NationStates Jolt Archive

Book's gay theme upsets 1st-grader's parents

WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP)--The parents of a first-grader are fuming over the book their daughter brought home from the school library: a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince.
Michael Hartsell said he and his wife, Toyna, couldn't believe it when Prince Bertie, the leading character in "King & King," waves off a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.
The book ends with the princes marrying and sharing a kiss.
"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."
The 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published.
The publisher's Web site lists the books as intended for readers age 6 and up.
"This book was reviewed by the most reputable children's book reviewers in the country," publisher Nicole Geiger said. "Not one of them said it was inappropriate for children or should not have been published."
"There are many kinds of families in this country, and the children in these families and their friends deserve to see their situations in a positive light."
Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School, said the book had been on the library's shelves since early last year.
"What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing," said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman's principal.
Hawley said she couldn't comment on the book because she hadn't seen it. She declined to say whether she knowingly selected a book on gay marraige.
The Hartsells said they are keeping the book until they get the assurances it won't be circulated. But Hawley said all schools in the county have a committee that reviews books after their appropriateness is questioned, and that the Hartsells must make a written complaint and return the books for review.
The Hartsells said they intend to file such a complaint and may transfer their daughter.

This is an actual article from the Omaha World-Herald. I think it's safe to say that the genie is out of the bottle.

yeah, we've gotta keep our kids from reading about love and companionship. after all, 1st grade is far too young to be reading about people falling in love and having families...that child could be warped for life now that she's found out some people kiss and hold hands!!

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

Never read it.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

right, so they shouldn't be able to hear stories like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and the Princess and the Pea. and forget about The Emperor's New Clothes...they might learn that people can be naked!!

right, so they shouldn't be able to hear stories like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and the Princess and the Pea. and forget about The Emperor's New Clothes...they might learn that people can be naked!!
And we should obviously ban all songs with the word "gay" in it fa lalalala....

"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."
That's right. It's official. Homosexuality does not exist. :lol:

"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."
That's right. It's official. Homosexuality does not exist. :lol:

as long as we don't tell our kids about it, it won't be real! besides, it's better that our children learn about sexuality from the internet and TV...school is no place for learning, and neither is the home!

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!
Uhh... Yeah, most of them would, because most of them have parents that are heterosexual, and read stories about the prince and princess living happily for ever after.

Of course, by the time they're eight they'll most likely have seen a show with sex, crude humor, and know a good amount of curse words.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

right, so they shouldn't be able to hear stories like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and the Princess and the Pea. and forget about The Emperor's New Clothes...they might learn that people can be naked!!I have to say I agree with Holbrookia. This shouldn't be on the shelves, but it's kind of inevitable that they would learn about heterosexuality.
yeah, we've gotta keep our kids from reading about love and companionship. after all, 1st grade is far too young to be reading about people falling in love and having families...that child could be warped for life now that she's found out some people kiss and hold hands!!Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

If the schools ban this they should also ban the Bible.

My parent told me about how I asked them what did the Bible mean when it proscribed stoning for two men who lay together. I was 8 or 9 at the time (and a proto-Bible basher), and they had already explained about what "intercourse" meant, they were quite open on stuff like sex (me and my sisters only had to ask once "where do babies come from?") so gladly told me, but they didn't expect they would have to explain homosexuality to a 9 year old.

In retrospect, I probably helped induce my mother's crisis of faith. :D

If the schools ban this they should also ban the Bible.The funny thing is, the Bible has already been banned. Therefore, they should also ban this.

In retrospect, I probably helped induce my mother's crisis of faith. :D You act like that's something to be proud of. It isn't. A person's faith is the most deep-rooted thing they have, and major psychological problems can result from a crisis of faith. I know what that's like. My family was in turmoil when my father fell victim to a layoff.

This is disgusting. Tolerance is one thing. Teaching it is outright offensive.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

right, so they shouldn't be able to hear stories like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and the Princess and the Pea. and forget about The Emperor's New Clothes...they might learn that people can be naked!!I have to say I agree with Holbrookia. This shouldn't be on the shelves, but it's kind of inevitable that they would learn about heterosexuality.


and it's not inevitable that they would learn about homosexuality? what about those children who grow up to be homosexuals?


yeah, we've gotta keep our kids from reading about love and companionship. after all, 1st grade is far too young to be reading about people falling in love and having families...that child could be warped for life now that she's found out some people kiss and hold hands!!Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

actually, public schools still teach ABOUT Christianity, they simply aren't supposed to be preaching it. kids learn what Christianity is when they learn about all major religions, generally in social studies or history classes. they aren't taught to believe in Christianity, but they certainly learn about it.

similarly, nobody is expecting schools to teach kids how to be homosexuals (any more than they teach them how to be heterosexuals), or to teach kids that that they have to agree with and endorse homosexuality. but homosexuality is a part of the world, and it is important for kids to be educated and taught how to live with the different people around them.

but hey, you go right on feeling persecuted...i can understand how tough it must be to have to teach your children religion and morality without the power of the state to nanny them through it. i'm sure we all wish that schools would focus on imparting superstitious beliefs rather than educating about the objective world. :roll:

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.

If the schools ban this they should also ban the Bible.The funny thing is, the Bible has already been banned. Therefore, they should also ban this.

no, it hasn't. American public schools are allowed and encouraged to keep copies of many religious texts in their libraries, and i have never attended or visited a public school that didn't have at least one copy of the Bible that was accessable to students. quit making up reasons to feel snarky, it's boring.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

right, so they shouldn't be able to hear stories like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and the Princess and the Pea. and forget about The Emperor's New Clothes...they might learn that people can be naked!!I have to say I agree with Holbrookia. This shouldn't be on the shelves, but it's kind of inevitable that they would learn about heterosexuality.


and it's not inevitable that they would learn about homosexuality?IN FIRST GRADE?!?! COME ON!!! what about those children who grow up to be homosexuals? Why should we ENCOURAGE unsafe behavior?

If the schools ban this they should also ban the Bible.The funny thing is, the Bible has already been banned. Therefore, they should also ban this.
Where?

In retrospect, I probably helped induce my mother's crisis of faith. :D You act like that's something to be proud of. It isn't. A person's faith is the most deep-rooted thing they have, and major psychological problems can result from a crisis of faith. I know what that's like. My family was in turmoil when my father fell victim to a layoff.

Well lets see. She read abou other religions, inc. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism (and the Qabballa), Islam (and Sufism) as well as other Christian belief systems and read up on Catholicism (My parents religion). And you know what, she is happier know then before than when she was a "mindless drone" (her words). So in retrospect, I feel I have every right to be proud.


PS She's still Catholic

I'm quite amused by some of the responses to this post even at this early time

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

Oh my, I never realized homosexuality was a religion, this is certainly news to me, I shall quickly tell all my gay and lesbian friends that their houses are now tax exempt as they should be considered places of worship.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

right, so they shouldn't be able to hear stories like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and the Princess and the Pea. and forget about The Emperor's New Clothes...they might learn that people can be naked!!I have to say I agree with Holbrookia. This shouldn't be on the shelves, but it's kind of inevitable that they would learn about heterosexuality.


and it's not inevitable that they would learn about homosexuality?IN FIRST GRADE?!?! COME ON!!!


why not? we let them learn about heterosexuality at that age.


what about those children who grow up to be homosexuals? Why should we ENCOURAGE unsafe behavior?

first of all, homosexuality isn't any more unsafe that heterosexuality. promiscuity of either variety is unsafe, and studies show that lack of comprehensive sex ed is more dangerous still.

second, they are teaching that homosexuality exists, and that it is a way some people chose to live. they also teach little kids that some people live on farms, but that doesn't mean they are telling all the kids to go become farmers.

My only objection is that it's about royalty. I hate royalty.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Life


This is disgusting. Tolerance is one thing. Teaching it is outright offensive.

If you mean teaching homosexuality , I see no teaching going on here. A child brought a book that she chose to check out from the school library. That is not teaching.


Why should we ENCOURAGE unsafe behaviour?


You show show me where it says that being gay is unsafe? And how is it encouraging it when environment hardly plays a role in sexual orientation! There are very few cases where homosexuals turn straight and heterosexuals turn gay because of traumatic sexual events. And it isn't that they are 100% straight or gay then, rather the opposite. They are still attracted to members of the same sex - but they are disgusted by them as well. ]edit[ also of members of the opposite sex, cant forget that

It's a demented world when people go all out debating on a book designed for the same target audience as The Adventures of Captain Underpants.

I personally don't care, but if schools want to add new books, maybe they should have some kind of PTO meeting about this kind of stuff. Recently, the Junior High in my town underwent a debate on whether homosexuality should be mentioned in the 7th Grade "Tolerance and Diversity" curriculum.

What's the big deal? I don't think people should be so outraged, but at the same time, I don't think sexual orientation should be flaunted around any more than race or ethnicity.

It's a demented world when people go all out debating on a book designed for the same target audience as The Adventures of Captain Underpants.

I personally don't care, but if schools want to add new books, maybe they should have some kind of PTO meeting about this kind of stuff. Recently, the Junior High in my town underwent a debate on whether homosexuality should be mentioned in the 7th Grade "Tolerance and Diversity" curriculum.

What's the big deal? I don't think people should be so outraged, but at the same time, I don't think sexual orientation should be flaunted around any more than race or ethnicity.

In that vein. There is also a book on the market called "The Little Mole" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556703481/qid=1079820227/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9768712-9923016?v=glance&s=books)

Homosexuality does exist and even if it is in a book i dont think that it goes into explicit details therefore i deem it acceptable to read ....


personally i think that a child i born gay they dont become homesexual from reading or talking about it..

secondly i think that kids should be able to read what ever that want to read that is gift given to us in that freedom is available, parents arnt here to censor what children read unless it is totally unnaceptable and innapropriate for that child to read thefore i think that children should be allowed to formulate there own ideas and that we should no supress children at there most impressionable age..

Benjy

It seems this was not required reading, not an assignment, just a book from a library.

Gonna ban it or burn it?

What about Huckleberry Finn? He wears a dress and sunbonnet, trying to pass himself off as a girl.

What about all those cross-dressing scenes in Shakespeare?

Better get rid of those while you're at it, and protect the minds of our young folk.

Of course young minds have done all right so far in spite of Twain and the bard.

(Oh, I forgot about Princess Ozma of Oz who starts off as a young boy and spends most of a book that way before being dramatically transformed. Keep an eye on L. Frank Baum too)

Ugh. Not even reading this thread.

To the anti-gay morons: It's not about sexuality. It has no more to do with sex than the Little Mermaid. Why is it okay to have a prince and a princess happily ever after in a book for kids, but not a prince and a prince? What's the difference?

It's a demented world when people go all out debating on a book designed for the same target audience as The Adventures of Captain Underpants.

I personally don't care, but if schools want to add new books, maybe they should have some kind of PTO meeting about this kind of stuff. Recently, the Junior High in my town underwent a debate on whether homosexuality should be mentioned in the 7th Grade "Tolerance and Diversity" curriculum.

What's the big deal? I don't think people should be so outraged, but at the same time, I don't think sexual orientation should be flaunted around any more than race or ethnicity.

In that vein. There is also a book on the market called "The Little Mole" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556703481/qid=1079820227/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9768712-9923016?v=glance&s=books). The story is about a mole who wakes up one morning to find a turd on his head. He goes round asking various animals if it was them, each replies by shi**ing on his head. Eventually he finds out who the culprit is (ND: SPOILER ALERT). It is dog, and the little mole exacts his revenge by (you'ved guessed it) by shi**ing on his head. This is what I want my children learning and reading, not a book on gays and their eventual happiness. The book also has a moral, if someone pisses you off, then shit on their head. :lol:

http://images.amazon.com/images/p/1556703481.01._pe_pldp-schmoo2,topright,7,-26_scmzzzzzzz_.jpg

oooooooooooooooooooook

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

It's a demented world when people go all out debating on a book designed for the same target audience as The Adventures of Captain Underpants.

I personally don't care, but if schools want to add new books, maybe they should have some kind of PTO meeting about this kind of stuff. Recently, the Junior High in my town underwent a debate on whether homosexuality should be mentioned in the 7th Grade "Tolerance and Diversity" curriculum.

What's the big deal? I don't think people should be so outraged, but at the same time, I don't think sexual orientation should be flaunted around any more than race or ethnicity.

In that vein. There is also a book on the market called "The Little Mole" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556703481/qid=1079820227/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9768712-9923016?v=glance&s=books). The story is about a mole who wakes up one morning to find a turd on his head. He goes round asking various animals if it was them, each replies by shi**ing on his head. Eventually he finds out who the culprit is (ND: SPOILER ALERT). It is dog, and the little mole exacts his revenge by (you'ved guessed it) by shi**ing on his head. This is what I want my children learning and reading, not a book on gays and their eventual happiness. The book also has a moral, if someone pisses you off, then shit on their head. :lol:

http://images.amazon.com/images/p/1556703481.01._pe_pldp-schmoo2,topright,7,-26_scmzzzzzzz_.jpg

But who is the Mole? :shock:

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!
There is no ban on religion in schools. Any student has the right to observe their religion in public schools. The only thing that is banned is the school forcing a religion onto the students.

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.
Nice. Is the only way you can win an argument is through fallacious reasoning? Winning is easy when you can mis-represent the other side.

The funny thing is, the Bible has already been banned. Therefore, they should also ban this.

The bible is not banned. I spent a month in freshmen english in HS reading the book.

This is disgusting. Tolerance is one thing. Teaching it is outright offensive.
Allegations that homosexuality is taught, are doubious.

Why should we ENCOURAGE unsafe behavior?
This book enouraged no sex. In addition, homosexuals are capable of safe sexual behavior, just as I have the ability to determine risk in any hetrosexual relationship i am in. Your inflamitory rhetoric adds nothing to the credence of your argument.

The very central tenet of Christianity, the part which everyone who is Christian will agree to is:
Love your neighbour, and do no harm

I don't care what creed you're from, that is the central piece. Screw citations of the old OR new testament, never forget that they were written by people just like us, with their own views on matters of race, religion and love. The commandments are all derivations from this message.

People who are homosexual are people. They wake up groggily in the morning, possibly have a coffee. They go to school, college or work and they spend their free time hanging out with friends and sharing stories, anecdotes, jokes and ideas. They might go to the shop, buy some sweets (Candy, for the American audience) or groceries, and some pet food for their dog or cat or whatever. They'll sit on the couch or their beds for the evening reading a book or watching TV. They'll eventually get tired and go to bed, and dream dreams of everyday situations saturated with hyperbole.
Did you forget the demographic that I am talking about somewhere along there? Unless you're really spiteful towards homosexuals (Why? I ask you), odds are that you can relate to some of the above.

Why in the name of god or whoever does it matter who someone else chooses to love? Start dealing with your own problems. Homosexuality is part and parcel of one's nature and has no bearing on moral paradigms. Homosexuality has not driven wars, crusades or pogroms. On the other hand, intolerant religious beliefs have caused the deaths of countless (think of the meaning of the word "Countless") people throughout history. Hitler took his Christianity to extremes, but so did hundreds of other rulers.
Changing sexuality (Which isn't possible anyway) will not save lives. Changing your intolerant attitudes will, whether you are the one pointing the gun or someone bolstered by the statistic that you help represent. Your children are impressionable in their attitudes toward other peoples. Teach them love and compassion (Without pity, which is some peoples' excuse for hatred), like Jesus or Buddha or whoever you follow did.

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

The birds do it. It's been described in 130 species of birds. The southeastern blueberry bees do it. Same sex pairs of animals kiss and caress each other with obvious affection and tenderness. Male pairs and female pairs form long-lasting pair-bonds and reject, threaten, even fight off potential opposite sex partners when they are presented with them. Same sex partners engage in almost every conceivable means of sexual expression throughout the animal kingdom.

Bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.

Male Humboldt penguins form homosexual bonds when there is a surplus of males.

Among yellow baboons, between 17% and 24% of younger individuals engage in same-sex mountings, when their sexes are roughly equal in their population, but among older yellow baboons, the males eventually outnumber the females by two-to-one, but homosexual mountings occur in only about 10% of such older individuals.

When homosexual bonding occurs in the absence of opposite sex pairs, members of such a pair often resist attempts to 'convert' them back into heterosexual relationships. Even when deprived of their bonded partner, white-fronted Amazon parrots will not revert, and long-eared hedgehogs have refused heterosexual partners for as long as two and a half years, much of their natural lifetime. In the case of Stellar's sea eagles and female barn owls, both housed without opposite sexed members of their species, homosexual pair bonds among females were strong enough that when inseminated, they coparented the chicks that resulted.

Homosexual bonds can be tight. Among male rhesus macaques, crab-eating macaques, bottlenosed dolphins, cheetahs and black-headed gulls with homosexual bonded partners, the members of the pair exhibited considerable distress at being separated from their partners. In all cases, the individuals ignored opposite sex partners offered them, and showed considerable joy and exhuberance at the reintroduction of their partners.

that's just off the top of my head, there's more.

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

Dolphins, lions, primates, household pets (dogs, hamsters, rats), cows, many many more that I can't remember.

if someone pisses you off, then shit on their head

OMG! Someone translate this to latin! Im making a coat of arms!

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.
OOC-Actually, I remember reading an article in a magazine (I think National Geographic) describing a type of monkey that used sex as a social lubricant. When two male monkeys fought, it was observed that the loser occasionaly performed sexual acts with the other monkey as apology. Now, everyone should agree with me that this kind of thing is just odd.

But who is the Mole? :shock:

The mole represents all of us. Have you never woken up feeling like someone has shat on you? It is a great allegorical masterpiece on par with Bunyan and Dante

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.
OOC-Actually, I remember reading an article in a magazine (I think National Geographic) describing a type of monkey that used sex as a social lubricant. When two male monkeys fought, it was observed that the loser occasionaly performed sexual acts with the other monkey as apology. Now, everyone should agree with me that this kind of thing is just odd.

that was most likely about the Bonobo chimps, and they do indeed use sex as a social lubricant, though not quite in the way you describe. for example, when food is presented to a group of monkeys it produces tension and fighting over the new resource; in classic chimp groups, these fights can be very violent and cause significant injury in some cases. however, in Bonobo groups all the monkeys engage in various forms of sexual contact, which releases tension and endorphins and diffuses the situation.

another interesting point: among Bonobos, the most commonly observed form of sexual contact is lesbian sex...that is, girl-girl action is MORE COMMON than heterosexual mating.

Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.
One? Okay... the bonobo chimpanzee. You really need to research things before you actually hold a belief.

Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.
One? Okay... the bonobo chimpanzee. You really need to research things before you actually hold a belief.

hehe, i can name dozens...i hope this guy isn't going to be a coward and run off without apologizing for his mistake.

As reported on Switzerland's major news website, a homosexual flamingo pair remained partners for life in a Zurich zoo.
As reported in Yahoo! News:
In a colony of wild macaque monkeys in Japan, female same-sex partners rejected the pursuits of males in favor of their existing partner 92.5% of the time.


As reported in BBC News:
Studies show that between 6 and 10% of rams are attracted to males rather than females.


From SouthBank University (UK) website:
In Bruce Bagemihl's book "Biological Exuberance," he's found through looking at the research of other scientists that at least 1 in 20 pairs of humboldt penguins are homosexual. He's also found that among king penguins, "some birds show a preference for same-sex mates even when unpaired birds of the opposite sex are available."


On the Columbia University website, it mentions a male homosexual penguin couple in a New York aquarium who have been a couple for 8 years, and haven't been with anyone else. It also mentions that in a New York zoo, zookeepers tried to forcefully separate 4 pairs of male homosexual penguins in order for them to breed. Only of the 8 bonded with a female, the rest went back to same sex relationships, not necessarily with the same partner.


About 98% of bonobo apes, humans' closet relative, are bisexual. That is, they have sexual relations with both sexes.


I will be putting links up with more research on this topic at a later date.

hehe, i can name dozens...i hope this guy isn't going to be a coward and run off without apologizing for his mistake.
Yeah, I could name a few more, many of which have segments of the population in engaging solely in homosexual sex. Bonobos are just an interesting example which turns a simplistic definition of sexuality on end.

A question on the poll and what it means.
Selection: Meaning:
Strongly Agree Everyone should read this wether they like it or not
Agree It should be allowed. It opens a child eyes
Disagree It should not be allowed. Children should be reading good, healthy books (like "The Little Mole" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556703481/qid=1079820227/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9768712-9923016?v=glance&s=books)
Strongly Disagree No, the book should be banned.


Just wondering what the difference was between Strongly (dis)agree and (dis)agree

The parents shall be put to death.

"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs.".

Any objection that can't be explained to a six year old is not a moral objection; it is a political or religious objection. A six year old can understand that there are people who love others of the same sex. Politics and religion have no place in public first grade classrooms. Let these kids be informed when they are young and form their own political and religious beliefs when they are old enough to.

Once kids are old enough to understand it, let them read it, but until then, put it in the high school library.

Once kids are old enough to understand it, let them read it, but until then, put it in the high school library.
In the first grade, I thought male/female kissing was gross. Books had it anyway. I grew up fine. If I had read this in the first grade, I would have thought of it as gross too. I doubt it would have impacted my life.

Believe it or not, there are still parents out there who prefer to teach their children about sexuality themselves rhater than abdicating that responsibility to the inept public education system.

Six years old is too young to interfere with a parents wishes.

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)

Not everyone has such a thing. My nearest gay friend lives 1000 miles away. I have some gay aquaintenances locally. but I'd no sooner ask them to come over so my kids can 'see a gay guy' any more than I'd ask a black person to come over so my kids can see what a black person looks like.

