personal boundaries in that you don't owe, or have to prove your worthiness. You are already worthy.
The message this sends is:
We gay people, (see leis) feel the need to separate from the group to let you know we are 'different' from you. It creates 'sides'.
ALL of us are unique. No one has the same history.

okay, well, the day that society stops discriminating against gay people, the day that republicans stop trying to dismantle gay families and keep gay people as 2nd class citizens, the day that we don't have threads about the bru-ha-ha over children's books that include gay families, the day that the last gay teenager kills himself out of shame and fear, when gay soldiers can serve openly in the armed forces, when gay men can donate blood to the Red Cross, the day that the last gay teenager is bullied in the hallyway, the day that the last lesbian is fired for being gay, the day that the last young gay man is bashed into a coma while walking down the street, the day that James Dobson stops blaming gay people for the ills of society, the day that Exodus ministries stops abusing young gay men and women into making them believe that god hates them and they should change their orientation, the day that gay people aren't hung in iran, jailed in Egypt, or executed in Afghanistan, maybe THEN we can talk about just being nice to one another.

the lines have been drawn, and it wasn't gay people who drew them. it was a bunch of bigots who needed to find someone to hate, someone to feel superior to, someone to blame, someone to define yourself against in order to feel virtuous.

there are people out there who will strip you of all worthiness by virtue of being gay, that it negates all your other qualities. this is what must be battled, and most of the fighting happens one day at a time, one person at a time ... but this is all predicated upon COMING OUT and asserting that, yes, you are gay, and yes, this makes no difference whatsoever. the best way to kill bigotry is through information, knoweldge, and experience; people who know gay people or have gay members of their families are far, far more likely to support basic civil rights for gay people. none of this can be done without VISIBILITY.


[q]Find the confidence to respect yourself, and others, and that is what you will ultimately receive in return. [/q]


i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because i think i understand the intent of your post, but my first reaction to this sentence was: fuck off.

how dare you tell me to have confidence and to respect myself and then, like magic, so will others? how can you say that when there is a pending vote on 6/6/06 to put bigotry into the US Constitution by outlawing marriage equality? how can you say that in a world where Matthew Shephard lived and died? how can you say that when you can be fired in many states simply for being gay? when you can have housing denied to you simply for being gay? when you cannot openly serve in the armed forces when you are gay?

when such forces are aligned against you, and when the Republican Party has decided that scapegoating you is going to be the centerpiece of their social policy, you have no choice but to fight back and stand up and be counted and to assert your worth as a human being, and that does involve being out.

 

[nbcrusader]

Nevermind the lifestyle thing - I think to imply that's what homosexuality is really is a load of garbage.

That's interesting. Back in the 70's, the gay rights movement centered on "lifestyle choice".

 

[Irvine511]

That's interesting. Back in the 70's, the gay rights movement centered on "lifestyle choice".

could you expound upon this? i know very little about it.

isn't it interesting how movements and people evolve.

 

[BorderGirl]

That's easy to say when you can wear a wedding ring and show everyone you're "normal".

If you feel you must wait for society to 'bless' your union then you might wait a long time.
If you are referring to the material part of what constitues a marriage, Durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance can be tailored to cover gay relationships without the need for marriage.
Whatcha waiting for is what I always wonder!

 

[BVS]

If you feel you must wait for society to 'bless' your union then you might wait a long time.
If you are referring to the material part of what constitues a marriage, Durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance can be tailored to cover gay relationships without the need for marriage.
Whatcha waiting for is what I always wonder!

Why should any one group have to special tailor just to get the same rights?

It's absolutely arrogant to say this, and this ask "can't we all just be?"

But this off topic...

 

[Irvine511]

If you feel you must wait for society to 'bless' your union then you might wait a long time.
If you are referring to the material part of what constitues a marriage, Durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance can be tailored to cover gay relationships without the need for marriage.
Whatcha waiting for is what I always wonder!

um, waiting for it to be legal? as it stands, full marriage rights are available only in massachusetts, civil unions are available in vermont and connecticut, and many cities (nyc, wdc, la, sf) have domestic partnership benefits, but there remains no federal recognition of a same-sex marriage even for people legally married in massachusetts.

it strikes me that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. are you aware that if my (theoretical) partner were in the hospital, i might not be able to visit him? that i wouldn't be able to make decisions regarding his long term care if he were incapacitated? that a spiteful family could swoop in and seize all of his assets that we might have spent a lifetime working together to amass?

an example i came across on a blog:

[q]In my own case, my partner and I are selling my house here in California - and I will have more than $600,000 in gains. We've been together 4 years. If I gifted him half the house - he would be taxed. A couple who could have married however, would get a $500,000 flat excusion for gains under the tax code. As a single, unmarried man I get only a $250,000 exclusion - meaning that I am paying in just this one instance more than $100,000 penalty in taxes that a married couple would not have.
[/q]

 

[BorderGirl]

[q]Find the confidence to respect yourself, and others, and that is what you will ultimately receive in return. [/q]

i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because i think i understand the intent of your post, but my first reaction to this sentence was: fuck off.

how dare you tell me to have confidence and to respect myself and then, like magic, so will others?

This a sad to me ^.

I think we need to find the goodness in all people. You'll probably think I'm slamming you with the below, and you can think that if it makes you feel better. It is meant to inspire, to look at things from all, or both, sides.
You can leave out the last sentence if you aren't religious.

Peace Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi

Make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
when there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
Grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand,
to be loved as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

 

[nbcrusader]

could you expound upon this? i know very little about it.

isn't it interesting how movements and people evolve.

In the 70's, the innate characteristic line of thought was essentially in its infancy. The approach used to gain acceptance for many things was with the idea of personal choice. As human sexuality increasingly found its way into the public eye, homosexuality found greater acceptance within the context of open sexual relationships (or, I should say openness about sexual relationships).

 

[Irvine511]

This a sad to me ^.

I think we need to find the goodness in all people. You'll probably think I'm slamming you with the below, and you can think that if it makes you feel better. It is meant to inspire, to look at things from all, or both, sides.

no.

i don't think you are slamming me at all. i don't think you, personally, have anything against any people on the basis of any of their immutable characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., nor would you discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion or ethnicity or socioeconomic background.

i do think, however, based on your posts, that you don't understand the political situation at all.