(which reminds me of when my 2 yr old daughter say a short teenage black person working at a store and got all excited, pointing and shouting 'Little Bill! Little Bill! )

Book's gay theme upsets 1st-grader's parents

WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP)--The parents of a first-grader are fuming over the book their daughter brought home from the school library: a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince.
Michael Hartsell said he and his wife, Toyna, couldn't believe it when Prince Bertie, the leading character in "King & King," waves off a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.
The book ends with the princes marrying and sharing a kiss.
"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."
The 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published.
The publisher's Web site lists the books as intended for readers age 6 and up.
"This book was reviewed by the most reputable children's book reviewers in the country," publisher Nicole Geiger said. "Not one of them said it was inappropriate for children or should not have been published."
"There are many kinds of families in this country, and the children in these families and their friends deserve to see their situations in a positive light."
Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School, said the book had been on the library's shelves since early last year.
"What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing," said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman's principal.
Hawley said she couldn't comment on the book because she hadn't seen it. She declined to say whether she knowingly selected a book on gay marraige.
The Hartsells said they are keeping the book until they get the assurances it won't be circulated. But Hawley said all schools in the county have a committee that reviews books after their appropriateness is questioned, and that the Hartsells must make a written complaint and return the books for review.
The Hartsells said they intend to file such a complaint and may transfer their daughter.

This is an actual article from the Omaha World-Herald. I think it's safe to say that the genie is out of the bottle.

Bollocks to them then. If someone's too narrow minded to even consider the idea that their kid might not want to be as fucked up as themselves, then somebody please point them to the suicide pit on the nearest tube line.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

How on Earth could a six year old NOT know about heterosexuality? Ok, maybe if you'd kept them locked in a dark box like a veal calf, away from the sights and sounds of other humans... My point is, heterosexuality is EVERYWHERE! Think of all the fairytales where the princess meets/is rescued by the handsome prince and they both live happily ever after? What's wrong with one tale about a prince meeting another prince, in the interests of balance?

This has nothing to do with whether it's ok to have religion in schools.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

How on Earth could a six year old NOT know about heterosexuality? Ok, maybe if you'd kept them locked in a dark box like a veal calf, away from the sights and sounds of other humans... My point is, heterosexuality is EVERYWHERE! Think of all the fairytales where the princess meets/is rescued by the handsome prince and they both live happily ever after? What's wrong with one tale about a prince meeting another prince, in the interests of balance?

This has nothing to do with whether it's ok to have religion in schools.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

How on Earth could a six year old NOT know about heterosexuality? Ok, maybe if you'd kept them locked in a dark box like a veal calf, away from the sights and sounds of other humans... My point is, heterosexuality is EVERYWHERE! Think of all the fairytales where the princess meets/is rescued by the handsome prince and they both live happily ever after? What's wrong with one tale about a prince meeting another prince, in the interests of balance?

This has nothing to do with whether it's ok to have religion in schools.

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)


Please, children don't need that, When I was that age I'd already moved 4 times (and I know someone who moved more), same with my sisters. My father was often away for weeks on end because of his job. All of us have grown up 'normal' well-rounded individuals. The only side effect of moving so much was we had a different accent to everyone else (me and my eldest younger sister still do actually).

I doubt that that something 'untraditional' as two men living happily ever after will induce anxiety, children shouldn't be covered in cotton wool. It is good that they are exposed like this, to understand that there are other lifestyles.

If the child's parents dont want him to read the book, then he shouldnt read the book, it is that simple. But i guess alot of people would rather have our government sorta become the parents of the child, because after all, it is the government that decides what is right and wrong, and not the parents.

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.
OOC-Actually, I remember reading an article in a magazine (I think National Geographic) describing a type of monkey that used sex as a social lubricant. When two male monkeys fought, it was observed that the loser occasionaly performed sexual acts with the other monkey as apology. Now, everyone should agree with me that this kind of thing is just odd.




Bonobos. There's a saying in primate anthropology: "Chimps solve sex issues through power, while bonobos solve power issues through sex."
(Colin= HUGE dork)

The bible is not banned in schools, so whoever said that (early in the thread) is quite wrong. It's actually still taught in many public schools through a litterary or historical perspective. It's certainly to be found in any library I can think of.

If the child's parents dont want him to read the book, then he shouldnt read the book, it is that simple. But i guess alot of people would rather have our government sorta become the parents of the child, because after all, it is the government that decides what is right and wrong, and not the parents.

I certainly hope your last comment was made in jest...

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)


Please, children don't need that, When I was that age I'd already moved 4 times (and I know someone who moved more), same with my sisters. My father was often away for weeks on end because of his job. All of us have grown up 'normal' well-rounded individuals. The only side effect of moving so much was we had a different accent to everyone else (me and my eldest younger sister still do actually).

I doubt that that something 'untraditional' as two men living happily ever after will induce anxiety, children shouldn't be covered in cotton wool. It is good that they are exposed like this, to understand that there are other lifestyles.

sorry, personal ancedotes do not negate statistical fact. Anyone with a lick of understanding of child psycology will tell you of the importance of familiarity, predictability and consistency. If you lacked these things and came out fine, good - you beat the odds. Thank your parents - not your school librarian.

I now know how many Far-Left Liberals there are here. :roll:

IN FIRST GRADE?!?! COME ON!!! what about those children who grow up to be homosexuals? Why should we ENCOURAGE unsafe behavior?

Why not in the first grade? Having siblings who were 3 to 5 years older than me, I knew by first grade not only where babies come but how they develop, and (ooh, here's a shocker) that marriage was not a 'requirement' for babies to happen. (Sex is the only requirement, in case anyone isn't aware of that yet.)

Because we were raised knowing that the lie so many of my friends' parents told (that only married people have babies) wasn't truth, we were also raised with the understanding that having sex could result in having babies, and that not having sex was the only sure way of not having babies. We were also taught that if we did have sex, even though it was encouraged that we should not, we should use condoms, birth control, and discretion in whom we did have sex with.
My parents (ooh, here comes another shocker) educated us on the consequences of our behavior.

We were also taught that skin color, religion, sexual orientation, age, whatever-you-want to name were not reasons to dismiss the fact that we are all human beings. We often spent weekends at the cabin of family friends, Jim & Jim. We had black people sleep over. Both of my sisters married men of other nationalities. We all have friends from 0 to 90, and we've all had lovers both substantially older and younger. Horrifying isn't it? Yet in spite of all that education, common sense and non-judgementalsim my parents encouraged, we've turned out to be successful, happy adults. With normal lives! And the ability to decide whether to engage in "unsafe behavior" or not.

Not educating our children honestly and completely deprives them of the basis on which to make such a decision. And waiting until they are "old enough to understand" is a crock of fertilizer. By first grade they have mastered at least one language, learned to communicate both verbally and non-verbally, learned to feed themselves, dress themselves, and which parent respond to tears the most sympathetically. They have learned how to use those tears to manipulate, how to lie to (try to) keep themselves out of trouble, and to know when Mom really means she isn't going to tell them one more time.

They are certainly old enough to begin learning that not every family is just like their own, that there is more than religion in the world, and that ALL PEOPLE ARE HUMAN BEINGS regardless of whatever differences may exist between them.

If we expect our children to be capable of learning, they will be. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think children aren't human at all. They do not come with practice brains. We get one brain, and one lifetime to train it in. Most of the brain's vital training is delivered before first grade. Children who lack the foundations struggle in first grade and continue to struggle for the rest of their lives.

Tell me, at what age do you think a child is suddenly intellegent enough? How old is "old enough"? And how do you plan to shelter your children from learning about the world from their playmates? Wouldn't you rather your first grader learn that some men love men from you, than from little Tommy down the street? Do you really think there is a 5 year old out there who hasn't heard this already? If there is, s/he's never seen a TV, never heard a radio, never been out to play with the neighborhood kids. Fortunately, at least in my country, it is illegal to lock your children in the closet until they are 18, which is the only way to maybe stop them from discovering the real world. May as well be honest with them to begin with!

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)


Please, children don't need that, When I was that age I'd already moved 4 times (and I know someone who moved more), same with my sisters. My father was often away for weeks on end because of his job. All of us have grown up 'normal' well-rounded individuals. The only side effect of moving so much was we had a different accent to everyone else (me and my eldest younger sister still do actually).

I doubt that that something 'untraditional' as two men living happily ever after will induce anxiety, children shouldn't be covered in cotton wool. It is good that they are exposed like this, to understand that there are other lifestyles.

sorry, personal ancedotes do not negate statistical fact. Anyone with a lick of understanding of child psycology will tell you of the importance of familiarity, predictability and consistency. If you lacked these things and came out fine, good - you beat the odds. Thank your parents - not your school librarian.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that schools should get rid of anything that could contradict what parents might teach their children? So if a parent teaches their kids that all blacks/mexicans/whatever are losers, we should get rid of all books that show minorities succeeding?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that schools should get rid of anything that could contradict what parents might teach their children? So if a parent teaches their kids that all blacks/mexicans/whatever are losers, we should get rid of all books that show minorities succeeding?

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

We were also taught that if we did have sex, even though it was encouraged that we should not, we should use condoms, birth control, and discretion in whom we did have sex with.
My parents (ooh, here comes another shocker) educated us on the consequences of our behavior.

LOL! There is a term for that - um, cow crap, no wait. Bullshit, that's it. I doubt any first grader has a grasp on the concept of birth control. You are a fool if you think we believe that.




Tell me, at what age do you think a child is suddenly intellegent enough? How old is "old enough"?

That is not for you or anyone else but the parent to decide.



Do you really think there is a 5 year old out there who hasn't heard this already?
I will make it a point that you never get near my 5 yr old. I am certain I am not alone in that. Peddle your agenda after you have children of your own. Until then, shut up.

If you're going to ban expressions of homosexual couples in schools, it only seems fair to ban expressions of hetero couples as well- after all, a homosexual parent would then be able to argue that depictions of 'breeding couples' represent an usurpation of his or her right to raise the child as he or she wishes.

<---reads article, shivers.
Ugh. Crazy parents. I wonder, are these some of the same people who wanted to ban Harry Potter because of the corruptive influence it had on youth? Should we ban all books that depict anything a child hasn't heard of/seen in the interests of "stability, predictability, and dependability?" Personally, I think that it is a great thing to allow children to be exposed to new and different things. Especially things that are not "traditional." Wouldn't the world be a better place if children growing up in the 20s and 30s had been taught that people of other genders and ethnicities were human beings, to be treated just as anyone else? The children are the future, let's not teach them our bigotries and intolerances.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

I do agree on that. But, it should not be removed. It should be restricted to older students at the primary level.

What's got me worked up is that the parents said that their child is too young to understand such 'behavior'. I haven't heard them say the same with Prince Charming kissed Snow White or when they kiss in front of their child. It makes the child just as curious.

Just as a child cannot understand homosexuality, it cannot understand heterosexuality until around 8 years of age for most kids.

Stop hating me for what I am, America! :(

[quote=Dzang]

We were also taught that if we did have sex, even though it was encouraged that we should not, we should use condoms, birth control, and discretion in whom we did have sex with.
My parents (ooh, here comes another shocker) educated us on the consequences of our behavior.

LOL! There is a term for that - um, cow crap, no wait. Bullshit, that's it. I doubt any first grader has a grasp on the concept of birth control. You are a fool if you think we believe that.

I did not say that in first grade I understood birth control, I said I understood how babies were made and that marriage was not required. I also understood that not having sex meant you wouldn't get pregnant, even if other forms of birth control were not so clear. If you really think a first grader can't understand cause and effect, I pity your five old.




Tell me, at what age do you think a child is suddenly intellegent enough? How old is "old enough"?

That is not for you or anyone else but the parent to decide. So decide. What age is old enough? Question too hard?



Do you really think there is a 5 year old out there who hasn't heard this already?
I will make it a point that you never get near my 5 yr old. I am certain I am not alone in that. Peddle your agenda after you have children of your own. Until then, shut up.


You will have to make a point that no one but you gets near your five year old to prevent him/her from learning things you think they are too stupid too grasp, which is what MY point was. Because the five year old next door already heard it and is going to tell yours all about it. Since you advocate not educating your child until the mysterious age of 'old enough', you better hope the five year old next door gets his facts right.

It's pretty obvious you haven't dealt with those questions yet, or you'd understand that you can't prevent them hearing it, you can only give them real facts to go on.

I now know how many Far-Left Liberals there are here. :roll:

Yeah, now go curl up in a corner and cry about it. :P

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.


Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study


10:51 05 November 02

NewScientist.com news service

A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.

The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.

Kay Larkin and colleagues from Oregon Health and Science University found the difference was in a particular region of the hypothalamus - the preoptic nucleus. The region is generally almost twice as large in rams as in ewes. But in gay rams its size was almost identical to that in "straight" females.

The hypothalamus is known to control sex hormone release and many types of sexual behaviour. Several other parts of the hypothalamus showed consistent sex differences in size, but only this specific region showed differences that correlated with sexual preference.

The differences are almost identical to those identified by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay in his studies of the brains of gay men. His work has always been considered controversial, partly because the brains he studied were mostly from men who had died of AIDS, so it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences.


Hormone converter


But the findings in sheep are an important confirmation of LeVay's work, says Jacques Balthazart from the University of Liege in Belgium.

Sheep are particularly interesting, he says, because besides humans, they are the only animal where the males may naturally express exclusively gay sexual preferences. As many as one in 10 rams can be gay.

Larkin's team also found that the hypothalamic region had a rich supply of the enzyme aromatase, which converts testosterone into oestrogen. It is in this form that the hormone interacts with the brain. This may help support one theory that sexual orientation, in part at least, may be related to the hormones present during fetal development, says Balthazart.

But Larkin suggests there may also be the influence of genes at work, at least in predisposing the animals to homosexuality. This is because selective breeding seems to have been responsible for the high proportion of gay sheep compared with other animals.

Larkin presented the research on Monday at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Orlando Florida, US



http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993008

Next time do some research before you say something stupid.

Additionally many other creatures, including dolphins, dogs, rats, lions, goats, chimps, horses, cows, monkeys, ect. have been seen engaging in homosexual behaviour.

PS: Pwned.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

its all kinda stupid don't ya think..This isn't Nazi Germany after all (we don't burn books do we?)

I think you people should be more worried about the stuff they already don't allow in schools (some of the greatest literature is banned from schools) like tom sawyer,catcher in the Rye,ect...

Are you guys telling me you never kissed a cousin or brother or father (someone you loved that was male?),im not talking frenchy or anything but just a peck..well?,if you did an your against this behaviour isn't that being a hypocrite?,on that rant have you never had a male friend who was sooo close that you would probable date if they were female? (someone you share secrets with or talk about sex with,someone your not afraid of telling anything or not afraid to let your guard down in front of?)

BTW im not gay,but i do have a few friends who are an i have no problems with them or the fact they are gay (if two guys or two girls wanna kiss or hold hands so what)

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.Yeah, sexual education should be left to parents, many of whom rely on the State to provide this because they couldn't get over their own blubbering and getting nervous merely at the mention of the subject. Me, I got my facts online. YES ONLINE. Mind you I'm one of the more intelligent persons on the planet.

We were also taught that if we did have sex, even though it was encouraged that we should not, we should use condoms, birth control, and discretion in whom we did have sex with.
My parents (ooh, here comes another shocker) educated us on the consequences of our behavior.

LOL! There is a term for that - um, cow crap, no wait. Bullshit, that's it. I doubt any first grader has a grasp on the concept of birth control. You are a fool if you think we believe that.



actually, "we" believe it quite readily. i understood all that stuff by first grade, and so did my little brother. my mother has worked with children for about 30 years, and she knows from personal experience that most children are familiar with the birds and the bees by 6 or 7, and these days most are taught about birth control right off the bat.

so actually it's you that i find hard to believe...are there really people as ignorant and backward as you still around today? that's like running into a dinosaur on the street!

Were the 1st graders angered at the book?

I doubt they were. Cause they're unspoiled.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

exactly. if the prince and prince book is an example of "sexuality" education then we clearly must also ban all books in which princes match with princesses. also, anthropomorphic animal stories in which there are males and females paired together should be banned from schools, since it is for the parents to educate their kids about that.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

exactly. if the prince and prince book is an example of "sexuality" education then we clearly must also ban all books in which princes match with princesses. also, anthropomorphic animal stories in which there are males and females paired together should be banned from schools, since it is for the parents to educate their kids about that.NOTE: Most parents are uncomfortable discussing sex and/or sexuality.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

exactly. if the prince and prince book is an example of "sexuality" education then we clearly must also ban all books in which princes match with princesses. also, anthropomorphic animal stories in which there are males and females paired together should be banned from schools, since it is for the parents to educate their kids about that.NOTE: Most parents are uncomfortable discussing sex and/or sexuality.

plus i know many parents who don't know a whole lot of important stuff, like the actual inner workings of the reproductive tract. it seems silly to have parents explaining something they don't even fully understand, and sexuality is too important a subject to be fudging the details on. i'd rather see kids all taught a standardized basic sex ed, so that we could be sure they're all at least marginally informed...especially since studies have shown that kids who aren't given sex ed in school are more likely to have unprotected sex, are more likely to be teen parents, and are more likely to contract STDs than kids who do receive comprehensive sex ed in school.

Oh great, you found a new way to beat me.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.Yeah, sexual education should be left to parents, many of whom rely on the State to provide this because they couldn't get over their own blubbering and getting nervous merely at the mention of the subject. Me, I got my facts online. YES ONLINE. Mind you I'm one of the more intelligent persons on the planet.

I'm not sure if you realized this or not, but I was being sarcastic.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.Yeah, sexual education should be left to parents, many of whom rely on the State to provide this because they couldn't get over their own blubbering and getting nervous merely at the mention of the subject. Me, I got my facts online. YES ONLINE. Mind you I'm one of the more intelligent persons on the planet.

I'm not sure if you realized this or not, but I was being sarcastic.Oops. :oops: Well, then... *backs away*

[Dzang wrote:
We were also taught that if we did have sex, even though it was encouraged that we should not, we should use condoms, birth control, and discretion in whom we did have sex with.
My parents (ooh, here comes another shocker) educated us on the consequences of our behavior.
Bozzy wrote:
LOL! There is a term for that - um, cow crap, no wait. Bullshit, that's it. I doubt any first grader has a grasp on the concept of birth control. You are a fool if you think we believe that.]


Kinda like how we'd be utter fools if we believed your claim that finding out about homosexuals will damage a child's psyche. I'm sure the crystal clear revelation and understanding imparted by this book will crush a child's fragile mind under it's overwhelming weight.

[Dzang wrote:
Tell me, at what age do you think a child is suddenly intellegent enough? How old is "old enough"?

Bozzy wrote:
That is not for you or anyone else but the parent to decide.]

Absolutely, since parents already control every aspect of a child's development. Thank God that we invented that handy brain ray which will wipe away such damaging things as the bleakness of life that is poverty, the shocking nature of that which is war or death, and the ambiguous horror of that which is homosexuality. So long as we burn this horrid book away, a child will likely never learn of the existence of homosexuals in the real world.


[Dzang wrote:
Do you really think there is a 5 year old out there who hasn't heard this already?
Bozzy wrote:
I will make it a point that you never get near my 5 yr old. I am certain I am not alone in that. Peddle your agenda after you have children of your own. Until then, shut up. ]

Does your child ride a school bus? Listen to peers at school? Exchange jokes with friends? Watch television?

Your child will know homosexuality exists long before you decide to bring it up. Attempts to shield the child from it or mask its existence only results in your child having to sort that out on his/her own - how responsible of you. Not doing so, of course, would inevitably involve you overcoming your obvious psychological problems with dealing with its existence.

Enjoy your shack, it's the only hope you have.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.Yeah, sexual education should be left to parents, many of whom rely on the State to provide this because they couldn't get over their own blubbering and getting nervous merely at the mention of the subject. Me, I got my facts online. YES ONLINE. Mind you I'm one of the more intelligent persons on the planet.

I'm not sure if you realized this or not, but I was being sarcastic.Oops. :oops: Well, then... *backs away*

Well, your point still stands. Many parents aren't going to give their kids a good grounding in the facts of sexuality, so school is a natural place for them to get educated. The students whose parents are responsible enough to talk to them, or whose parents just dont want them learning about that sinful stuff, can get a waiver for any classes. As for books, if you object to their content, you are going to have to teach your kid sometime that stuff like that exists and is bad.

[Bozzy wrote:
At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)

The Great Leveller wrote:
Please, children don't need that, When I was that age I'd already moved 4 times (and I know someone who moved more), same with my sisters. My father was often away for weeks on end because of his job. All of us have grown up 'normal' well-rounded individuals. The only side effect of moving so much was we had a different accent to everyone else (me and my eldest younger sister still do actually).

I doubt that that something 'untraditional' as two men living happily ever after will induce anxiety, children shouldn't be covered in cotton wool. It is good that they are exposed like this, to understand that there are other lifestyles.

Bozzy wrote:
sorry, personal ancedotes do not negate statistical fact. Anyone with a lick of understanding of child psycology will tell you of the importance of familiarity, predictability and consistency. If you lacked these things and came out fine, good - you beat the odds. Thank your parents - not your school librarian. ]


Everybody has a need for familiarity and consistency, but the world does not offer that as an option. I find nothing wrong with one book in the library being about two princes living happily ever after when there are likely hundreds about the prince and princess living happily ever after.

As for this "statistical fact" of yours, why don't you show what familiarity and the like also refers to? Ah, that's right, because it refers to a stable living environment and close bonds, not the separation of a child from anything which varies from the conditions in which he grew up.

If you disagree, cite a source for your definition which states that this familiarity has to isolate the child from the variety of things in the world as a whole. Do not say that this is not your argument - realization of the existence of homosexuality is not a special case in psychology. Thus, this closing off of the child must be applied to every facet of our diverse world which a child will inevitably be exposed to at one point or another. Else, it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and htose are not valid. While you're at it, why don't you show some results that prove that this material causes such severe anxiety in children, since that assertion is the foundation of your argument.

The psyche of a child is formed by anxiety and having to adapt to the realities of the world around us. You'll need to hide your child in a shack miles from civilization to implement the maturation process which you suggest is vital to children. I hear children raised in utter isolation turn out really well. Good luck to you.

"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs.".

Any objection that can't be explained to a six year old is not a moral objection; it is a political or religious objection. A six year old can understand that there are people who love others of the same sex. Politics and religion have no place in public first grade classrooms. Let these kids be informed when they are young and form their own political and religious beliefs when they are old enough to.

Ahh, but these sorts don't *want* to let their children develop their own political & religious beliefs. After all, they are already positive that theirs are the only possible correct ones.

Believe it or not, there are still parents out there who prefer to teach their children about sexuality themselves rhater than abdicating that responsibility to the inept public education system.

Six years old is too young to interfere with a parents wishes.

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)

Or more like, prefer *not* to teach them, and don't won't anybody else to either. Which is unavoidable, as they will ask other kids.

How can a particular age be "too young to interfere with a parents wishes"? Either the state has authority to do so at all ages, or at none. (Hint: it isn't none)

You obviously don't know much about what kids *need*. Many kids deal with major upheaval all their lives. I personally can think of 11 houses I lived in before graduating high school. Dad was alternated between months at sea (Navy) and months at home. Yet neither my sister nor I abuse drugs, commit major crimes, are homosexual, or follow any other "deviant" activities (however than can be defined). I'm sure you'll call this another "personal anecdote". But many people I grew up with went thru similar things, as did many people I know now. Yes, some familiarity is a good thing. but that doesn't mean familiarity overrides all other concerns. If children don't learn about the variety of the world at an early age, they are doomed to the prejudices their parents breast-/bottle-feed them.

If the child's parents dont want him to read the book, then he shouldnt read the book, it is that simple. But i guess alot of people would rather have our government sorta become the parents of the child, because after all, it is the government that decides what is right and wrong, and not the parents.

To some degree your statement is accurate. The state *does* have a parental role, especially when parents wish to deprive children. On the other hand, you're arguing the wrong point. If those parents didn't want their daughter reading the book, they'd have told her not to read it and taken it back to the library. No, they don't want *any* child reading it, and are holding it hostage against a promise that they will get that wish.

My post is specific to sexuality - which is arguably the most private and personal of all human issues - possibly even more so than religion.

Something that personal must not be usurped from the parents of children.

In some times and cultures, but not all. Do you realize that not so very long ago, kids got there sex education via the fact that whole families slept in one room, or even one bed. They saw it going on, first hand. That's not terribly private.


Tell me, at what age do you think a child is suddenly intellegent enough? How old is "old enough"?

That is not for you or anyone else but the parent to decide.


Do you really think there is a 5 year old out there who hasn't heard this already?
I will make it a point that you never get near my 5 yr old. I am certain I am not alone in that. Peddle your agenda after you have children of your own. Until then, shut up.

So, if the parents decide to hide the kids from all other sexualities, religions, races, ethnicities, etc, til the child is 18, that's ok?

NOT!

And what makes you so sure Dzang *doesn't* have kids? Rather presumptious of you...

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

Kissing may or may not be sexuality (depending on context), but romantic (or sexual) preference is. Surely that is not too difficult a concept for you.

I think it should be mandatory that in a thread which discusses raising children the participants identify wether or not they are parents of children.

It is very tempting to say 'This is how you should do it' when you yourself are not in that circumstance. The old 'theory' vs 'practical application' argument. My bet is that most people who have been posting here have absolutely NO experience with children of their own - not exactly a qualification for giving sage advice. ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=poseur&x=23&y=21 )

There is no more personal or private of an issue other than how to raise a child. No school, government, church, or community has a place stepping between a parent and their desires for child rearing short of criminal behavior.

Were the 1st graders angered at the book?

I doubt they were. Cause they're unspoiled.

That is a good point.

You know, what may offend the older generation doesn't usually offend the younger naive one until they are forcefully taught that it is taboo. This goes for anything and including but not limited to any form thereof racism.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

Kissing may or may not be sexuality (depending on context), but romantic (or sexual) preference is. Surely that is not too difficult a concept for you.

I think it should be mandatory that in a thread which discusses raising children the participants identify wether or not they are parents of children.

It is very tempting to say 'This is how you should do it' when you yourself are not in that circumstance. The old 'theory' vs 'practical application' argument. My bet is that most people who have been posting here have absolutely NO experience with children of their own - not exactly a qualification for giving sage advice. ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=poseur&x=23&y=21 )


Yes, because when you become a parent, you become imbued with the divine knowledge of that which is objectively right and wrong. :lol:

Simply having a child imparts no new wisdom, and plenty of parents have screwed up plenty of children. Perhaps you'd like to explain how having a child somehow magically makes you more sage than someone who does not, especially when that child is only 5 years old and you have about another 15 before you have any idea how s/he will turn out.

Or, are you simply trying to pull rank to excuse yourself from having to address the points against your opinions? Hmm...my, that seems like an easy way out.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

Kissing may or may not be sexuality (depending on context), but romantic (or sexual) preference is. Surely that is not too difficult a concept for you.

I think it should be mandatory that in a thread which discusses raising children the participants identify wether or not they are parents of children.

It is very tempting to say 'This is how you should do it' when you yourself are not in that circumstance. The old 'theory' vs 'practical application' argument. My bet is that most people who have been posting here have absolutely NO experience with children of their own - not exactly a qualification for giving sage advice. ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=poseur&x=23&y=21 )

There is no more personal or private of an issue other than how to raise a child. No school, government, church, or community has a place stepping between a parent and their desires for child rearing short of criminal behavior.

and (once again) you would be dead wrong with your generalizations. i have raised 2 children, my little brother and child of two of my best friends (said child having been born when the parents were 17 years old, and thus needing all the help it could get), and i am about to become godmother to a new boy in July. i've also been a pre-school teacher at a local family homeless shelter for 5 years, taking care of kids whose parents are unable to care for them for the time being...you have to serve as mommy and daddy to those kids, because they pretty much have neither.

if there's anything my experience has taught me it's that kids should be told the truth. don't lie, and don't try to hide things from them...they WILL find out, and they will lose faith in you. they're smarter than you credit them, and they will make their own decisions and choices because they are independent people; they're not your pets, they're not your property, they're your RESPONSIBILITY. you help them, you guide them, and you teach them how to deal with the world. you do NOT try to keep them isolated from the world, because they simply won't be isolated. if you don't talk to them about the realities of their lives then somebody else will, whether it be peers or teachers or TV or whatever.

the only thing worse than an absentee parent is an over-protective parent. at least with absentee parents the kid will learn to be more self-sufficient, and other more capable adults can step in to help care for the kid. with over-protective parents you end up with stupid, helpless, bratty kids who can't think for themselves and turn into mindlessly rebelious and selfish young adults. anybody who has been to college will know the type i am talking about.

just remember...your kids are people. they're not little copies of you, and they're going to have to become their own individual selves. you can chose to make that hard or you can chose to make it easy, but it's going to happen no matter what.

I think it should be mandatory that in a thread which discusses raising children the participants identify wether or not they are parents of children.


As opposed to being the parent of something else, like a kitten or a mantle clock?

I think it should be mandatory that in a thread which discusses raising children the participants identify wether or not they are parents of children.


As opposed to being the parent of something else, like a kitten or a mantle clock?

i'm the proud parent of three former roommates and a 1986 Toyota. but do they ever call? do they write?!

I think it should be mandatory that in a thread which discusses raising children the participants identify wether or not they are parents of children.


As opposed to being the parent of something else, like a kitten or a mantle clock?

;) I'm guessing it was said, Anbar because they don't like fault being founded in their methods.

Simply having a child imparts no new wisdom, and plenty of parents have screwed up plenty of children. Perhaps you'd like to explain how having a child somehow magically makes you more sage than someone who does not, especially when that child is only 5 years old and you have about another 15 before you have any idea how s/he will turn out.

Or, are you simply trying to pull rank to excuse yourself from having to address the points against your opinions? Hmm...my, that seems like an easy way out.

You miss the point, probably with judgement clouded by your indignant self-rightiousness.

Parental choices are seldom right/wrong or black/white. However, they are parental choices - and nobody elses. Nobody may take sovereignty over a parents child.

Simply having a child imparts no new wisdom, and plenty of parents have screwed up plenty of children. Perhaps you'd like to explain how having a child somehow magically makes you more sage than someone who does not, especially when that child is only 5 years old and you have about another 15 before you have any idea how s/he will turn out.

Or, are you simply trying to pull rank to excuse yourself from having to address the points against your opinions? Hmm...my, that seems like an easy way out.

You miss the point, probably with judgement clouded by your indignant self-rightiousness.

Parental choices are seldom right/wrong or black/white. However, they are parental choices - and nobody elses. Nobody may take sovereignty over a parents child.

sure they can. there are dozens of cases where a parent's wishes are not and should not be honored, and there are plenty of times that it would be irresponsible and wrong to NOT interfere with the way someone is parenting their children. calling Anbar self-righteous in this discussion is the height of irony, since you seem to far overestimate your own importance...both to your children and to the rest of us.

sure they can. there are dozens of cases where a parent's wishes are not and should not be honored, and there are plenty of times that it would be irresponsible and wrong to NOT interfere with the way someone is parenting their children. calling Anbar self-righteous in this discussion is the height of irony, since you seem to far overestimate your own importance...both to your children and to the rest of us.

Name one that does not include criminal behavior.. (and try to not chain quote on your post. PM me if you need help figuring out how)

Fact is, you cannot. Short of criminal behavior there is no purpose for anyone to invade a parents relationship with their child. Only in a totalitarian society would this be possible. Is that where you want to live?

sure they can. there are dozens of cases where a parent's wishes are not and should not be honored, and there are plenty of times that it would be irresponsible and wrong to NOT interfere with the way someone is parenting their children. calling Anbar self-righteous in this discussion is the height of irony, since you seem to far overestimate your own importance...both to your children and to the rest of us.

Name one that does not include criminal behavior.. (and try to not chain quote on your post. PM me if you need help figuring out how)

Fact is, you cannot. Short of criminal behavior there is no purpose for anyone to invade a parents relationship with their child. Only in a totalitarian society would this be possible. Is that where you want to live?

1. i like to chain quote when the preceding posts are relavent. if you don't like my style then don't emulate it, but i would appreciate you not getting on an even higher horse in your effort to make others act like you.

2. you never excluded criminal behavior initially, and if you think about it that's the ONLY way that the state could get involved...the state can only prosecute for offenses that have been defined as crimes, that's what the term means. personally i think people like you should be free to raise ignorant and helpless kids, because it means that my descendents will have that much better chance of becoming successful. feel free to be a horrid parent, as long as you aren't actually hurting the kids, because you're only helping out me and mine.

also, i think there are plenty of cases of emotional abuse that the law doesn't address, but that a caring citizen would object to; for example, if you see a parent berating their child in public, calling him or her ugly, stupid, etc, i think it would be right to step in and attempt to calm the parent. if they tell you to bugger off then you would have to respect their wishes because there's no legal option, but i think you would be short-changing the child if you didn't at least try to diffuse the situation and protect the kid from such treatment. you also should make an effort to get information on the parent so you can report them to the appropriate agency in your area.

i've seen many such situations at the shelter, where parents aren't physically abusing their kids but are certainly out of line in their actions. i try to calm the situation as best i can, and i try to help the parent find better ways to relate with their kid. it may come as a shock to you, but simply having a baby doesn't make you a better authority on child-rearing than people with no kids, and in many cases it makes you a whole lot worse because your emotional investment in your kids can blind you or distract you from their actual best interests. there are many situations in which it is better to rely on more objective voices and more learned individuals, and if you can't appreciate your own limitations then i would strongly urge you to get in touch with a family therapist...for the sake of your kids, who you claim to care so much about protecting.

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

There's a difference, homosexuality is real and natural. :wink:

Teaching that two boys can fall in love isn't going to warp your child. If it was graphic then it should be removed, this is silly.Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

WHAT? scientific studies have found homosexuality in over 30 animals including our nearest cousins...the monkeys.

Kissing isn't sexuality. But, if you think it is, why is it okay to show kids books with Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty? That kind of education should be left to the parents.

Kissing may or may not be sexuality (depending on context), but romantic (or sexual) preference is. Surely that is not too difficult a concept for you.

I think it should be mandatory that in a thread which discusses raising children the participants identify wether or not they are parents of children.

blah blah



You are right, I'm not a parent, and don't plan to be. I never pretended to be. That has nothing to do with this argument.

You completely dodged the question I posed. If, as you say romance should be a subject left to the parents, and it's not okay to have this prince-with-prince book, then it also is not okay to have the prince-with-princess books. It's the same thing.

There is no more personal or private of an issue other than how to raise a child. No school, government, church, or community has a place stepping between a parent and their desires for child rearing short of criminal behavior.

Noone is stepping between the parent and their desires for child rearing. All that is happening in this case is that children are meeting the real world. It is not possible for a parent to restrict their child's experiences only to what the parent wants. You can't raise your kids in a fantasy world.

Oh great, you found a new way to beat me.

LOL! Took me a while to figure out what you meant...

:lol:

i would appreciate you not getting on an even higher horse in your effort to make others act like you.



As a result of my position that a parents wishes must be honored regarding their first grade children learning about alternative sexual lifestyles you have had the following to say about my children and I:


..the only thing worse than an absentee parent is an over-protective parent

..it seems silly to have parents explaining something they don't even fully understand..

..stupid, helpless, bratty kids who can't think for themselves..

..you seem to far overestimate your own importance...both to your children and to the rest of us...

..people like you should be free to raise ignorant and helpless kids..

..feel free to be a horrid parent..

..i would strongly urge you to get in touch with a family therapist..

..are there really people as ignorant and backward as you still around today? that's like running into a dinosaur on the street!


Your final insult (not quoted), comparing parental discretion with verbal abuse, is yet another close-minded attack on anyone who does not agree with your own agenda. Most people would be glad that a parent is taking a pro-active role in their children's education. However, because I have the nerve to suggest to you a 5-6 yr old does not have the maturity to comprehend sexuality, you have chosen to insult me and my children rather than consider an alternate view to your own.

If that is how you teach your children about tolerance then I pity anyone who would disagree with them.

Even when I offered you a helping hand using the quote systen on this board, you reaced with hostility.

I would suggest your horse is considerably higher than anyone who has posted here yet.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

The difference is fairly obvious. Religion is a faith in a god. One of the purposes of religion is to claim it's true beyond doubt. You will never see a person who believes in god say, "well it's just my faith, I might be wrong." The problem with having religious books in our schools is that they claim to be fact, which is not true. They don't claim to be fiction. A story about a homosexual is reality, it is fact. There are homosexuals in our society and it's not a faith issue. It's a fact. Also the book in question doesn't actually say "homosexual" it's simply a little story about two princes who find each other and fall in love. There is no sex in the story, it's a children's book. It helps children from a young age to learn to accept people. I think it's a good thing. Just think if books like this had been main stream 50 years ago, you wouldn't see the discrimination against Gay people that we do today. The only way to prevent discrimination is to educate people about the subject.. and the best way to educate people is from a young age.

Parents can teach their children about their faith all they wish. However, because it claims to be fact and not fiction.. it has no place really in a public school. There are many schools that parents can send their children to that teach them religion. Private schools. Teaching religion or having books about it in schools would imply that this is the right answer. When nobody knows if it is or not. Homosexuality is not a religion, they don't try to convert people to become Gay. In fact you can't convert some one into being gay, it's not possible, either you're gay or you're not. It's that simple.

I as a parent would have no problem with this little story book in my son's class. I would have a problem with a bible in his class though. There really is a big difference. Perhaps I haven't said it as well as I could of. However, the difference is obvious to me.

I as a parent would have no problem with this little story book in my son's class. I would have a problem with a bible in his class though. There really is a big difference. Perhaps I haven't said it as well as I could of. However, the difference is obvious to me.

The bible can be studied as ancient literature... just like the illiad, odyssessy, mahabharata, etc. As long the teacher teaches it from a literay standpoint and not a religious one I'm cool with it.

The bible can be studied as ancient literature... just like the illiad, odyssessy,

mahabharata, etc. As long the teacher teaches it from a literay standpoint and not a

religious one I'm cool with it.

I would disagree. Seperation of church and state are vital. I would no sooner like to see the bible in school than the Koran or any other religious tome. The temptation to teach a doctrione is too high (even atheism is a doctrine). There are other literary sources that can be examined in the primary grades. (College is a different issue)

Let the parents and their church educate their children on religion - gradeschools are for the three R's and nothing else.

I as a parent would have no problem with this little story book in my son's class. I would have a problem with a bible in his class though. There really is a big difference. Perhaps I haven't said it as well as I could of. However, the difference is obvious to me.

The bible can be studied as ancient literature... just like the illiad, odyssessy, mahabharata, etc. As long the teacher teaches it from a literay standpoint and not a religious one I'm cool with it.

Yes, I could agree with that. I would have no problem with my child studying the bible from a literary stand point. As long as the teacher never brought up that it was any thing except a story. No one can claim the bible is fact. Some people may believe or have faith that it is, however to say that without doubt that it is, is a lie. No one knows that. That's why it's called "faith" and not "fact"

However, this book in question the King & the King.. I believe will help children understand real life situations. We all know now from experts that the younger we teach our children about different ways people live their lives the more likely it is they won't grow up to be racists and or intolerant of people who are not like them. I know for example that my son when he was around 2 1/2 years old we had a black family that lived in the same building as us and they had a child around Jacob's age.. They use to play all the time. Jacob did ask me at one point why this other little boy had much darker skin then him. I simply told him that people come in all different shapes, sizes and colours.. that we are all the same no matter what. My son has never questioned it again and plays with all kids, not just the "white" kids. He sees no difference, because there is no difference. I also recall on Sesame Street back when he use to watch it (he's 6 next month , he thinks he's to old for it now..lol) they had a little skit on it about how "I love both my mommy and daddy, but they live in different houses" ..

It's sad really that parents would not want their children to grow up with a healthy mind. To know that not every one is the same, that families come in many different ways. I think if not explained to children and have them see there is nothing wrong with being different from your other friend(s) that it truly does them a disservice. Some parents would be happy if we just left our kids in the dark ages.. and really how would that be helping them to understand the world around them? It wouldn't. It would only make them ignorant and probably less tolerant of people because of differences. You would think the civil rights movement would have taught people better... I guess some would rather go back to the days when they burned books they didn't agree with. What a shame that would be.

i would appreciate you not getting on an even higher horse in your effort to make others act like you.

Even when I offered you a helping hand using the quote systen on this board, you reaced with hostility.

I would suggest your horse is considerably higher than anyone who has posted here yet.

You didn't "offer... a helping hand using the quote system". You told him to quit chain quoting, which is, in fact, what the system defaults to. Sometimes, what was said before is fairly important to establish context.

Example was asked for of when society should interfere in parental choice. Here's one: I've known many immigrants. Often the parents speak little or no English, and if left to parental choice, they would raise the kids speaking Spanish, French, Swahili, whatever. Even if they know some English, they never speak it to their kids, not even in public. The State requires that ALL children learn English in school. It generally makes no effort to teach any other language until high school. That is such interfering.

Similarly, it has been recognized that children who have been taught about sex, it's consequences, and so on, make better choices about sex. Yet many parents want to leave sex ed until the day before the kids get married. So there are sex ed classes in school. Mostly, parents can opt out for their kids, but eventually that will not be tue.

Likewise for drug abuse classes. For sex and drugs, "Just say no" has never been an effective curriculum. Good education has. Since society has an interest in minimizing the occurence of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, STD's, etc., it has the authority to override parental wishes.

You didn't "offer... a helping hand using the quote system". You told him to quit chain quoting, which is, in fact, what the system defaults to. Sometimes, what was said before is fairly important to establish context.


Chain quoting, if you are familiar with the term as it applies here, has nothing to do with establishing context. Also, the language I used was courteous. "..and try to not chain quote on your post. PM me if you need help figuring out how".


Example was asked for of when society should interfere in parental choice. Here's one: ... English in school.... .

There is no moral equivalence between language skills (which no parent would object to) and sexuality. There is an age when sexuality should be discussed, however first grade is not that time. Nor is it anyone elses role except the parent to decide what is right or wrong for their child. THis is part of what we call "civil rights". Also, all public schools give parents the discretion to 'opt-out' their children up to high-school (and possibly through it). In otherwords, they respect the parents rights to determine what their children are exposed to.



For sex and drugs, "Just say no" has never been an effective curriculum. Good education has.
Close; it has never been a curriulum at all. Not a basis for scientific conclusion. Though I do support sex-ed in public schools, I won't allow you to make up facts to support your case. (imho sex ed belongs in school around the age of puberty. Abstinence is the responsibility of the parents and their church/synogogue/shrine/Mosque, etc.)


Since society has an interest in minimizing the occurence of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, STD's, etc., it has the authority to override parental wishes.
This sounds much like the case that has been made for the patriot act, just substitute 'civil rights' for 'parental wishes'. (IMHO they are the same thing)

Just a quick question..

How many of you people who are actually responding to this thread actually have children to begin with?

I have two kids for the record.

I think there is nothing wrong with this book. I have zero problem with my son, who is 5 and will be 6 next month reading it. Either should any other parent. Get your heads out of the sand ..;)

sure they can. there are dozens of cases where a parent's wishes are not and should not be honored, and there are plenty of times that it would be irresponsible and wrong to NOT interfere with the way someone is parenting their children. calling Anbar self-righteous in this discussion is the height of irony, since you seem to far overestimate your own importance...both to your children and to the rest of us.

Name one that does not include criminal behavior.. (and try to not chain quote on your post. PM me if you need help figuring out how)

Fact is, you cannot. Short of criminal behavior there is no purpose for anyone to invade a parents relationship with their child. Only in a totalitarian society would this be possible. Is that where you want to live?

1. i like to chain quote when the preceding posts are relavent. if you don't like my style then don't emulate it, but i would appreciate you not getting on an even higher horse in your effort to make others act like you.

2. you never excluded criminal behavior initially, and if you think about it that's the ONLY way that the state could get involved...the state can only prosecute for offenses that have been defined as crimes, that's what the term means. personally i think people like you should be free to raise ignorant and helpless kids, because it means that my descendents will have that much better chance of becoming successful. feel free to be a horrid parent, as long as you aren't actually hurting the kids, because you're only helping out me and mine.

also, i think there are plenty of cases of emotional abuse that the law doesn't address, but that a caring citizen would object to; for example, if you see a parent berating their child in public, calling him or her ugly, stupid, etc, i think it would be right to step in and attempt to calm the parent. if they tell you to bugger off then you would have to respect their wishes because there's no legal option, but i think you would be short-changing the child if you didn't at least try to diffuse the situation and protect the kid from such treatment. you also should make an effort to get information on the parent so you can report them to the appropriate agency in your area.

i've seen many such situations at the shelter, where parents aren't physically abusing their kids but are certainly out of line in their actions. i try to calm the situation as best i can, and i try to help the parent find better ways to relate with their kid. it may come as a shock to you, but simply having a baby doesn't make you a better authority on child-rearing than people with no kids, and in many cases it makes you a whole lot worse because your emotional investment in your kids can blind you or distract you from their actual best interests. there are many situations in which it is better to rely on more objective voices and more learned individuals, and if you can't appreciate your own limitations then i would strongly urge you to get in touch with a family therapist...for the sake of your kids, who you claim to care so much about protecting.

Of course, his entire argument is fallacious because no one is forcing these children to read anything. As such, no right is being taken from the parent any more than it is if the same child were to see two homosexuals exchange a kiss in public.

Also, quit bringing up the "5-6 year old children cannot comprehend sexuality, so this is inappropriate" argument. Until you start railing against the similar prince/princess books which are available in much greater numbers, you're nothing but a hypocrite to say so.

Both of these have been pointed out before, but like many of the holes in Bozzy's argument which have been identified, he won't address them. I miss no point, Bozzy - you being a parent does not make you any more knowledgeable in this debate. The argument has never been that the job of a parent is easy, and I think we can do without the red herrings. You have enough counterarguments to deal with without making up others.

I'm deluded by my own self-righteousness? I'm not the one claiming that an inanimate object is usurping my parental authority. :lol:

Well, this happened in Nebraska (i'm assuming), real shocker there.

Of course, his entire argument is fallacious because no one is forcing these children to read anything.

It has nothing to do with force. It has to do with apropriateness. If the library had a stack of pornography, Nazi propoganda, KKK brochures or whatever else for the kids it would be wrong. The "They don't HAVE to read it" argument does not hold water, particularly with 5 yr olds.


Also, quit bringing up the "5-6 year old children cannot comprehend sexuality, so this is inappropriate" argument. Until you start railing against the similar prince/princess books which are available in much greater numbers, you're nothing but a hypocrite to say so.


You have misunderstood the context of the message. Most 5-6 yr olds have no experience with same-sex couples, while all have experienced traditional couples. A book at school independant of parental permission is not the way to introduce a child to alternate lifestyles. It is for the parents to do. If a 5-6 yr old has been exposed by their parents to it and understands it is ok, then I have no issue with the child having the book. There are plenty of kids who fit that category.

However, believe it or not, there are some families who do not have members or friends of alternate lifestyles, or who do not want their children exposed to it until later in life. Those children have no point of reference. A children's book is not the place to introduce the concept to that child (particularly outside parental authorization). A child needs and craves familiarity. That is why they can watch the same cartoon-movies 100 times and not be bored. For children familiar with the subject it is fine, for those who are not it is inapropriate.

Ultimately, personal freedom's greatest expression is how we chose to build our families. If you are going to take control of a childs upbringing from a parent, then you advocate totalitarianism. What next - revoke reproductive rights?


I'm deluded by my own self-righteousness? I'm not the one claiming that an inanimate object is usurping my parental authority. :lol:

Alcohol, tobacco, drugs are all inanimate objects. None of which can undermine a parent. Only the person who hands them to a child against a parents wishes can do that. If that person claimed to know better than the parent what is best for their kid then that person would be self-righteous...

This book?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/kingandking.jpg

Apparently no 38 best seller on amazon.com ...

i would appreciate you not getting on an even higher horse in your effort to make others act like you.



As a result of my position that a parents wishes must be honored regarding their first grade children learning about alternative sexual lifestyles you have had the following to say about my children and I:


..the only thing worse than an absentee parent is an over-protective parent

..it seems silly to have parents explaining something they don't even fully understand..

..stupid, helpless, bratty kids who can't think for themselves..

..you seem to far overestimate your own importance...both to your children and to the rest of us...

..people like you should be free to raise ignorant and helpless kids..

..feel free to be a horrid parent..

..i would strongly urge you to get in touch with a family therapist..

..are there really people as ignorant and backward as you still around today? that's like running into a dinosaur on the street!


Your final insult (not quoted), comparing parental discretion with verbal abuse, is yet another close-minded attack on anyone who does not agree with your own agenda. Most people would be glad that a parent is taking a pro-active role in their children's education. However, because I have the nerve to suggest to you a 5-6 yr old does not have the maturity to comprehend sexuality, you have chosen to insult me and my children rather than consider an alternate view to your own.

If that is how you teach your children about tolerance then I pity anyone who would disagree with them.

Even when I offered you a helping hand using the quote systen on this board, you reaced with hostility.

I would suggest your horse is considerably higher than anyone who has posted here yet.

wow, you are really full of yourself, aren't you? well, don't worry, i think it's cute, so no hard feelings.

i clearly said that you are free to mess up your kids however you want, provided you aren't hurting them or breaking the laws, so how exactly am i being intollerant of your views? i teach the kids in my life than many people make bad choices but that we can't always help them because they aren't always ready to be helped. i teach the kids that different opinions are a good thing because it keeps life interesting, but that they should always think carefully about their own opinions to make sure they are being fair and reasonable. i teach them to respect other people and not to fear silly things like sexuality or sexual preference, and to judge people based on their character and their behavior rather than on the differences in personal preferences that merely keep us all unique.

of course, i also don't waste my time telling children what they want. i don't claim to know my kids' minds better than they do. i don't insult their intelligence and treat them like they are my property or like they are adorable little morons who can't deal with kissing or hand holding. i think children deserve respect and love rather than patronizing authoritarianism.

if you can't deal that's fine, many people can't. if you want find my use of examples insulting that's fine, that's your choice. if you want to try to convince me (or anybody) that i'm the arrogant one here then that's better than fine...that's just plain SUPER, because it is so uproariously funny that there are already several people laughing at it. please keep it up, we all need a bit of levity on topics as touchy as this one, and the irony of a homophobe lecturing on tollerance is just too awesome to pass up.

have a good one, you're my Forum Superstar Of The Day!!

Both of these have been pointed out before, but like many of the holes in Bozzy's argument which have been identified, he won't address them. I miss no point, Bozzy - you being a parent does not make you any more knowledgeable in this debate. The argument has never been that the job of a parent is easy, and I think we can do without the red herrings. You have enough counterarguments to deal with without making up others.


yeah, no kidding! he totally ignored all the points in my post before, only to focus on how hurt his feelings were and how nasty i am. one would think that such a mature and righteous adult would know better technique for debating, particularly one who is such an authority on human psychology and rational thinking. :roll:

oh well, i never really expected a real challenge from somebody who's argument centers on a false assumption, so no harm done. ;)

I know that when I was in grade school, the library had a list of certain books that you could only check out if your parents had signed a paper saying you can check out anything. Although I think it is idiotic for parents to try and shield their kids from the differences of people in this world, they do have the right to raise ignorant children. So, in the interest of those parents who want their children to grow up and be functional in society, leave the book there. For those who want to censor everything their child comes into contact with, put it on the "only if your parents sign this notice" list.

As for the 5 year olds can't understand sexuality posts, I know that at around 5 or 6 is when I was given my first book about the birds and the bees, which described the sexual act and reproduction in some detail. Why would my mother give me such a book at such an age, you ask? Because I was asking questions and she wanted me to be as well educated as possible. Your "you don't have kids, so you can't talk" argument doesn't really work. We all know how each of us was raised and what parts of it we agree and disagree with, and those things will be the basis for raising our own children one day.

Both of these have been pointed out before, but like many of the holes in Bozzy's argument which have been identified, he won't address them. I miss no point, Bozzy - you being a parent does not make you any more knowledgeable in this debate. The argument has never been that the job of a parent is easy, and I think we can do without the red herrings. You have enough counterarguments to deal with without making up others.


yeah, no kidding! he totally ignored all the points in my post before, only to focus on how hurt his feelings were and how nasty i am. one would think that such a mature and righteous adult would know better technique for debating, particularly one who is such an authority on human psychology and rational thinking. :roll:

oh well, i never really expected a real challenge from somebody who's argument centers on a false assumption, so no harm done. ;)

Well, like I said, it's pretty clear that he's going to have do overcome some of his own issues before he can deal with the impact they will have on his child's life. Oh well, at least we've gotten a chuckle from all of this, even if debate has been sub-par, at best.

I learned somethign from all of this.

I learned that it's okay to be gay. I learned it's wrong to put someone down for their sexual preference and that gay people are a natural part of life that have been with us since before humans roamed the earth.

I learned that Gay people don't turn other people gay, that its a choice and we can coexist with gays with no threat to us or our way of life whatsoever, because our way of life is their way of life as well. We all eat, sleep, love, cry, work, have families, and basically keep society running. So working together to create a more peaceful loving environment of acceptance could really help bring peopel of all walks of life together and reduce the hatred that is so prevalent thruought the world.

Screw' em.

All they are a bunch of Jevoah's Witnesses who are super-right wing and got Bush in the office. Oh well, have these people not seen a girl person, in their life. Are they just a bunch of yuppies who live in a rich suburb.

I mean geeze, she picked out the book on her own free will and the parents go OMG OUR DAUGUTHER MIGHT BECOME A LESBO!!!! WE MUST STOP THIS BOOK! OMGG!!! !@#$%!!!!

I mean geeze, she picked out the book on her own free will and the parents go OMG OUR DAUGUTHER MIGHT BECOME A LESBO!!!! WE MUST STOP THIS BOOK! OMGG!!! !@#$%!!!!

hey man, this is a serious problem! we all know that kids become whatever they read about, like how most of my fourth grade class turned into the founding fathers and long division! and parents certainly can't impart values about anything their child learns about outside the home, and they obviously can't combat the diabolical influence of PICTURE BOOKS.

though in this case perhaps someone should imform the parents about the statistics showing that their daughter would be safer and more healthy if she were a lesbian...she would be totally unlikely to become pregnant by accident, she would have a tenth the chance of getting an STD, and she would cut her odds of being beaten by a romantic partner by 99%.

Of course, his entire argument is fallacious because no one is forcing these children to read anything.

It has nothing to do with force. It has to do with apropriateness. If the library had a stack of pornography, Nazi propoganda, KKK brochures or whatever else for the kids it would be wrong. The "They don't HAVE to read it" argument does not hold water, particularly with 5 yr olds.

:lol:

Yes, a book which ends with one boy kissing another boy is equivalent to hate literature and sexualy explicit material. Did you write this comparison with the expectation that anyone at all, short of Fred Phelps perhaps, would take it seriously?

The argument that force is not an issue does hold water, regardless of age. No one is mandating that every child in that school must read that book. No one is giving this child this book and saying "You must read this." No one even told the child "You should read this." There was no coercion present, hence, your claim is false.

I'll break this next one down bit by bit.


Also, quit bringing up the "5-6 year old children cannot comprehend sexuality, so this is inappropriate" argument. Until you start railing against the similar prince/princess books which are available in much greater numbers, you're nothing but a hypocrite to say so.


You have misunderstood the context of the message. Most 5-6 yr olds have no experience with same-sex couples, while all have experienced traditional couples.

You still have yet to prove your claim that this is somehow damaging to a child's psyche (big surprise there). I'd also argue that very few children have seen a prince and a princess kiss. Therefor, being not familiar with such non-traditional couples, all such books should also be pulled from the shelves.

See, I can be selective with what you argument applies to as well. :wink:

Don't give me that "context" BS. Sexuality (whether heterosexual or homosexual) is sexuality, regardless of how icky one type happens to make you feel. So long as this book's depiction of sexuality was as innocent as those of its widely available heterosexual counterparts, you haven't a leg to stand on.

A book at school independant of parental permission is not the way to introduce a child to alternate lifestyles.

I believe that the article said that the book was screened by a board whose task is to determine which books are and are not appropriate in that district. That board is appointed/elected to screen books on behalf of parents, hence, it was not "indpendent of parental permission." This book was not snuck in during the dead of night.

So what is appropriate for introducing a child to such lifestyles? When the older kid in the back of the bus cracks a "fag" joe within earshot? Oh yeah, that's a healthy alternative to a book which was brought home and was read to the child by the parent. Just like if those two men had kissed each other in front of the child in real life, the parent then has to explain. Why? Because homosexuals exist, and banning some book is not going to change that.

It is for the parents to do. If a 5-6 yr old has been exposed by their parents to it and understands it is ok, then I have no issue with the child having the book. There are plenty of kids who fit that category.

Like the child featured here, whose parent read the book to him. What's your complaint again?

However, believe it or not, there are some families who do not have members or friends of alternate lifestyles, or who do not want their children exposed to it until later in life. Those children have no point of reference.

And, of course, if we ban this book, then the parent gains magic "anti-gay" powers in which will allow them to block all references and appearances of homosexuality in the real world which the child may see. Of course, I've been so foolish!

Still waiting for you to prove that exposure to a drawing of a homosexual kiss without a previous "point of reference" is damaging to a child's psyche..tick tock, tick tock.

A children's book is not the place to introduce the concept to that child (particularly outside parental authorization). A child needs and craves familiarity. That is why they can watch the same cartoon-movies 100 times and not be bored. For children familiar with the subject it is fine, for those who are not it is inapropriate.

Are you just rambling off crap now? Start actually citing sources and proving your claims. Just because you repeat over and over again the bolded line above does not make it true. That's your simplistic understanding of child psychology, and let me tell you, it's laughable how ignorant you are on the matter. Your example is ludicrously irrelevent, as a sidenote.

Ultimately, personal freedom's greatest expression is how we chose to build our families. If you are going to take control of a childs upbringing from a parent, then you advocate totalitarianism. What next - revoke reproductive rights?

Actually, I'm all for not allowing people to breed without a license, but like many other ideas, this would be too difficult to implement and would likely end up flawed in practice. I agree with Bottle that you are perfectly within your rights to raise whatever kind of screwed up kid you like. However, we've already established that no one is forcing anyhting upon the child so this little emotional appeal falls flat.


I'm deluded by my own self-righteousness? I'm not the one claiming that an inanimate object is usurping my parental authority. :lol:

Alcohol, tobacco, drugs are all inanimate objects. None of which can undermine a parent. Only the person who hands them to a child against a parents wishes can do that. If that person claimed to know better than the parent what is best for their kid then that person would be self-righteous...

You know, you're right, I just found some new research on the matter. In a recent study by Bullcrap and Nutcase, researchers discovered that children exposed to "King and King" fell into conditions of addiction and self-destruction similar to those seen in children in the "cocaine" exposure group. The Associated Press reports that libraries across the country have been notified and most have pulled the books from the shelves. However, in those that did not, it is suspected that 5 year olds already severely afflicted with "homosexuality awareness" have pilfered the books in order to sell them in inner-school black markets. It is suspected that a mint copy of "King and King" can fetch as much as three days' worth of lunch money.

Wow. And to think, at first I thought that your claim that a cartoon book was as harmful as illicit substances was asinine, as I did when you likened it to porn and hate propaganda. How wrong I was. I have seen the errors of my ways, and...and...I...can't keep a straight face any longer... :lol:

I learned somethign from all of this.

I learned that it's okay to be gay. I learned it's wrong to put someone down for their sexual preference and that gay people are a natural part of life that have been with us since before humans roamed the earth.

I learned that Gay people don't turn other people gay, that its a choice and we can coexist with gays with no threat to us or our way of life whatsoever, because our way of life is their way of life as well. We all eat, sleep, love, cry, work, have families, and basically keep society running. So working together to create a more peaceful loving environment of acceptance could really help bring peopel of all walks of life together and reduce the hatred that is so prevalent thruought the world.

Advocating tolerance, understanding, and peaceful coexistence? This is certainly the mouth of Satan! Throw him from the cliff, his ideals are dangerously radical! Better yet, nail him to a tree so he has time to reflect all he wants on his horrid ideas!

Q: Well, can we teach kids about real kings, like Richard the Lionhearted?
A: You may only teach about the number of men he bravely killed in battle and tournament. Don't tell about the men he loved- that's immoral.

double post...stupid overcrowded forum...

I think we also have to question the morality of talking about santa claus in elementary school. Many kids have only heard that he exists, while some have not heard of him at all, while others still have heard that he doesn't exist. Therefore, we cannot allow kids to talk about santa, since the ones who haven't heard might find out about santa when their parents didn't want them to know. And then the kids who heard he didn't exist, might tell the kids who heard he did exist. Maybe parents should stop trying to shelter their kids at home if they're afraid they might find out the truth from a different source.

Ultimately, personal freedom's greatest expression is how we chose to build our families. If you are going to take control of a childs upbringing from a parent, then you advocate totalitarianism. What next - revoke reproductive rights?
You speak as if it is one or the other: either parents have total control or the state has total control. Reality is in the middle. The parents have some control, the state can step in for some reasons, and real life over-rules them both.

Why get so irate over a book?
Is anyone having sex of any kind, in front of these children?
No..then why get so bent out of shape?

The parents say that thier child wont undersatnd it......ok......so why get so over the wall over it?

People (whacko-christains) need to realize that not everyone believes what they do...and to many people..this innocent book helps kids to understand other peoples feelings.

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.

Yes, but by the same argument, it isn't against the beliefs of many others. Why, exactly, are the people who's beliefs it goes against assumed to be more important than those who try and teach their children tolerance? Additionally, where do these parents get off holding a book hostage until their demands are met? Regardless of their feelings on homosexuality, to act in this matter shows their children not to respect the rule of law or, indeed, even common courtesy.

And could you tell me how this is "promoting" homosexuality rather than simply informing? You make it sound like it's some sort of brainwashing campaign where the evil homosexuals are writing these mind-control books that, as soon as an innocent young child reads them, they somehow are infected with "gay". I mean, if this is really the world you live in, then I feel very sorry for you, because it must be a cold, frightening world with peril around every corner.

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.
many people also feel that non-whites are inferior and that inter-racial marriages are sinful. so is it wrong for us to promote equal rights and tollerance for all races in schools? should we not "promote" understanding, since there are people who think it is wrong?

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.
many people also feel that non-whites are inferior and that inter-racial marriages are sinful. so is it wrong for us to promote equal rights and tollerance for all races in schools? should we not "promote" understanding, since there are people who think it is wrong?

Great Points!

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.
many people also feel that non-whites are inferior and that inter-racial marriages are sinful. so is it wrong for us to promote equal rights and tollerance for all races in schools? should we not "promote" understanding, since there are people who think it is wrong?

Great Points!

i would just as soon not see our children's education reduced to the level of the lowest common denominator. school is there to educate, to provide information about the real world so that students can better understand and embrace what is around them. keeping children in the dark about fundamental parts of sexuality and human social structure serves no purpose, and any parent who can't impart values to an educated child needs to take a good long look at their "values" anyway.

if you can't trust your kids to do the right thing when they learn the truth then that's a matter of bad parenting or crappy morals. if you think your children will abandon your values just because they learned that there are alternatives then your values aren't very strong. if you think your kids will chose to ignore their upbringing over something they read in a picture book then what the hell is that upbringing worth in the first place?

basically, if people don't want their kids learning about the real world then they should home-school or find a nice repressive private school. but i really wish they would quit trying to turn public schools into nanny states that avoid all important topics in the interests of raising helpless, bratty, intollerant, ignorant children.

Book's gay theme upsets 1st-grader's parents

WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP)--The parents of a first-grader are fuming over the book their daughter brought home from the school library: a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince.
Michael Hartsell said he and his wife, Toyna, couldn't believe it when Prince Bertie, the leading character in "King & King," waves off a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.
The book ends with the princes marrying and sharing a kiss.
"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."
The 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published.
The publisher's Web site lists the books as intended for readers age 6 and up.
"This book was reviewed by the most reputable children's book reviewers in the country," publisher Nicole Geiger said. "Not one of them said it was inappropriate for children or should not have been published."
"There are many kinds of families in this country, and the children in these families and their friends deserve to see their situations in a positive light."
Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School, said the book had been on the library's shelves since early last year.
"What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing," said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman's principal.
Hawley said she couldn't comment on the book because she hadn't seen it. She declined to say whether she knowingly selected a book on gay marraige.
The Hartsells said they are keeping the book until they get the assurances it won't be circulated. But Hawley said all schools in the county have a committee that reviews books after their appropriateness is questioned, and that the Hartsells must make a written complaint and return the books for review.
The Hartsells said they intend to file such a complaint and may transfer their daughter.

If the parents decide to keep this book, they may have some serious library fines... :shock:

Additionally, where do these parents get off holding a book hostage until their demands are met? Regardless of their feelings on homosexuality, to act in this matter shows their children not to respect the rule of law or, indeed, even common courtesy.
They held the book hostage so it wouldn't be circulated. In other words, they wanted to make sure that NO child saw it- even if it wasn't their own child.

Additionally, where do these parents get off holding a book hostage until their demands are met? Regardless of their feelings on homosexuality, to act in this matter shows their children not to respect the rule of law or, indeed, even common courtesy.
They held the book hostage so it wouldn't be circulated. In other words, they wanted to make sure that NO child saw it- even if it wasn't their own child.

Now that's sad. What right do they have to dictate to others what they can or cannot read?

Obviously some people have not heard of the Bill of No Rights (http://www.sanfords.net/Bill_of_No_Rights.htm). In Article II, it clearly states the following:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - and not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion,
etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.
many people also feel that non-whites are inferior and that inter-racial marriages are sinful. so is it wrong for us to promote equal rights and tollerance for all races in schools? should we not "promote" understanding, since there are people who think it is wrong?

Great Points!

i would just as soon not see our children's education reduced to the level of the lowest common denominator. school is there to educate, to provide information about the real world so that students can better understand and embrace what is around them. keeping children in the dark about fundamental parts of sexuality and human social structure serves no purpose, and any parent who can't impart values to an educated child needs to take a good long look at their "values" anyway.

if you can't trust your kids to do the right thing when they learn the truth then that's a matter of bad parenting or crappy morals. if you think your children will abandon your values just because they learned that there are alternatives then your values aren't very strong. if you think your kids will chose to ignore their upbringing over something they read in a picture book then what the hell is that upbringing worth in the first place?

basically, if people don't want their kids learning about the real world then they should home-school or find a nice repressive private school. but i really wish they would quit trying to turn public schools into nanny states that avoid all important topics in the interests of raising helpless, bratty, intollerant, ignorant children.
:D I want to marry you :oops:

But I guess that should go in a gay marriage thread... not a gay children's book thread...sorry

Additionally, where do these parents get off holding a book hostage until their demands are met? Regardless of their feelings on homosexuality, to act in this matter shows their children not to respect the rule of law or, indeed, even common courtesy.
They held the book hostage so it wouldn't be circulated. In other words, they wanted to make sure that NO child saw it- even if it wasn't their own child.

and that's the biggest insult of the whole thing...these parents claim to be angry that the school would infringe on their rights as parents to chose what their kids learn about, yet they are trying to stop other parents from making the same choice. talk about hypocrites.

:D I want to marry you :oops:

But I guess that should go in a gay marriage thread... not a gay children's book thread...sorry

haha, glad you approve. but you're right, gay marriage is a whole other kettle of fish...*sigh* so much ignorance to squash, so little time. it certainly doesn't help that we have parents like the ones in this thread who are determined to raise another generation of homophobic cry babies.

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.
many people also feel that non-whites are inferior and that inter-racial marriages are sinful. so is it wrong for us to promote equal rights and tollerance for all races in schools? should we not "promote" understanding, since there are people who think it is wrong?

Great Points!

i would just as soon not see our children's education reduced to the level of the lowest common denominator. school is there to educate, to provide information about the real world so that students can better understand and embrace what is around them. keeping children in the dark about fundamental parts of sexuality and human social structure serves no purpose, and any parent who can't impart values to an educated child needs to take a good long look at their "values" anyway.

if you can't trust your kids to do the right thing when they learn the truth then that's a matter of bad parenting or crappy morals. if you think your children will abandon your values just because they learned that there are alternatives then your values aren't very strong. if you think your kids will chose to ignore their upbringing over something they read in a picture book then what the hell is that upbringing worth in the first place?

basically, if people don't want their kids learning about the real world then they should home-school or find a nice repressive private school. but i really wish they would quit trying to turn public schools into nanny states that avoid all important topics in the interests of raising helpless, bratty, intollerant, ignorant children.
:D I want to marry you :oops:

But I guess that should go in a gay marriage thread... not a gay children's book thread...sorry

hey get your own crush, I'm courting this one! :lol:

well hey maybe we can all three get married. But that should go in the polygamy thread. :D

Additionally, where do these parents get off holding a book hostage until their demands are met? Regardless of their feelings on homosexuality, to act in this matter shows their children not to respect the rule of law or, indeed, even common courtesy.
They held the book hostage so it wouldn't be circulated. In other words, they wanted to make sure that NO child saw it- even if it wasn't their own child.

And that's against the law. It's theft.
And a lot more people think theft is wrong than people think homosexuality is wrong.

If your kids aren't old enough to understand it, then how could it hurt them? :roll:

Oh yeah. Must keep bad thoughts out, allow only good thoughts!

Additionally, where do these parents get off holding a book hostage until their demands are met? Regardless of their feelings on homosexuality, to act in this matter shows their children not to respect the rule of law or, indeed, even common courtesy.
They held the book hostage so it wouldn't be circulated. In other words, they wanted to make sure that NO child saw it- even if it wasn't their own child.

And that's against the law. It's theft.
And a lot more people think theft is wrong than people think homosexuality is wrong.

ahh, but when good Christian parents steal things to keep children from learning then THAT is an okay kind of stealing.

Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

Actually monkeys practice homosexuality.

If a beaver and his behaviors and dams are a product of nature, so are man and his artifacts and behaviors, by definition.

Subbie

Believe it or not, there are still parents out there who prefer to teach their children about sexuality themselves rhater than abdicating that responsibility to the inept public education system.

Six years old is too young to interfere with a parents wishes.

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)

Not everyone has such a thing. My nearest gay friend lives 1000 miles away. I have some gay aquaintenances locally. but I'd no sooner ask them to come over so my kids can 'see a gay guy' any more than I'd ask a black person to come over so my kids can see what a black person looks like.

(which reminds me of when my 2 yr old daughter say a short teenage black person working at a store and got all excited, pointing and shouting 'Little Bill! Little Bill! )

This is EXACTLY what I think on the subject. I as a parent may not want to explain what heterosexuality is at age six, much less homosexuality. A kid seeing this book is going to have questions about sexuality in general, that the parent may not want to answer. The reason why it's not necessarily bad to have the same book with an opposite-sex couple is because it's not new exposure, whereas same-sex couples have a high chance of being such.

If you had a book that addresses this subject in a high school library, I wouldn't object, but in an elementary library...*especially* when it's directed to six year olds, I do object...because it'll raise questions of *all* sexuality at an age when the parent may not want their child to have to worry about that.

...and yup, it's not your job to decide that for them.

Believe it or not, there are still parents out there who prefer to teach their children about sexuality themselves rhater than abdicating that responsibility to the inept public education system.

Six years old is too young to interfere with a parents wishes.

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)

Not everyone has such a thing. My nearest gay friend lives 1000 miles away. I have some gay aquaintenances locally. but I'd no sooner ask them to come over so my kids can 'see a gay guy' any more than I'd ask a black person to come over so my kids can see what a black person looks like.

(which reminds me of when my 2 yr old daughter say a short teenage black person working at a store and got all excited, pointing and shouting 'Little Bill! Little Bill! )

This is EXACTLY what I think on the subject. I as a parent may not want to explain what heterosexuality is at age six, much less homosexuality. A kid seeing this book is going to have questions about sexuality in general, that the parent may not want to answer. The reason why it's not necessarily bad to have the same book with an opposite-sex couple is because it's not new exposure, whereas same-sex couples have a high chance of being such.

If you had a book that addresses this subject in a high school library, I wouldn't object, but in an elementary library...*especially* when it's directed to six year olds, I do object...because it'll raise questions of *all* sexuality at an age when the parent may not want their child to have to worry about that.

...and yup, it's not your job to decide that for them.

Which throws us right back to the argument of: Fine, but at least be consistent, then, and remove any and ALL references to sexuality, be it hetero or homo, from elementary schools, including fairy tales where people marry, kiss or otherwise indulge in any activity that might be construed as "sexual" in nature.

It's not as if this is a book of Maplethorpe photos or a subscription to The Advocate or something. It's a children's story that does not cover overt sexuality at all. Why does a book where two men end up living together necessitate a graphic and explicit explanation of all sexuality?

Which throws us right back to the argument of: Fine, but at least be consistent, then, and remove any and ALL references to sexuality, be it hetero or homo, from elementary schools, including fairy tales where people marry, kiss or otherwise indulge in any activity that might be construed as "sexual" in nature.

It's not as if this is a book of Maplethorpe photos or a subscription to The Advocate or something. It's a children's story that does not cover overt sexuality at all. Why does a book where two men end up living together necessitate a graphic and explicit explanation of all sexuality?

I don't say remove it entirely.

By the age of 10, some children have already begun to develop physically, so, maybe for grade 4 or 5 there should be such moderate and conservative sources availble so they don't get sheltered.

:D I want to marry you :oops:

But I guess that should go in a gay marriage thread... not a gay children's book thread...sorry

hey get your own crush, I'm courting this one! :lol:

well hey maybe we can all three get married. But that should go in the polygamy thread. :D
That's fine with me! But somehow those two usually end up being the same thread..

Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

Actually monkeys practice homosexuality.

If a beaver and his behaviors and dams are a product of nature, so are man and his artifacts and behaviors, by definition.

Subbie
And don't forget the whiptail lizards. They are actually female, and while they reproduce ...asexually... they do have courting rituals between pairs of lizards. And they have to have a lesbian lover to reproduce...that's just how it's done.

I don't say remove it entirely.

By the age of 10, some children have already begun to develop physically, so, maybe for grade 4 or 5 there should be such moderate and conservative sources availble so they don't get sheltered.
Just from the context of the opening quote, I don't think this particular book would be appropriate for 10 year olds. (I mean, we all read Goodnight Moon over and over but it's still not MADE for 5th graders) It sounds like it's sincerely a book for 6 year olds, that just has another prince instead of a princess.
If Disney did a remake of Cinderella where she went to the ball to meet Princess Charming would you say "Oh now, this is mature material- we'd better make it PG instead of G?"
Of courese, that answer would be yes for many people (or, "NO! PG-13 at least)

I don't say remove it entirely.

By the age of 10, some children have already begun to develop physically, so, maybe for grade 4 or 5 there should be such moderate and conservative sources availble so they don't get sheltered.

Okay, again, though, that means to be consistent you must remove ALL instances of suspected sexual display to achieve your desired outcome. No Snow White. No Sleeping Beauty. Nothing that might in any way, shape or form imply anything like a sexual relationship might exist.

Not that easy to do.

Also, why are we forced to limit the freedoms of all children for a specific few?

I don't say remove it entirely.

By the age of 10, some children have already begun to develop physically, so, maybe for grade 4 or 5 there should be such moderate and conservative sources availble so they don't get sheltered.

Okay, again, though, that means to be consistent you must remove ALL instances of suspected sexual display to achieve your desired outcome. No Snow White. No Sleeping Beauty. Nothing that might in any way, shape or form imply anything like a sexual relationship might exist.

Not that easy to do.

Also, why are we forced to limit the freedoms of all children for a specific few?

exactly. if references as bland as the one in this kids' book must be removed then we have to be consistent and shelter children from ALL references to sexuality. i mean, plenty of parents don't want to explain heterosexuality to a six year old, so we should ensure that all references to heterosexuality (like Beauty and the Beast, Robin Hood, and The Princess and the Pea) are removed from elementary schools, in order to cater to their whims.

or hey, how about we don't short-change all kids just because a few poor children happen to be born to stupid parents? how about we quit letting the lowest common denominator determine how we educate? if some parents are so over-protective and insecure that they can't deal with fairy tails then let's tell them to find a nice private school or keep their kids in locked boxes until the age of 30...that way the rest of us can get on with our lives.

I bet it's a better book than The Adventures of Olly the Incredible Orifice

Believe it or not, there are still parents out there who prefer to teach their children about sexuality themselves rhater than abdicating that responsibility to the inept public education system.

Six years old is too young to interfere with a parents wishes.

At that tender age children require predictablilty and familiarity - in all regards. A book that shows something so untraditional could create anxiety and confusion in any child who has not already experienced it in a more comfortable setting (family) and been informed about it. (Such as gay parents, family or friends)

Not everyone has such a thing. My nearest gay friend lives 1000 miles away. I have some gay aquaintenances locally. but I'd no sooner ask them to come over so my kids can 'see a gay guy' any more than I'd ask a black person to come over so my kids can see what a black person looks like.

(which reminds me of when my 2 yr old daughter say a short teenage black person working at a store and got all excited, pointing and shouting 'Little Bill! Little Bill! )

This is EXACTLY what I think on the subject. I as a parent may not want to explain what heterosexuality is at age six, much less homosexuality. A kid seeing this book is going to have questions about sexuality in general, that the parent may not want to answer. The reason why it's not necessarily bad to have the same book with an opposite-sex couple is because it's not new exposure, whereas same-sex couples have a high chance of being such.

If you had a book that addresses this subject in a high school library, I wouldn't object, but in an elementary library...*especially* when it's directed to six year olds, I do object...because it'll raise questions of *all* sexuality at an age when the parent may not want their child to have to worry about that.

...and yup, it's not your job to decide that for them.

Which throws us right back to the argument of: Fine, but at least be consistent, then, and remove any and ALL references to sexuality, be it hetero or homo, from elementary schools, including fairy tales where people marry, kiss or otherwise indulge in any activity that might be construed as "sexual" in nature.

It's not as if this is a book of Maplethorpe photos or a subscription to The Advocate or something. It's a children's story that does not cover overt sexuality at all. Why does a book where two men end up living together necessitate a graphic and explicit explanation of all sexuality?

That's not consistent though, because seeing a male/female pairing is not *nearly* as likely to initiate curiosity, questions, and other inquisitiveness that would not otherwise be present in a six year old. It's seeing something that is not usual that is going to cause questions to be asked, not seeing something that they see every day.

If you're going to suggest that PDAs (public displays of affection) will expose a child to that, my reply will be that I'm opposed to ANY PDAs...hetero, homo, or otherwise...that go beyond the basic (in other words, I'm not a big fan of people soul kissing in the middle of the street, rubbing otherwise private body parts in public, or the like, but hand holding, a peck, a hug, etc, is not something that bugs me)...because that will also initiate questions from children. I don't think such should be illegal, but I *do* think that as a matter of courtesy, people should avoid such things.

So no, that does *not* bring us back to that argument. That is *not* a logical path.

A story where a prince meets a princess is not something that's going to give the kid a big question mark. A story where a prince meets another prince will. I think that such stories raise questions that are appropriate for the parent, and not the school to raise and address. I'm not against homosexuals or homosexuality, what I'm against is the usurpation of parental rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities by the government, and this is a case where that happened.

Subbie

Okay, I made a mistake. I haven't been able to respond since spring break, and I hadn't had much time to research the subject. However, homosexuality is undeniably against the beliefs of many. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but in the sense that it is morally wrong. It shouldn't be promoted in public school, especially at that age.
many people also feel that non-whites are inferior and that inter-racial marriages are sinful. so is it wrong for us to promote equal rights and tollerance for all races in schools? should we not "promote" understanding, since there are people who think it is wrong?

Great Points!

i would just as soon not see our children's education reduced to the level of the lowest common denominator. school is there to educate, to provide information about the real world so that students can better understand and embrace what is around them. keeping children in the dark about fundamental parts of sexuality and human social structure serves no purpose, and any parent who can't impart values to an educated child needs to take a good long look at their "values" anyway.

if you can't trust your kids to do the right thing when they learn the truth then that's a matter of bad parenting or crappy morals. if you think your children will abandon your values just because they learned that there are alternatives then your values aren't very strong. if you think your kids will chose to ignore their upbringing over something they read in a picture book then what the hell is that upbringing worth in the first place?

basically, if people don't want their kids learning about the real world then they should home-school or find a nice repressive private school. but i really wish they would quit trying to turn public schools into nanny states that avoid all important topics in the interests of raising helpless, bratty, intollerant, ignorant children.
:D I want to marry you :oops:

But I guess that should go in a gay marriage thread... not a gay children's book thread...sorry

hey get your own crush, I'm courting this one! :lol:

well hey maybe we can all three get married. But that should go in the polygamy thread. :D

Oi!

Polygamy it is...

Bottle, will you marry us?

I wonder if there's a children's story in this? Let's see (please excuse the paraphrasing)...

Once upon a time there was a nation called Bottle. Bottle was a large nation that was very chatty. They said nice things in the forum and hoped that other nations might be nice as well. One day, some nations were talking about love. They were saying that it was wrong for little people to see nations in love. Bottle thought they were very silly.

At this point the storyteller should ask the children if they think this is silly, then nod, smile and say “yes, it is”.

“Why is it wrong?”, she said.

“Because it’s immoral and unchristian, said a silly old fuddy-duddy nation. “Love isn’t natural. You don’t see animals loving each other so you shouldn’t see nations in love either.”

“Well!”, said Bottle. “That’s a very silly thing to say. I’ve seen monkeys, rodents, apes and all sorts of animals that love each other.”

She shook her head and left the grumpy nations to grumble and moan on their own. She sighed. “I wish some nation loved me.”, she said. Just then, another nation poked its head around a nearby tree.

“Hello,” he said, “My name’s Sliders. I think what you said was really lovely. I love you. Can we be together?”

Before Bottle could reply, another nation appeared from behind another tree!

Yes, I know! Exciting, isn’t it?

“I’m God’s Bowels (Christ, what a name for a kiddies’ story…). I liked what you said as well. Can we be together?”

Then, ANOTHER nation appeared!

Now calm down, Felicity. It’s only a story.

“My name’s Filamai. Can we be together?”

Bottle was amazed. She thought her little heart would burst. But who should she love? Then, she had a thought.

“Yes! Yes!”, she shouted. “It will be lovely. We can ALL be together. We can talk and play and sleep and have fun together!”

They all held hands and skipped away.

And you know what? They all loved each other and lived happily ever after.

The End

Sorry, back to the editor with you! Bottle is female. :wink:

I believe that it is good for children to know of love, not just between partners but also friends and family.

The ain point about this book is this: is it any good? Exposing children to crap is much worse than exposing them to goodness.

And Raysia: homosexuality has been witnessed in rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, chimpanzees, wolves, baboons, etc ad infinitum. You doubt this? Let me show you my friend's pet rats.

hehehehe

:oops:

Apologies to Bottle, I think I misread one of her earlier posts. Gender amendment made!

Hey as a zoologist I can add my two cent to "animals ARE homosexual" movement, but don't stop there, they're also inter alia bisexual, incestuous and cross-dressing. See Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance" for an exhaustive list of the various sexualities and sexual identities of animals.

Furthermore there are a multitude of instances where gay animal couples rear adoptive young, like the lesbian penguins in Berlin zoo that steal an egg every year and raise it as their own.

I'm sick of hearing the "unnatural/natural" argument tho. Just cause something is or isn't natural doesn't make it acceptable. I'm firmly in favour of equal rights for homosexuals and I don't agree that it can be invalidated by some who say "it isn't natural"

2 points:

1 - it is natural
2 - infanticide is a natural instinct in male lions when they take over a pride from another male. this gets the females into estrus quicker and reduces potential future threats.
Ok so it's natural - does that make it ok in human society - NO!

But on the flip side neither does it make it wrong. What people toting the "natural" argument forget is that humans are removed from animals in their moral considerations, as humans make moral choices and animals don't. Therefore we don't base our moral decisions on what we see other animals doing, we make it up ourselves.

If you're going to argue against homosexuality, at least have a standpoint with a tiny bit of sense and thought-out logic under it.... oh wait, that's right there isn't one. :wink:

That's not consistent though, because seeing a male/female pairing is not *nearly* as likely to initiate curiosity, questions, and other inquisitiveness that would not otherwise be present in a six year old. It's seeing something that is not usual that is going to cause questions to be asked, not seeing something that they see every day.

If you're going to suggest that PDAs (public displays of affection) will expose a child to that, my reply will be that I'm opposed to ANY PDAs...hetero, homo, or otherwise...that go beyond the basic (in other words, I'm not a big fan of people soul kissing in the middle of the street, rubbing otherwise private body parts in public, or the like, but hand holding, a peck, a hug, etc, is not something that bugs me)...because that will also initiate questions from children. I don't think such should be illegal, but I *do* think that as a matter of courtesy, people should avoid such things.

So no, that does *not* bring us back to that argument. That is *not* a logical path.

A story where a prince meets a princess is not something that's going to give the kid a big question mark. A story where a prince meets another prince will. I think that such stories raise questions that are appropriate for the parent, and not the school to raise and address. I'm not against homosexuals or homosexuality, what I'm against is the usurpation of parental rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities by the government, and this is a case where that happened.

Subbie

Yes, actually, it is the logical conclusion for the argument put forth that parents do not want their children learning about sexuality at age 6, period. Your notion that an inquisitive child is more likely to ask about male/male or female/female affection rather than male/female affection is quaint and based on what, exactly? To suggest that a child of six with no prior experience of interpersonal romantic relationships will see a male/male or female/female relationship as anything different from a male/female one is completely unfounded as this sort of prejudicial bias is learned rather than genetic.

I personally agree that PDAs are perhaps not appropriate, but I see an interesting double standard in your reasoning. You're opposed to any PDAs but that doesn't go for books? Why, exactly, do you think there should be a difference in regards to protecting the fragile minds of miscellaneous children?

An inquisitive child will ask about a male/female kiss as readily as they will ask about a male/male kiss. If you know of a study that shows differently, I would be interested in knowing about it. I am unclear as to how a book in a library qualifies as a usurpation of parental rights. Additionally, the idea that those parents are now acting correctly by holding the book hostage because they have decided they are the supreme morality authority for all other parents in the district is more offensive than any topic the book might address.

The library's policy is correct. The parents should be able to explain to the child their beliefs in a responsible way, and do have the right to recourse. Libraries are meant to be centres for information distribution. Some information that is kept will be offensive to some, or even many, but is required for research or historical purposes (i.e. such things as "Mein Kampf" or "Little Black Sambo"). Personally, I'd want neither of those books near me, but I recognize their value as historical artefacts.

At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

really? so you never heard about cinderella in first grade? sleeping beauty? hell, did you ever watch a disney movie? half of them have some kind of relationship between a female character and a male character. read the paper bag princess? rapunzel? snow white?

kids are exposed to heterosexual romance stories even younger than that age. they're fairy tales, why should a romance story be written off because it has two male lead characters? homosexuality shoudl be treated just like heterosexuality: as a normal sexual orientation. thus a children's story about a prince falling in love with another prince is really nothing... honestly, some parents need to grow up. i feel sorry for their kid.

Christianity is about love and companionship, but someone found that offensive, so it's no longer in schools. Now someone has found this offensive. For fairness' sake, this should also be removed.

so if a kkk member is offended by a book with a black hero, it should be removed from the shelves at a school as well?
there's a difference between teaching a specific religion at a school and having a story that offends someone simply because of their bigotry.

This is disgusting. Tolerance is one thing. Teaching it is outright offensive.

they're not teaching it. as i understand, the book is simply sitting on the library's shelf. if a kid checks it out, they check it out.
the book is not teaching anything more than "some people are gay and they fall in love too."

Lets look at this another way.
If we were to remove this book from the library shelves, becuase it raises questionable concepts of sexualtiy, and may not be appropriate for young people....

I say..lets get rid of the Bible as well.
The bible has TONS of references to sex, murder, violence, ...you name it..its in there.

If we are going to say that THIS book is NOT ok...and THAT book is fine...arent we being a little hippocritical?

Many places still have problems with books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn becuase of its frequent use of the word "******",
but you know what?
Regardless of that, its still a classic piece of american literature.

What you find offensive, I may not.
As for kids and sex........wel...we dont like to admit it..but kids have sexual fantasies as well....and even more questions.
They may not be ready for it, but if you shelter them forever.....they end up with misconceptions.

If you dont like this book..dont let your kids read it...but the fact remains...there are still gay people out there..and this book..may just help your kids understand what being gay means...so that these kids wont be afraid of gay people becuase YOU speak ill of them.

Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

Actually monkeys practice homosexuality.

If a beaver and his behaviors and dams are a product of nature, so are man and his artifacts and behaviors, by definition.

Subbie

reyenes, penguins are gay, lions are gay, moneys are gay, apes are gay, sea squids are gay, flamingoes are gay, the bonobos are all bi... 100% of their population... swans are gay, chimps are gay, in every species for which heterosexual behaviour has been observed, homosexual behaviour has also been observed. if you want, i can find some links on the subject, but i've already posted a number of links in other threads, i'm really feeling quite lazy.

I just want you guys to know how thoroughly I'm enjoying this thread.... I'm pleasantly surprised to find how many of you are openminded about all of this. (I'm currently living in Oklahoma, so I'm sure you'll understand why my faith in human openmindedness is beginning to buckle under the weight of evidence :roll: )

The difference is fairly obvious. Religion is a faith in a god. One of the purposes of religion is to claim it's true beyond doubt. You will never see a person who believes in god say, "well it's just my faith, I might be wrong."
*Raises hand* I do :D But then, I'm keenly aware of being rather the exception than the rule -- and I don't follow an organized religion anyway.

There is no moral equivalence between language skills (which no parent would object to) and sexuality.
Spoken like a true non-immigrant (not, of course, that there's anything wrong with that...) But, at the same time, do make an effort to realize one thing:

Language is related to culture, and many immigrant parents (not mine, gods be thanked, but I've known others) believe that learning the English language and the American culture is a threat to their own culture. In this way it becomes a moral issue to them, even if it's not one to you: it's immoral to assimilate into the American society because it takes away your own culture, your own foundation.

As a disclaimer, I think that this is nonsense... But then, I also think that censoring children's books because they show alternative relationships is nonsense too.

The difference is fairly obvious. Religion is a faith in a god. One of the purposes of religion is to claim it's true beyond doubt. You will never see a person who believes in god say, "well it's just my faith, I might be wrong."
*Raises hand* I do :D But then, I'm keenly aware of being rather the exception than the rule -- and I don't follow an organized religion anyway.

I also feel that I might be wrong, but I also do not follow an organized religion. I simply feel that life is more fun when it is magical in my mind.

I also feel that I might be wrong, but I also do not follow an organized religion. I simply feel that life is more fun when it is magical in my mind.

how is life not magical without a god?

okay... time to see how much of this long a*s thread that i can remember....

first off, it's a children's book in which two people hold hands and kiss. whoopty do. kids read books about two straight people holding hands and kissing all the time, so why the hell not read about two guys doing it? the parents said that homosexuality isn't in their belief structure. hmmm... "if i pretend there are no gay people, then there won't be any gay people....."

sheltering a child from homosexuality will not prevent them from finding out about it. my parents never once addressed it with me, they turned off the tv when something came on that might have gays in it. we lived in the south, so no danger of hearing it on the radio. but you know what? just like the issue of sex (never once did my mom [my dad's a piece of shit and shall not be spoken of] talk about it until i was 17 and ready to move to college), shaving (i never had that man-to-pubescent boy thing you see in movies to teach me how to shave), and goth music, i found out about it all on my lonesome. specifically, when i was in 3rd grade. i didn't know much about homosexuality then, being a wee lad, but i never once thought of it as wrong or unnatural. hell, my neighbors had two male dogs that went at it all the time.

my parents (later just my mother, then her and my sheet-wearing klanny stepdad) took the stance that if they never mentioned it, never spoke of it, never said a word about it, then i wouldn't know that it existed. imagine the look of surprise on her face when i told her that i'm a great big ol' homo myself! she demanded to know "who made me gay." i told her that she did. at that point i was 16 and had known since i was 12 that i found men sexually attractive and didn't find women at all appealing. i'd never touched a guy, though, because in my deep state of naivete i didn't think that there was anyone else out there like me. i thought that homosexuality was something that only existed in places like california and florida, and maybe new york city. i never thought that there could possibly be a gay person in a place like franklin county virginia.

i was very depressed, i was lying to myself and everyone around me, because i didn't think for a moment that there were any other gay people in my hometown. if my mother had mentioned to me that gay people existed, that they were everywhere and not just in big cities in faraway states, then i probably wouldn't have five attempted suicides in my track record.

for the irony factor here, i must note that i found out in december of my freshman year of college that my mother is bisexual. the reason she never addressed homosexuality with me was because she was afraid that by telling me about it that i would be gay. well, she was wrong. i would have turned out gay either way, but she could have saved me a lot of denial and dispondency if she had just told me that there are gay people everywhere.

and i now leave you with some bible trivia to ruminate over.

the Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals.

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

My little sister is 7 and every time she asks me what gay means I say happy. She is NOT old enough to understand that. I just pray to God that she never looks it up in a dictionary. "Happy" used to be the first definition, NO longer.

That book is so gay

That's not consistent though, because seeing a male/female pairing is not *nearly* as likely to initiate curiosity, questions, and other inquisitiveness that would not otherwise be present in a six year old. It's seeing something that is not usual that is going to cause questions to be asked, not seeing something that they see every day.

So now we have to remove everything from children's books that might make them curious? When I was four and moved to Georgia, I had very rarely seen black people. I was very curious and walked right up to people in public places and asked them questions when it suddenly became common. Obviously, seeing lots of black people was something that was unusual and caused questions. Does this mean my mother would have been justified in asking that all picture books with black people in them be removed from my preschool or daycare? After all, it might cause curiosity in a child, and learning about society is bad!

A story where a prince meets a princess is not something that's going to give the kid a big question mark. A story where a prince meets another prince will. I think that such stories raise questions that are appropriate for the parent, and not the school to raise and address. I'm not against homosexuals or homosexuality, what I'm against is the usurpation of parental rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities by the government, and this is a case where that happened.

If parents weren't so opposed to letting their kids know that other people have different lifestyles, then it wouldn't raise such a big question mark. Unless you start preaching to your kid "ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE" from the time they are born, chances are this won't be all that big a deal to a young child. It is much like a young black child who had been raised in a white family. His older sister asked him what the difference between her hand and his was, and he said "Yours is bigger." He didn't notice that being darker skinned made him different. Children are a little smarter and more resilient than many overprotective parents seem to think.

Besides, any of you who let your child go out of your sight with other children have already been exposed to a lot of things you may not think they are ready to hear. Believe it or not, kindergardners *do* have discussion about sex, or at least what they understand of it. If the parent refuses to discuss it, they just start out with views that are generally wrong. Not to mention they think sex must be a bad thing altogether, since mommy and daddy won't talk about it....

Not to mention they think sex must be a bad thing altogether, since mommy and daddy won't talk about it....

But that's exactly what they must think! Knowledge of sex leads to sin and promisquity! Better to have them completely confused during their wedding night.


:wink:

How did this book get on the shelves in the first place? This reveals a double-standard in education. What it is saying is that it's not OK to have religion in schools, but it's OK to teach a 6-year-old about homosexuality? At that age, they shouldn't even know about heterosexuality!

My little sister is 7 and every time she asks me what gay means I say happy. She is NOT old enough to understand that. I just pray to God that she never looks it up in a dictionary. "Happy" used to be the first definition, NO longer.

What is so hard about saying that a gay person is someone who loves someone of their same gender? What makes "A man and a woman kiss because they love each other" so much easier to say than "Two people kiss because they love each other?" What makes you so fearful of having to reveal the existence of homosexuality?

Not to mention they think sex must be a bad thing altogether, since mommy and daddy won't talk about it....

But that's exactly what they must think! Knowledge of sex leads to sin and promisquity! Better to have them completely confused during their wedding night.


:wink:

Or trying it ad nauseum in their teenage years because mom and dad never told them anything about it, and because of an innate desire to disobey. Yup, that works really well...much like bundling did for the Quakers.

Not to mention they think sex must be a bad thing altogether, since mommy and daddy won't talk about it....

But that's exactly what they must think! Knowledge of sex leads to sin and promisquity! Better to have them completely confused during their wedding night.


:wink:

Or trying it ad nauseum in their teenage years because mom and dad never told them anything about it, and because of an innate desire to disobey. Yup, that works really well...much like bundling did for the Quakers.

Yeah, and then getting AIDS and all sorts of other diseases, and maybe pregnant too, because they've never heard of contraceptives and such.
And we all know those are evil and cause cancer!

Why let children read anything but the Bible anyway? Damn liberals.

Homosexuality does exist and even if it is in a book i dont think that it goes into explicit details therefore i deem it acceptable to read ....


personally i think that a child i born gay they dont become homesexual from reading or talking about it..

secondly i think that kids should be able to read what ever that want to read that is gift given to us in that freedom is available, parents arnt here to censor what children read unless it is totally unnaceptable and innapropriate for that child to read thefore i think that children should be allowed to formulate there own ideas and that we should no supress children at there most impressionable age..

Benjy

People have free choice over whether or not they are homosexual. Anyone who says different is trying to deny the truth so that they can live a life free of the guilt associated with actions that they know are wrong. By the argument that you are born homosexual and because of this should be "accepted" or "tolerated" anyway, then the same should go for rapists, murderers, thieves, and abusive parents/spouses.

The parents should censor whatever they feel like from their children. It is their job to bring up the child in the correct manner; and it's not the government's job to undermine that by putting propaganda which attacks the religious views of the parents. Furthermore, the child brought the book home from the school's library; why should they be expected to allow this inside of their home?

Homosexuality does exist and even if it is in a book i dont think that it goes into explicit details therefore i deem it acceptable to read ....


personally i think that a child i born gay they dont become homesexual from reading or talking about it..

secondly i think that kids should be able to read what ever that want to read that is gift given to us in that freedom is available, parents arnt here to censor what children read unless it is totally unnaceptable and innapropriate for that child to read thefore i think that children should be allowed to formulate there own ideas and that we should no supress children at there most impressionable age..

Benjy

People have free choice over whether or not they are homosexual. Anyone who says different is trying to deny the truth so that they can live a life free of the guilt associated with actions that they know are wrong. By the argument that you are born homosexual and because of this should be "accepted" or "tolerated" anyway, then the same should go for rapists, murderers, thieves, and abusive parents/spouses.

The parents should censor whatever they feel like from their children. It is their job to bring up the child in the correct manner; and it's not the government's job to undermine that by putting propaganda which attacks the religious views of the parents. Furthermore, the child brought the book home from the school's library; why should they be expected to allow this inside of their home?

Amen brother.

I'm going to ask what may be a dumb question because I am too lazy to read all this debate, but was the book in question a classroom assignment or just a book the girl took out from the school library?

I'm going to ask what may be a dumb question because I am too lazy to read all this debate, but was the book in question a classroom assignment or just a book the girl took out from the school library?

It was forced onto her by the liberals.

I'm going to ask what may be a dumb question because I am too lazy to read all this debate, but was the book in question a classroom assignment or just a book the girl took out from the school library?
It was one she voluntarily checked out from the library.

I'm going to ask what may be a dumb question because I am too lazy to read all this debate, but was the book in question a classroom assignment or just a book the girl took out from the school library?
It was one she voluntarily checked out from the library.

I don't understand the big deal then? No one's "teaching" the girl about homosexuality, she just checked a book out with that as the topic. It's very easy to just return the book and tell the daughter not to check it out again. If it were a classroom assignment, I could see what the big deal would be about, but no one is forcing anyone to read that book.

People have free choice over whether or not they are homosexual.

wait, so you had the choice when you hit 12 of liking boys or liking girls and you chose to like the ones that you aren't?
people don't choose who they're attracted to.

Anyone who says different is trying to deny the truth so that they can live a life free of the guilt associated with actions that they know are wrong. By the argument that you are born homosexual and because of this should be "accepted" or "tolerated" anyway, then the same should go for rapists, murderers, thieves, and abusive parents/spouses.

let's see, rapists hurt people. murderers hurt people, theives hurt people (financially, emotionally, et c depending what they steal) homosexual people do not harm anyone. how is it that they should feel guilty any more than a black person should feel guilty for being black? or a left handed person for being left handed?

IN FIRST GRADE?!?! COME ON!!! what about those children who grow up to be homosexuals? Why should we ENCOURAGE unsafe behavior?

Why not in the first grade? Having siblings who were 3 to 5 years older than me, I knew by first grade not only where babies come but how they develop, and (ooh, here's a shocker) that marriage was not a 'requirement' for babies to happen. (Sex is the only requirement, in case anyone isn't aware of that yet.)

Because we were raised knowing that the lie so many of my friends' parents told (that only married people have babies) wasn't truth, we were also raised with the understanding that having sex could result in having babies, and that not having sex was the only sure way of not having babies. We were also taught that if we did have sex, even though it was encouraged that we should not, we should use condoms, birth control, and discretion in whom we did have sex with.
My parents (ooh, here comes another shocker) educated us on the consequences of our behavior.

We were also taught that skin color, religion, sexual orientation, age, whatever-you-want to name were not reasons to dismiss the fact that we are all human beings. We often spent weekends at the cabin of family friends, Jim & Jim. We had black people sleep over. Both of my sisters married men of other nationalities. We all have friends from 0 to 90, and we've all had lovers both substantially older and younger. Horrifying isn't it? Yet in spite of all that education, common sense and non-judgementalsim my parents encouraged, we've turned out to be successful, happy adults. With normal lives! And the ability to decide whether to engage in "unsafe behavior" or not.

Not educating our children honestly and completely deprives them of the basis on which to make such a decision. And waiting until they are "old enough to understand" is a crock of fertilizer. By first grade they have mastered at least one language, learned to communicate both verbally and non-verbally, learned to feed themselves, dress themselves, and which parent respond to tears the most sympathetically. They have learned how to use those tears to manipulate, how to lie to (try to) keep themselves out of trouble, and to know when Mom really means she isn't going to tell them one more time.

They are certainly old enough to begin learning that not every family is just like their own, that there is more than religion in the world, and that ALL PEOPLE ARE HUMAN BEINGS regardless of whatever differences may exist between them.

If we expect our children to be capable of learning, they will be. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think children aren't human at all. They do not come with practice brains. We get one brain, and one lifetime to train it in. Most of the brain's vital training is delivered before first grade. Children who lack the foundations struggle in first grade and continue to struggle for the rest of their lives.

Tell me, at what age do you think a child is suddenly intellegent enough? How old is "old enough"? And how do you plan to shelter your children from learning about the world from their playmates? Wouldn't you rather your first grader learn that some men love men from you, than from little Tommy down the street? Do you really think there is a 5 year old out there who hasn't heard this already? If there is, s/he's never seen a TV, never heard a radio, never been out to play with the neighborhood kids. Fortunately, at least in my country, it is illegal to lock your children in the closet until they are 18, which is the only way to maybe stop them from discovering the real world. May as well be honest with them to begin with!

I have no problem with teaching children that there are other religions, or even that there are people (referred to in Revalation as "dogs") that live the life of a sodomite. However, I have a problem with subjectivist activist teachers and school officials telling (other people's) children that they have to be "tolerant" of these other lifestyles and that they "are just as good as anyone else's."

Sexuality and religion are moral, and not historic, issue(s). By virtue of this fact, they should not be taught to children that cannot be tried as an adult (normally about the age of 13), and certainly should not be forced on them. I have hundreds of times heard that "Well, if christians would just be quiet about it there wouldn't be a problem."

The same is true for homosexuals; if tolerance of their lifestyle was not constantly forced on people who live christian lifestyles, then the questionable elements of society would possibly come off as less hypocritical. By the logic that this book should be allowed into the hands of a first-grader, then anti-gay, anti-black, etc. hate speech (flyers from the Aryan Nations, KKK propaganda, etc. ) should ALSO be allowed in the school.

We were also taught that if we did have sex, even though it was encouraged that we should not, we should use condoms, birth control, and discretion in whom we did have sex with.
My parents (ooh, here comes another shocker) educated us on the consequences of our behavior.

LOL! There is a term for that - um, cow crap, no wait. Bullshit, that's it. I doubt any first grader has a grasp on the concept of birth control. You are a fool if you think we believe that.




Tell me, at what age do you think a child is suddenly intellegent enough? How old is "old enough"?

That is not for you or anyone else but the parent to decide.



Do you really think there is a 5 year old out there who hasn't heard this already?
I will make it a point that you never get near my 5 yr old. I am certain I am not alone in that. Peddle your agenda after you have children of your own. Until then, shut up.

I don't have kids, but I applaud the way you seek to protect your children and rights as a parent from the propaganda of the questionable elements of society.

Sorry to be so far behind (about 10 pages) but I just read the first post.

This is to freaking hillarious. They don't want other children to know that it is ok for two men to love each other so they steal the book..LOL there is some good christian teaching for you. I think that they may have broken one of the 10 commandments.

I am laughing soooo hard.

As to the seperation of church and state issue that someone mentioned, homosexuality is not a religion, nor is it a religious issue, it is a sexual and cultural issue. If you want to take this out of the library because your religion is against it , I guess we have to remove all the cook books with pork recipes in them so the Jews are no offended. And take all the wood working books out so the Druids are happy ect...ect..ad nausium.

It's fine in my opinion. However I would prefer to think that my child would learn such things from Me, not a school...

People have free choice over whether or not they are homosexual. Anyone who says different is trying to deny the truth so that they can live a life free of the guilt associated with actions that they know are wrong.

Been proven wrong time and time again, so I'll ignore this.

argument that you are born homosexual and because of this should be "accepted" or "tolerated" anyway, then the same should go for rapists, murderers, thieves, and abusive parents/spouses.

Except maybe for the fact that they are actually hurting someone else, methinks?

The parents should censor whatever they feel like from their children. It is their job to bring up the child in the correct manner; and it's not the government's job to undermine that by putting propaganda which attacks the religious views of the parents.

It is not the governments job to raise the children, it is the parent's job. If the parent doesn't like the book, they don't have to allow it in the house. But if someone else's parents like it just fine, the government has no place saying it can't be there. It is really sad that so many conservatives think the government should shelter their children for them. If you want to push a certain morality on your child that not everyone agrees with, it is not the place of the government to enforce that morality - it is YOURS. And if you can't raise a child that is obedient enough at five to recogize that "No, you can't read that book means no because mommy and/or daddt think it is bad", then you probably shouldn't have kids anyways.

Furthermore, the child brought the book home from the school's library; why should they be expected to allow this inside of their home?

No one said they should allow it in their home. We just said they can't actively keep it out of others' homes. Actually, since they are holding it hostage and refusing to return it to the library unless it gets burned or something, they are CHOOSING to keep it in their home. Funny how that works...

I have no problem with teaching children that there are other religions, or even that there are people (referred to in Revalation as "dogs") that live the life of a sodomite. However, I have a problem with subjectivist activist teachers and school officials telling (other people's) children that they have to be "tolerant" of these other lifestyles and that they "are just as good as anyone else's."

Again, no one at the school told the child this. She checked the book out on her own and read it. If her parents want to say, "That's a book about dogs. Those princes are bad, bad men." they have every right to do so. The child will grow up to be hated by most of society for being a bigot, but the parent still has the right to raise them that way. A teacher should never push any type of religious belief on a child. He could simply say "Some people believe this is wrong and some people don't." Of course, I would assume that right-wing fundamentalists would even have a problem with that, regardless of how truthful it is.


Sexuality and religion are moral, and not historic, issue(s). By virtue of this fact, they should not be taught to children that cannot be tried as an adult (normally about the age of 13), and certainly should not be forced on them. I have hundreds of times heard that "Well, if christians would just be quiet about it there wouldn't be a problem."

Of course, if you don't tell your child about sex before 13, and someone else does, then she may end up pregnant at 9 or 10. Great idea! And once again, nobody forced anything on anyone.

The same is true for homosexuals; if tolerance of their lifestyle was not constantly forced on people who live christian lifestyles, then the questionable elements of society would possibly come off as less hypocritical.

Yes, because saying "You live your life, and I'll live mine." is sooooo hypocritical. Tolerance of anyone is a baaaad thing. That's why Christ ate dinner with all the dirty, unclean people - because tolerance is bad.

By the logic that this book should be allowed into the hands of a first-grader, then anti-gay, anti-black, etc. hate speech (flyers from the Aryan Nations, KKK propaganda, etc. ) should ALSO be allowed in the school.

There is no logic here. An anti-black book teaches hate. A book that happens to have a black or gay person in it doesn't teach you to hate white or straight people. Besides, how many children's books have you seen with a white prince and a black princess (or vice versa)? Would you argue against that if it turned up in your school? Because, by your logic, such a book would go against the traditional values shown in other fairy tales and it would "force" parents to teach their kids tolerance towards black people.

If you want to teach your children to hate people, I'm afraid you'll have to do it in your own home. If you want to restrict your child's reading, you'll have to tell him to not read things. You seem to think that just because this book has a gay couple in it, it is anti-Christian. But, you are dead wrong.

Tolerance of anyone is a baaaad thing. That's why Christ ate dinner with all the dirty, unclean people - because tolerance is bad.

If tolerance is such a virtue for you, then why cannot you 'tolerate' people who would rather decide for themselves when their pre-adolescent children should be exposed to your version of sexuality?

However, I have a problem with subjectivist activist teachers and school officials telling (other people's) children that they have to be "tolerant" of these other lifestyles and that they "are just as good as anyone else's."

Why on earth do parents send their children to school in the first place!? To LEARN. That's right, a child will come out of school knowing more than they did before. Now, that is true about a variety of subjects. Now, you may not like a version of history they are taught, or that they will be told that the earth is flat. But I really do not see why you object to children being taught to tolerate others? Would you really rather perpetuate decades of ignorance or hatred? Bearing in mind that children are our future, can you not see how important it is that they are accepting of others? Open-minded? Free-thinking? Why are you so afraid of children tolerating others?

Sexuality and religion are moral, and not historic, issue(s). By virtue of this fact, they should not be taught to children that cannot be tried as an adult

Perhaps you can clairfy this. To me, sexuality is hardly a 'moral' issue. It simply is. The very core of sexuality - feelings of love or sexual attraction - are common to all. They are a central aspect of all our lives. Children are quite capable of learning this themselves, far more so from their peers than their parents. But are you seriously suggesting that morals not be taught to children until they can be tried!? General rights and wrongs of society? Stealing? Or how about etiquette? Should children not to be taught to respect their elders until they are elders themselves?

The same is true for homosexuals; if tolerance of their lifestyle was not constantly forced on people who live christian lifestyles, then the questionable elements of society would possibly come off as less hypocritical.

Excuse me: 'forced'? You need to be forced to tolerate others? Living a christian lifestyle is your choice - being gay was not mine. Christianity isn't even an issue. If you want to practice your faith, then that is your business. Stop me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Christ's teachings were of tolerance, and acceptance and love.

But perhaps your feelings on this matter stem from your own upbringing, in which case you may appreciate the value of opening minds at a young age.

People have free choice over whether or not they are homosexual. Anyone who says different is trying to deny the truth so that they can live a life free of the guilt associated with actions that they know are wrong.

To employ the vernacular: "bullshit". I say different, and I feel no guilt at simply living my life. Frankly, I am amazed at your arrogance in posting insulting remarks about a subject you clearly know very little about. Perhaps your school should have taught you the facts? I believe there is a school in North Carolina which may be of some assistance. Good day.

If tolerance is such a virtue for you, then why cannot you 'tolerate' people who would rather decide for themselves when their pre-adolescent children should be exposed to your version of sexuality?

One, that is not tolerance, that's bending over backwards for fascism.

Two, this issue has nothing to do with how some of us would like the government to treat you, which is like the filthy dogs you really are. Rather this is about how we would like you to back off and allow others to choose whether they wanna teach their kids around the lines of right-wing idiocy or not. Heh, I like that word.

No one was forcing her to read it, yet you wanna force other children not to.

The right-wing animal mind's capacity for utter hypocricy and doublespeak never ceases to amaze me.

On a depressing side note: Bush allows gays to be fired for being gay (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=23354&s=6019a22ba60d9e2ac32fa694f9406af1)

And homophobes say the government is out to get them, fuck... I wish they were right :P

Tolerance of anyone is a baaaad thing. That's why Christ ate dinner with all the dirty, unclean people - because tolerance is bad.

If tolerance is such a virtue for you, then why cannot you 'tolerate' people who would rather decide for themselves when their pre-adolescent children should be exposed to your version of sexuality?

First of all, it's not *my* version of sexuality. It is a fact that sexuality exists along a spectrum. I have no problem with the fact that many parents want to believe that certain aspects of that spectrum are right or wrong, and they want to tell their children that. As far as "being exposed" to anything, if parents aren't going to keep their kids in a little box in the basement, they are going to be exposed to a lot of things - I just think parents need to realize that and do the smart thing by discussing things with them, rather than making the subject taboo and ensuring that their child is afraid to even bring it up. If a parent chooses not to discuss something with their kid, that's their decision. But a child is going to know that there is a such thing as being gay the minute they enter school (if not before). Not explaining it to your kid isn't going to change that one bit.

If you want me to tolerate the fact that you don't want to explain certain matters to your children, you must tolerate the fact that I am going to explain matters to my children as soon as they are curious about them. And I am not going to restrict my child's reading to non-gay and try to indoctrinate them in anything - and you don't have the right to do so either.

Second of all, do remember it was the post I was replying to that said tolerance was a bad thing. I was just pointing out that claiming to be a Christian and then calling tolerance a bad thing is awfully hypocritical. I believe in tolerance for all beliefs - even bigotted ones. I will even tolerate people who think they should force their beliefs on others - I just won't tolerate you actually doing it.

Dakini: I chose to act on my attractions in the appropriate, moral manner. I would no more have slept with a homosexual than slit someone's throat; both are of the same nature. It is obvious to me and anyone with a vested interest in Christianity that homosexuals over the last 20 years HAVE hurt people with their lie-laced propaganda.

Demopublicents: Please attempt to refrain from distorting my positions. I agree the government has no place saying that the book is banned nationally, however, there is precedence that it should be at least confined outside of schools. Why should the ten commandments be forced out of a public court when the supreme justice wanted it there? It is no different to try to force the hand of a sodomite to remove their propaganda (as many activists called the 10-commandments) from a public place. I am not requiring that the government agree with that morality. I am just saying that you should be tolerant of the parents' view in this circumstance. It is obvious that the idea of 'tolerance' is not universal on your side from the comment you made about society hating bigots.

Who said anything about not telling the child about sex? I said that the school system should not interfere with a conflicting doctrine until the child is of an appropriate age; ESPECIALLY without the permission of the parents. Homosexuals do not say "you live your life, and I'll live mine." Neither did Christ. Homosexuals say "accept us or be chastised". Christ said "Go and Sin no more" -- tantamount to go forth, make changes in your life, and live in a way pleasing unto the Father. An anti-black book and a pro-gay book have the same problem -- both are seen as objectionable materials by certain groups of parents. The only difference is that YOU agree with the the pro-gay book. And yes, I would argue against ANY book that teaches a morality that is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.

Stocktonia: They send their children to school to learn facts, not 'fairy' tales(rofl). This book does not teach children to 'tolerate others'. It teaches children to tolerate immoral lifestyles, and it also presents to the child (as I believe the two men marry) an anti-christian political agenda. You contradict yourself when you say 'decades of ignorance and hatred' -- if people were allowed to live in ignorance, they would not have grounds TO HATE. Sexuality is, when I use it, the judgement people have used when choosing rather or not to act on carnal desires.

I have not said that morals shouldn't be taught to children before any certain age. I said that they should not be presented with a doctrine that runs against that of the parents'. Morality in children is to come from the parents; they are the ones who HAD the baby, they are the ones who pay for it, they are the ones who will love it more than the schools ever will, they are the ones with whom it will live, they are the ones who provide and protect him or her -- in most cases. Again, I said tolerance of their lifestyle, not of the people themselves.

During my post I think it has come to me why the questionable elements of society so want to use this type of 'literature' to indoctrinate children to despise the truth and their parents. I believe now that jealousy and rage are at the core of these actions. Why? I believe the homosexual community wishes to overtake the parents because they realise they are unable to live their sodomite lifestyles and attain the love and natural blood-bond of a child as their hetereosexual counterparts. Likewise, I believe they feel rage at The Lord that he provides them with a natural yearning to be a parent, and attempt revenge against Him through their false doctrine. Bozzy, any thoughts on that?

Tolerance of anyone is a baaaad thing. That's why Christ ate dinner with all the dirty, unclean people - because tolerance is bad.

If tolerance is such a virtue for you, then why cannot you 'tolerate' people who would rather decide for themselves when their pre-adolescent children should be exposed to your version of sexuality?

First of all, it's not *my* version of sexuality. It is a fact that sexuality exists along a spectrum. I have no problem with the fact that many parents want to believe that certain aspects of that spectrum are right or wrong, and they want to tell their children that. As far as "being exposed" to anything, if parents aren't going to keep their kids in a little box in the basement, they are going to be exposed to a lot of things - I just think parents need to realize that and do the smart thing by discussing things with them, rather than making the subject taboo and ensuring that their child is afraid to even bring it up. If a parent chooses not to discuss something with their kid, that's their decision. But a child is going to know that there is a such thing as being gay the minute they enter school (if not before). Not explaining it to your kid isn't going to change that one bit.

If you want me to tolerate the fact that you don't want to explain certain matters to your children, you must tolerate the fact that I am going to explain matters to my children as soon as they are curious about them. And I am not going to restrict my child's reading to non-gay and try to indoctrinate them in anything - and you don't have the right to do so either.

Second of all, do remember it was the post I was replying to that said tolerance was a bad thing. I was just pointing out that claiming to be a Christian and then calling tolerance a bad thing is awfully hypocritical. I believe in tolerance for all beliefs - even bigotted ones. I will even tolerate people who think they should force their beliefs on others - I just won't tolerate you actually doing it.

I have seen this argument several times, so I will reply to it here. No one is implying or saying that children should be indefinitely sheltered from this. We are saying that people should allow the parents to introduce it to and discuss it with the children, not the school system. Part of my problem with it is that the men do indeed get married, which makes obvious that the book was written with a socio-political, anti-christian, agenda. I have no problem with children knowing that there are people of such a persuasion out there; however, I am not sure that the ripe old age of six is the right time to teach against the parents. I'm sure you would not enjoy it if your very young child(ren) brought home literature that was meant to teach your children against you (ex: it showed that disobeying you was ok).

EDIT: Also, what you said about tolerance, is inaccurate. God hates, he even says so in Malachi 1:2-3 and in Isaiah. Also, don't use the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" argument. I Corinthians 2:15.
We are also instructed at I Timothy 5:20 to rebuke those who sin.

The following is a commentary from another famous minister -

Many people use the story of the woman taken in adultery as an excuse to not ever preach to anyone. The simple truth of the matter is that Christ not only preached at the woman, but also at all of her accusers. By saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," Christ was not speaking of someone who was entirely free from any and all sin, as there was no such person other than Christ himself. The law of Moses called for the stoning of a person who was caught in adultery and that stoning had to be done by someone who was not guilty of the sin with which the accused was charged. Who Christ is referring to here is someone who is not guilty of some scandalous sin and more particularly, adultery. Christ called the generation in which He lived an adulterous and sinful generation, meaning, at least partially, that adultery was extremely prevalent. Therefore, as was shown by each of the accusers leaving without casting any stone, each of those accusers was just as guilty of adultery, if not more so, than the woman. He preached to them about their hypocrisy, convicting each one of them of their sins to such an extent that none could stand their own conscience. Also, by the very words "Go and sin no more," Christ preached repentance to the woman. Christ did not say "Go and continue living your wicked and adulterous life and I will grant you salvation anyway".

Further, by telling him that was without sin to cast the first stone, Christ showed to the woman that He was merciful, and to her accusers, he showed that He is the searcher of hearts. Christ, not only by His words, but also by His actions, preached that salvation is by grace and not by works. According to the law of Moses, this woman was fully deserving of being stoned to death for her adultery.

Crying "judge not lest you be judged" or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a favorite tactic among fags and so-called Christians, just like it was among the ancient Sodomites. "And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door" Genesis 19:9. It really doesn't make any sense to use these verses against someone who is following Christ's command to preach to every creature, because preaching and judging aren't the same things. So if you're going to use these verses, at least use them in context - don't be a typical sodomite and say it just because you're too weak-minded to address the issues.

If you still think that we aren't supposed to judge under any circumstances, then you better not tell me to stop judging. Otherwise, you'd be guilty of judging me.

If tolerance is such a virtue for you, then why cannot you 'tolerate' people who would rather decide for themselves when their pre-adolescent children should be exposed to your version of sexuality?

One, that is not tolerance, that's bending over backwards for fascism.



So, according to you, fascism is when a parent makes their own decisions about childrearing?

You have just crossed the line of credibility. Your opionion is no longer of consequence.

I have no problem with children knowing that there are people of such a persuasion out there; however, I am not sure that the ripe old age of six is the right time to teach against the parents. I'm sure you would not enjoy it if your very young child(ren) brought home literature that was meant to teach your children against you (ex: it showed that disobeying you was ok).



Gawd that was a long and tedious rant. This was about the only part worth a hoot.

Well put, Zeltec. I agree that the government should try a case should a petition be drafted about the book. Also, Zeltec, generally calling Homosexuals 'Sodomites' dosen't invoke a positive response.

But, indeed, this entire issue hinges on two arguments. One, is homosexuality a choice, and second, should children be taught about sexuality from the school system?

Firstly, although there has been anecdotal evidence from the biologists about an abnormality in the brains of sheep with homosexual tendencies, this cannot be seen as a basis for human homosexuality, nor can it be seen as a fact. Genetics is generally not considered reliable base for homosexuality, with only heavily skewed studies, such as the infamous "Bailey & Pillard" study conducted from 1989-1991 concluded that identical twins had a higher rate of concordant homosexuality. But, in that case, I would like to argue the fact that they found adopted siblings of the homosexual children had an 11% tendency of becoming homosexuals, which is far higher then the accepted figures on homosexuals. Even if the study is true, it might only prove the fact that genetics may only play the role of making a child more susceptible to suggestion of enviromental factors.

Many of the studies conducted proved that fact that almost all homosexual case studies have a linking point. Some of which are what position the father holds in the family, whether or not he is in control of the relationship. In identical twins, a strong dependence can occur on one another, and that significantly increases the chance for homosexuality, and in some cases, the name of the child plays a role in homosexuality. I simply cannot believe that these are coincidences.

Therefore, I must conclude that the Prince & Prince cannot be put into school libraries, unless we put books regarding other, possibly destructive, choices in the library. I know many people will disagree with me on this point, but, I digress, I must continue to my second point.

Should sexuality be taught in schools? That depends. Do parents want the governments views on issues to be imprinted on our childrens minds instead of their own? This should be left up to the parents, and frankly up to middle school, it is. Almost all Sexual Education classes before the secondary level is opt-out, and make quite clear what it is.

Just my 2 cents.

I have seen this argument several times, so I will reply to it here. No one is implying or saying that children should be indefinitely sheltered from this. We are saying that people should allow the parents to introduce it to and discuss it with the children

Problem is..not all parents do.
Remember..this country was founded on Puritanical beliefs.....and much of the repressive, "sex is dirty" idealology is still apparent.
Your kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
So..you get a large number of children, with very warped ideas about sex, and sexuality.
Why do you think that in 5th grade, you were taken into that room with all the rest of the boys, (or girls) and shown that film..and then discussed what you had seen?
Becuase your parents may not have already done so, and they wanted you to be aware.

Look..the fact is..that the Conservative, Christian Right has no right to demand that any book be taken out of a school library.
If you take that book out.....the Bible should go to.
Its violent, makes several references to sex, murder, rape, all kinds of things.

I have seen this argument several times, so I will reply to it here. No one is implying or saying that children should be indefinitely sheltered from this. We are saying that people should allow the parents to introduce it to and discuss it with the children

Problem is..not all parents do.
Remember..this country was founded on Puritanical beliefs.....and much of the repressive, "sex is dirty" idealology is still apparent.
Your kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
So..you get a large number of children, with very warped ideas about sex, and sexuality.
Why do you think that in 5th grade, you were taken into that room with all the rest of the boys, (or girls) and shown that film..and then discussed what you had seen?
Becuase your parents may not have already done so, and they wanted you to be aware.

Look..the fact is..that the Conservative, Christian Right has no right to demand that any book be taken out of a school library.
If you take that book out.....the Bible should go to.
Its violent, makes several references to sex, murder, rape, all kinds of things.

Then why does the Liberal Left have the right to demand that certain things be censored in public schools? And my parent(no s) was responsible enough to discuss sex with me in an appropriate environment. I wasn't taken with the rest of the boys and shown any film in fifth grade.

ROFL :twisted:

"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."
That's right. It's official. Homosexuality does not exist. :lol:

as long as we don't tell our kids about it, it won't be real! besides, it's better that our children learn about sexuality from the internet and TV...school is no place for learning, and neither is the home!

I have no kids and I'm pretty open minded. However, I wouldn't want my first grader reading about homosexuality. I wouldn't want my first grader reading about sexuality period. Until he/she could understand the depth and the range of love, this book would be inappropriate.

I have no kids and I'm pretty open minded. However, I wouldn't want my first grader reading about homosexuality. I wouldn't want my first grader reading about sexuality period. Until he/she could understand the depth and the range of love, this book would be inappropriate.

this book is no more about sexuality than cinderella. would you not let your kids read that?

Then why does the Liberal Left have the right to demand that certain things be censored in public schools?

You have the exact same right.

I have no kids and I'm pretty open minded. However, I wouldn't want my first grader reading about homosexuality. I wouldn't want my first grader reading about sexuality period. Until he/she could understand the depth and the range of love, this book would be inappropriate.

this book is no more about sexuality than cinderella. would you not let your kids read that?

I have seen this argument several times, so I will reply to it here. No one is implying or saying that children should be indefinitely sheltered from this. We are saying that people should allow the parents to introduce it to and discuss it with the children

Problem is..not all parents do.
Remember..this country was founded on Puritanical beliefs.....and much of the repressive, "sex is dirty" idealology is still apparent.
Your kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
So..you get a large number of children, with very warped ideas about sex, and sexuality.
Why do you think that in 5th grade, you were taken into that room with all the rest of the boys, (or girls) and shown that film..and then discussed what you had seen?
Becuase your parents may not have already done so, and they wanted you to be aware.

Look..the fact is..that the Conservative, Christian Right has no right to demand that any book be taken out of a school library.
If you take that book out.....the Bible should go to.
Its violent, makes several references to sex, murder, rape, all kinds of things.

Then why does the Liberal Left have the right to demand that certain things be censored in public schools? And my parent(no s) was responsible enough to discuss sex with me in an appropriate environment. I wasn't taken with the rest of the boys and shown any film in fifth grade.

Such as?

I have seen this argument several times, so I will reply to it here. No one is implying or saying that children should be indefinitely sheltered from this. We are saying that people should allow the parents to introduce it to and discuss it with the children

Problem is..not all parents do.
Remember..this country was founded on Puritanical beliefs.....and much of the repressive, "sex is dirty" idealology is still apparent.
Your kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
So..you get a large number of children, with very warped ideas about sex, and sexuality.
Why do you think that in 5th grade, you were taken into that room with all the rest of the boys, (or girls) and shown that film..and then discussed what you had seen?
Becuase your parents may not have already done so, and they wanted you to be aware.

Look..the fact is..that the Conservative, Christian Right has no right to demand that any book be taken out of a school library.
If you take that book out.....the Bible should go to.
Its violent, makes several references to sex, murder, rape, all kinds of things.

Then why does the Liberal Left have the right to demand that certain things be censored in public schools? And my parent(no s) was responsible enough to discuss sex with me in an appropriate environment. I wasn't taken with the rest of the boys and shown any film in fifth grade.

Such as?

I find this comparable to the issue in Alabama with the ten commandments. I also find it comparable with Aryan Nations and KKK flyers / Propaganda booklets. You see niether of those in public school libraries.

I find this comparable to the issue in Alabama with the ten commandments. I also find it comparable with Aryan Nations and KKK flyers / Propaganda booklets. You see niether of those in public school libraries.

the kkk teach hate. the aryan nations teach hate and racial superiority. the ten commandments teach that one religions system is right and the others are all wrong.

I have seen this argument several times, so I will reply to it here. No one is implying or saying that children should be indefinitely sheltered from this. We are saying that people should allow the parents to introduce it to and discuss it with the children

Problem is..not all parents do.
Remember..this country was founded on Puritanical beliefs.....and much of the repressive, "sex is dirty" idealology is still apparent.
Your kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
So..you get a large number of children, with very warped ideas about sex, and sexuality.
Why do you think that in 5th grade, you were taken into that room with all the rest of the boys, (or girls) and shown that film..and then discussed what you had seen?
Becuase your parents may not have already done so, and they wanted you to be aware.

Look..the fact is..that the Conservative, Christian Right has no right to demand that any book be taken out of a school library.
If you take that book out.....the Bible should go to.
Its violent, makes several references to sex, murder, rape, all kinds of things.

Then why does the Liberal Left have the right to demand that certain things be censored in public schools? And my parent(no s) was responsible enough to discuss sex with me in an appropriate environment. I wasn't taken with the rest of the boys and shown any film in fifth grade.

Such as?

I find this comparable to the issue in Alabama with the ten commandments. I also find it comparable with Aryan Nations and KKK flyers / Propaganda booklets. You see niether of those in public school libraries.

You call THAT AN EXAMPLE??
Those are hate filled propoganda meant to purposefully discriminate against minorites.
Do you even wonder why no one wants that filth in schools?

I certainly would have no problems with books that are *about* the KKK and stuff in school. Just like I have no problem with books that are *about* a homosexual relationship.
It just shouldn't be advocated.
No "Hey kids, join the KKK/Gay Alliance, it's kewl! ^_^"

Homosexuality is many things, but it ISN'T NATURAL. Name one other species on this planet that carries out acts of homosexuality. Don't say bacteria, because there is no recognizable gender, also don't name any hemaphroditic species, like earthworms. Out of all the species that are either male or female, name one besides human beings that is recordedly homosexual.

Actually monkeys practice homosexuality.

If a beaver and his behaviors and dams are a product of nature, so are man and his artifacts and behaviors, by definition.

Subbie

Well said. LOTS of animal species practice homosexuality, this fact has already been discussed to death here.

Animal homosexuality can be chalked up to a lack of females and symbolization of dominance between males, much like human males in prison.

The difference between Cinderella and these homosexual focused stories?

Cinderella is a time-honored traditional story. Stories like it have been told around the world for as long as there have been stories told to children.

They were not telling children about "Daddy's Rommate" 2000 years ago.

The difference between Cinderella and these homosexual focused stories?

Cinderella is a time-honored traditional story. Stories like it have been told around the world for as long as there have been stories told to children.

They were not telling children about "Daddy's Rommate" 2000 years ago.

There were no books featuring the internet 2000 years ago, so we should burn them all for not being a time-honoured traditional story?

But technology and technological progression has been a part of history, honored and/or hated by various groups at various times, but usually honored.

But the internet has not been a tradition for more than a few years, burn it!

So, according to you, fascism is when a parent makes their own decisions about childrearing?

You have just crossed the line of credibility. Your opionion is no longer of consequence.

When those decisions mean teaching hate, yes. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who don't consider children to be property.

Those of you who compare this to KKK flyers do a good job of showing why I wouldn't trust a homophobe to decide what should be in libraries.

You can call this Fascism the right to bring up your children as you wish, but that's an awfully small figleaf for the horrific truth you're trying to hide.

Animal homosexuality can be chalked up to a lack of females and symbolization of dominance between males, much like human males in prison.

actually, animals do this in the wild, regardless of how many members of the opposite sex there are. i remember reading about one species of monkey that had a tendancy towards having more homosexual females, and even with an overabundance of males, there would be the same percentage of homosexual females. they would even fight males off their partner if necessary.

The difference between Cinderella and these homosexual focused stories?

Cinderella is a time-honored traditional story. Stories like it have been told around the world for as long as there have been stories told to children.

They were not telling children about "Daddy's Rommate" 2000 years ago.

perhaps this story or one similar will become a time honoured tradition. although cinderella has been considerably altered from the original. for instance when the step sisters try on the slipper, they slice up their feet in the original.

in any case, i was drawing a comparison on sexual content, not how long the story has been around.

I have seen this argument several times, so I will reply to it here. No one is implying or saying that children should be indefinitely sheltered from this. We are saying that people should allow the parents to introduce it to and discuss it with the children, not the school system.

If you had read my earlier posts you would have seen that I am perfectly fine with a system in which certain books are checked out only under the permission of the parents. There was a similar system in my elementary school in which most books were open but certain books required a note from the parent authorizing it. I have never argued against the parents' right to shelter or introduce their child to concepts - I have simply argued that those parents have no right to regulate what others introduce their children to.

Part of my problem with it is that the men do indeed get married, which makes obvious that the book was written with a socio-political, anti-christian, agenda.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know if they get married or what. But either way, it isn't an anti-christian agenda - it's an anti-your particular version of christianity agenda. Some of us recognize (a) that there are many laws in the Bible that were put there by human beings and should be viewed as such and (b) even if we agree with the laws, we have no right to force them on those with differing religious views. So, no, this is not anti-christian any more than Harry Potter was (regardless of some people's paranioa).

I have no problem with children knowing that there are people of such a persuasion out there; however, I am not sure that the ripe old age of six is the right time to teach against the parents. I'm sure you would not enjoy it if your very young child(ren) brought home literature that was meant to teach your children against you (ex: it showed that disobeying you was ok).

Actually, if I had a child that brought home something that I didn't agree with, I would see it as a prime time to explain to them my views on the subject. For instance, if my child somehow got KKK literature, I would use that as a time to instruct the child that there are people out there who hate others simply because of the color of their skin and that I think it is wrong to do so. If these parents had simply instructed the child that this is wrong behavior according to their beliefs, it would not have had an adverse effect on her. Besides, no one is "teaching against the parents." It's not like this book was required reading or part of a classroom discussion.

EDIT: Also, what you said about tolerance, is inaccurate. God hates

I never said that God didn't hate. What I said was that Christ didn't freak out about people who sinned. He ate dinner and sat and talked with people the other Jews shunned as being horrible sinners. I didn't suggest that he sat down and said "You guys go ahead and keep doing what you're doing." I simply said that he was tolerant of them and compassionate in teaching them, rather than threatening to bring down fire and brimstone.

Besides, the New Testament (you know, the new covenant that is more important in Christianity than the new one) is full of references of God's love. God loves everyone, even sinners. Love your enemy as yourself.

It really doesn't make any sense to use these verses against someone who is following Christ's command to preach to every creature, because preaching and judging aren't the same things. So if you're going to use these verses, at least use them in context - don't be a typical sodomite and say it just because you're too weak-minded to address the issues.

I love the fact that because I am willing to stand up for the rights of other people, I get labeled as a "sodomite." But please do recognize the difference between preaching and terrorizing. Preaching is a much more compassionate practice, not "Don't do that or you're going to HELL!" Find the thread "Whatever happened to witnessing" if you really want my opinion on this.

Animal homosexuality can be chalked up to a lack of females and symbolization of dominance between males, much like human males in prison.

actually, animals do this in the wild, regardless of how many members of the opposite sex there are. i remember reading about one species of monkey that had a tendancy towards having more homosexual females, and even with an overabundance of males, there would be the same percentage of homosexual females. they would even fight males off their partner if necessary.
Again, dominance. Not between males, as I mistakenly said, but among the general members of the species.

Demopublicents: Please attempt to refrain from distorting my positions. I agree the government has no place saying that the book is banned nationally, however, there is precedence that it should be at least confined outside of schools.

I disagree. If you want to put it on a parent-approval only reading list, fine. But banning a book simply because your religion doesn't agree with it isn't good enough.

Why should the ten commandments be forced out of a public court when the supreme justice wanted it there? It is no different to try to force the hand of a sodomite to remove their propaganda (as many activists called the 10-commandments) from a public place.

For one, the public court is a government building and the 10 Commandments are specific to Christianity (Jewish law according to a friend of mine actually includes a few more verses in the commandments).
This means that by displaying the 10 Commandments in a government building, the government is establishing Christianity as being more important than any other religion. This *clearly* violates separation of church and state, which is one of the most important tenets of our country.

I am not requiring that the government agree with that morality. I am just saying that you should be tolerant of the parents' view in this circumstance. It is obvious that the idea of 'tolerance' is not universal on your side from the comment you made about society hating bigots.

I didn't say that I wouldn't tolerate their view. I stated a fact. Watch how a KKK or Nazi party member is treated by anyone that doesn't agree with their views. It is a simple fact that people who practice intolerance and bigotry are looked down upon by the majority of society. I fully respect their right to hold whatever views they choose and I fully reserve my right to disagree. I respect the right of a parent to teach their child that a gay man is evil and I respect the right of a gay parent to try and have their children grow up in an atmosphere where they don't always feel looked-down upon.
The fact that I know bigotry is looked down upon does not suggest in any way that I am intolerant.
I recognize that these parents want to keep their children sheltered from certain aspects of society, but I have pointed out the fact that unless they lock the kid in a box, it's not going to happen. A parent who is open with their child when a question comes up is going to have a much healthier, well-adjusted child in future years than one who lets them hear it all in the schoolyard.

Animal homosexuality can be chalked up to a lack of females and symbolization of dominance between males, much like human males in prison.

actually, animals do this in the wild, regardless of how many members of the opposite sex there are. i remember reading about one species of monkey that had a tendancy towards having more homosexual females, and even with an overabundance of males, there would be the same percentage of homosexual females. they would even fight males off their partner if necessary.
Again, dominance. Not between males, as I mistakenly said, but among the general members of the species.

so it's dominance when two female monkeys lie on a tree branch for a lazy afternoon of relaxed cuddling and fondling?
they don't fight males for no reason. they'll fight males who try to hit on their girl, so to speak. it's not dominance, it's attachment to a particular individual monkey who they will defend from all others. same way a human male will lash out at another male who is encroaching on his girl. it's not dominance, it's jelousy and protection.

many displays of homosexual behaviour amond animals have traditionally been written off as dominance. but how does that explain the elaborate mating dance of male ostriches? they put on no such dance for females. how does that explain how some animals will couple up and adopt (or well, steal) offspring from other couples (i.e. penguins, swans) or in some cases, have a fling with another, but then return to the mate to raise the offspring?
that's not dominance, the first example is an elaborate courtship only present in homosexual mating. the second exmaple is more like family building.

and let's not forget the bonobos.

Animal homosexuality can be chalked up to a lack of females and symbolization of dominance between males, much like human males in prison.

Really? How do you explain lesbian animals then? Or animals who pair bond with only members of the same sex, even when there are many different genders around? Or transgendered sheep that are male but still travel with and act just like the females? Or animal bisexuality in which the animal will have sex with a male one day and female the next? Or the fact that some birds in male pair bonds will go find a female to mate with so that he can raise the eggs with his male partner? Or the fact that Bottlenose dolphins have *never* been observed to form lifetime heterosexual bonds but male-male lifetime bonds are fairly common.

Oops, guess your argument is completely false.


The difference between Cinderella and these homosexual focused stories?

Cinderella is a time-honored traditional story. Stories like it have been told around the world for as long as there have been stories told to children.

They were not telling children about "Daddy's Rommate" 2000 years ago.

They weren't telling stories like "The Little Engine That Could" 2000 years ago either. Why? Trains weren't exactly a big part of society then. I don't see you complaining because your child hasn't seen a train yet, so this story shouldn't be in the school library.

Of course Cinderella has actually only been around a few hundred years too, because romance stories of its like weren't very common 2000 years ago.

I bet 2000 years ago, nobody ever told a story like "Are you there God, it's me Margaret." And although many of you are opposed to this book too, I believe that it is one of the best books to buy a girl who is coming near the age of puberty.

Children's stories are there to help children learn what they need to know or want to know about society and to give them something fun to do. If you don't want your kid to read a story about a gay prince, tell them not to.

Children's stories are there to help children learn what they need to know or want to know about society and to give them something fun to do.

Yes, but are you sure you want the authors to do the teaching? Personally, I'd rather teach my child about what I know is right, but what others believe.

Children's stories are there to help children learn what they need to know or want to know about society and to give them something fun to do.

Yes, but are you sure you want the authors to do the teaching? Personally, I'd rather teach my child about what I know is right, but what others believe.

the book wasn't teaching the kids that being gay is right. just that there are gay people.

I have bonds with males that I expect to last the rest of my life, does that make me a homosexual? I think not.

Bonobos have sex constantly, with just about everything that moves. You're going to use something with a sexual drive stronger than any other animal as an example? They'd probably mount a Buick.

Guess what? Different species act differently. Male Penguins spend months together keeping their eggs warm as the females go to feed after using up their energy laying the eggs. Does this make them homosexual?

Pairs form for mutual benefit in the animal kingdom, for survival, for dominance, for general purposes. There is none of the active homosexuality as we see in humans.

Bonobos have sex constantly, with just about everything that moves. You're going to use something with a sexual drive stronger than any other animal as an example? They'd probably mount a Buick.

bonobos only have sex with other bonobos. sure they don't care about gender or age of the bonbo they have sex with, and they do it often. but they have one of the most peaceful primate societies...

Guess what? Different species act differently. Male Penguins spend months together keeping their eggs warm as the females go to feed after using up their energy laying the eggs. Does this make them homosexual?

no, but taking an egg from another penguin to keep it and then raise it with their male penguin partner whom they mate with is.

Pairs form for mutual benefit in the animal kingdom, for survival, for dominance, for general purposes. There is none of the active homosexuality as we see in humans.

wait, how do homosexual humans not form pairs for survival? consider having someone who loves you enough to look after you when you're sick, help you out when you need it, destress you, cook food for you when you're not up to it, look after your health, tell you whether something suits you or not. this is what couples, both heterosexual and homosexual do for each other. in the world we live in, it is much easier to survive if you've got someone there to help you along the way.
also, some homosexual couples adopt children, or hire surrogates or find sperm donors. having a stable basis for a family is probably a better way to raise offspring than a person can do on their own. (i know single people can and do raise children, but couples do so easier in general) thus they can pass on their genes (thus allowing then to survive to the next generation) or even just help pass on the genes of another couple by looking after another human life.
as i mentioned earlier, the homosexual pairing in animals is not meerly dominance. why would they remain coupled?

I have bonds with males that I expect to last the rest of my life, does that make me a homosexual? I think not.

I don't know, do you have sex with them? Because if you don't, the comparison doesn't really fit and if you do, you are probably homosexual or bisexual.

Bonobos have sex constantly, with just about everything that moves. You're going to use something with a sexual drive stronger than any other animal as an example? They'd probably mount a Buick.

Ok, so your argument isn't "all homosexuality in animals is explained away" anymore? Now, it's "these animals are horny bastards so they don't count"? Bonobos are actually one of the closest (if not the closest) animals to humans, so I think that a comparison can be made. Besides, I've known humans that would have sex with just about anything that moves if it was socially acceptable.

Guess what? Different species act differently. Male Penguins spend months together keeping their eggs warm as the females go to feed after using up their energy laying the eggs. Does this make them homosexual?

If they have sex and refuse to let the females near the eggs it does. Although, this doesn't happen in penguins to my knowledge. It does happen in pelicans though, if I remember correctly. Look at birds that normally have male-female bonds raising the eggs. There are instances in many, many species of a small subset of animals that pair-bond (and frequently mount) with animals of the same sex and, other than as a way to get eggs which they then do not allow the opposite-gendered parent to attend, force members of other genders away.

Pairs form for mutual benefit in the animal kingdom, for survival, for dominance, for general purposes. There is none of the active homosexuality as we see in humans.

You really need to read up on this if you're going to argue it. There is quite a bit of "active homosexuality". If all animals of a particular species form pair bonds with same-sex partners, that is one thing. But when a small subset does so, while the rest of the species acts differently, I would classify that as "active homosexuality." And when an animal preferentially has sex with same-sex partners and refuses members of the opposite gender, I would call it that too.

How do you explain transgendered sheep away with survival, dominance, etc? For most of the year, males and females have separate herds. Males mount each other all the time, and if they come into contact with females at the wrong time, the females refuse any advances. When breeding season comes, the males meet up with the females and the females allow themselves to be mounted. Occasionally, there are males who travel with the female herd and act exactly like the females. When the females are "in heat," the transgendered animals also allow themselves to be mounted. Otherwise, they refuse advances by other males. Explain to me what purpose this serves, other than that animal has some sort of natural disposition that makes it act like a female instead of a male?

I have bonds with males that I expect to last the rest of my life, does that make me a homosexual? I think not.

Bonobos have sex constantly, with just about everything that moves. You're going to use something with a sexual drive stronger than any other animal as an example? They'd probably mount a Buick.

Guess what? Different species act differently. Male Penguins spend months together keeping their eggs warm as the females go to feed after using up their energy laying the eggs. Does this make them homosexual?

Pairs form for mutual benefit in the animal kingdom, for survival, for dominance, for general purposes. There is none of the active homosexuality as we see in humans.

#1 Any particular reason why you keep singling out male homosexuality?

#2 What they said. (bla bla too tired, forum keeps eating my posts)

#3 You would be well-advised to read Desmond Morris' The Human Zoo. The most relevant point here would be that you should be comparing animals in captivity (not in the wild) to humans, on the premises that humans are currently functioning in an environment we are not biologically adapted to.

Animal homosexuality can be chalked up to a lack of females and symbolization of dominance between males, much like human males in prison.

actually, animals do this in the wild, regardless of how many members of the opposite sex there are. i remember reading about one species of monkey that had a tendancy towards having more homosexual females, and even with an overabundance of males, there would be the same percentage of homosexual females. they would even fight males off their partner if necessary.
Again, dominance. Not between males, as I mistakenly said, but among the general members of the species.

actually, if you had read my post earlier in the thread you would know that you are incorrect. in many species there are homosexual bonds which appear to have no bearing on dominance behavior. in fact, there are many species like bottlenose dolphins in which all individuals (of one gender or both...in this case just males), regardless of dominance standing, tend to seek out a same-sex partner...the only reason some do not have one is because they were unable to find one.

but nice try. i know it's hard to argue a point when you have read any of the research or equipped yourself with facts. you're trying your best, i know.

Bonobos have sex constantly, with just about everything that moves. You're going to use something with a sexual drive stronger than any other animal as an example? They'd probably mount a Buick.


actually, Bonobos are no more likely to show sexual disorientation (mating with other species or with innanimate objects) than other species, and less so than most in fact because they have such active sexual experiences within their groups.

and shouldn't a species that has lots of sex be a key example? i mean, do you want us to try to find a species that only mates once every 10 years or something? because then there would be far less data to work with. not to mention that the Bonobos should be our ideal social system...one in which no offspring is ever orphaned because of the complex family systems and close multiple mate bonds, one in which a male who attempts to harm young or a female is expelled from the troup, one in which homosexuality is (rightly) accepted as just as natural as heterosexuality, and one in which sex is used to solve problems instead of violence. i think that sounds a lot better than human society in many ways :).

maybe i'll pull a Jane Goodall and go live with them chimps...

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

*looks at the first post and the subsequent ones*

*looks at more recent posts*

Uhm... What does the sex life of an animal and whether or not they have some tendancy towards homosexuality have to do with a kid bringing home a book that has two gay characters have to do with each other? Besides of course, serving in the debate about whether or not this is natural or chosen.

*looks at the first post and the subsequent ones*

*looks at more recent posts*

Uhm... What does the sex life of an animal and whether or not they have some tendancy towards homosexuality have to do with a kid bringing home a book that has two gay characters have to do with each other? Besides of course, serving in the debate about whether or not this is natural or chosen.

it has to do with disproving the notion that homosexuality is "unnatural." given that homosexuality is found throughout nature, and thus has been selected as a positive survival trait, it is not reasonable to say that homosexuality is unnatural. one may say that homosexuality is unusual, or even abnormal, but so is high IQ, perfect pitch, and left handedness. :)

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

Christianity is disgusting!

It should be punishable by death!

see how strong this argument is? here's a news flash: you do not have a Constitutional right to not be grossed out. your right to not be bothered by other people is not protected by the government. deal.

it has to do with disproving the notion that homosexuality is "unnatural." given that homosexuality is found throughout nature, and thus has been selected as a positive survival trait, it is not reasonable to say that homosexuality is unnatural. one may say that homosexuality is unusual, or even abnormal, but so is high IQ, perfect pitch, and left handedness. :)

Left handediness isn't... (both my parents were left-handed) ;))

But, yes, I do see your point. I had merely be wondering why the topic had become about animals *snicker* ;)

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

Christianity is disgusting!

It should be punishable by death!

see how strong this argument is? here's a news flash: you do not have a Constitutional right to not be grossed out. your right to not be bothered by other people is not protected by the government. deal.

Testify! w00t! Tell it like it is.

*ahem* but, true enough, you do raise a good point about the weakness of some of the arguments here.

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

Christianity is disgusting!

It should be punishable by death!

see how strong this argument is? here's a news flash: you do not have a Constitutional right to not be grossed out. your right to not be bothered by other people is not protected by the government. deal.

Testify! w00t! Tell it like it is.

*ahem* but, true enough, you do raise a good point about the weakness of some of the arguments here.

Actually I do have the constitutional right to not be grossed out.
The Icelandic constitution clearly states that acts that disgust the public are not to be tolerated!

it has to do with disproving the notion that homosexuality is "unnatural." given that homosexuality is found throughout nature, and thus has been selected as a positive survival trait, it is not reasonable to say that homosexuality is unnatural. one may say that homosexuality is unusual, or even abnormal, but so is high IQ, perfect pitch, and left handedness. :)

Left handediness isn't... (both my parents were left-handed) ;))

But, yes, I do see your point. I had merely be wondering why the topic had become about animals *snicker* ;)

of course, we could all have skipped the animal stuff in general with the simple point that Christianity is unnatural too, so obviously we must forbid our children from learning about it. oh, and cars are unnatural. and so is the city of New York. and so is clothing. and writing. and math. and singing.

so we need to bad all books that mention these things to children, because otherwise we are clearly teaching them to engage in unnatural acts. if they read about the unnatural city of New York they will clearly become a major metropolitan area themselves, just as they will turn into the unnatural subject of mathematics if they read about it. and we should make sure children are never taught that there are multiple religions in the world, since they will all clearly convert to whichever one is presented at the time.

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

Christianity is disgusting!

It should be punishable by death!

see how strong this argument is? here's a news flash: you do not have a Constitutional right to not be grossed out. your right to not be bothered by other people is not protected by the government. deal.

The Icelandi constitution states:

"Vandamálið með kjúklinga er oftast það að fólk notar sama bretti til að skera grænmeti og kjúkling. Þetta getur valdið Salmnellu, sem endar með því að typpið dettur af þér. "

Loosely translated as:
"The people shall not be disgusted by obscene behavior. Obscene behavior being for example, but not limited to, bestiality, hand-holding, sex, homosexuality and openly gay people"

Then why does the Liberal Left have the right to demand that certain things be censored in public schools? And my parent(no s) was responsible enough to discuss sex with me in an appropriate environment. I wasn't taken with the rest of the boys and shown any film in fifth grade.

Such as?

I find this comparable to the issue in Alabama with the ten commandments. I also find it comparable with Aryan Nations and KKK flyers / Propaganda booklets. You see niether of those in public school libraries.

that's like saying that if we teach kids about geography we are teaching them to hate their home nation. nobody is trying to teach VALUES about sexuality, just that it exists and is something to think about. telling kids that India exists isn't the same as telling them that India is better and we should all hate our own country, just like telling them that homosexuality exists isn't anything like telling them it's better than heterosexuality and they all should give it a go.

KKK booklets tell that there is only one option, to like a certain thing and hate all alternatives. frankly, that view seems much more comperable to your own than it does to the "liberal" position of teaching the realities of sexuality. i would rather see all children learn what the world is like and then rely on their parents for the values with which to approach that world, instead of just trying to keep kids as ignorant as possible about some of the most important issues at hand.

If tolerance is such a virtue for you, then why cannot you 'tolerate' people who would rather decide for themselves when their pre-adolescent children should be exposed to your version of sexuality?

One, that is not tolerance, that's bending over backwards for fascism.



So, according to you, fascism is when a parent makes their own decisions about childrearing?

You have just crossed the line of credibility. Your opionion is no longer of consequence.

That's okay, there are about 3 pages worth of arguments that you have yet to address in this thread (seeing as you've conveniently disappeared twice from this thread), so you should have no shortage things to reply to. I'm sure you just must have forgotten, because it couldn't be that you are ignoring that which you cannot refute. :wink:

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

Christianity is disgusting!

It should be punishable by death!

see how strong this argument is? here's a news flash: you do not have a Constitutional right to not be grossed out. your right to not be bothered by other people is not protected by the government. deal.

The Icelandi constitution states:

"Vandamálið með kjúklinga er oftast það að fólk notar sama bretti til að skera grænmeti og kjúkling. Þetta getur valdið Salmnellu, sem endar með því að typpið dettur af þér. "

Loosely translated as:
"The people shall not be disgusted by obscene behavior. Obscene behavior being for example, but not limited to, bestiality, hand-holding, sex, homosexuality and openly gay people"

whoa. that's interesting :). i wouldn't say people should be forbidden to be disgusted, but i certainly think they should be forbidden to use their personal disgust as any sort of valuable argument.

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

Christianity is disgusting!

It should be punishable by death!

see how strong this argument is? here's a news flash: you do not have a Constitutional right to not be grossed out. your right to not be bothered by other people is not protected by the government. deal.

The Icelandi constitution states:

"Vandamálið með kjúklinga er oftast það að fólk notar sama bretti til að skera grænmeti og kjúkling. Þetta getur valdið Salmnellu, sem endar með því að typpið dettur af þér. "

Loosely translated as:
"The people shall not be disgusted by obscene behavior. Obscene behavior being for example, but not limited to, bestiality, hand-holding, sex, homosexuality and openly gay people"

whoa. that's interesting :). i wouldn't say people should be forbidden to be disgusted, but i certainly think they should be forbidden to use their personal disgust as any sort of valuable argument.

:wink: :wink: :wink:
psssst: find an online translator...

If tolerance is such a virtue for you, then why cannot you 'tolerate' people who would rather decide for themselves when their pre-adolescent children should be exposed to your version of sexuality?

One, that is not tolerance, that's bending over backwards for fascism.



So, according to you, fascism is when a parent makes their own decisions about childrearing?

You have just crossed the line of credibility. Your opionion is no longer of consequence.

That's okay, there are about 3 pages worth of arguments that you have yet to address in this thread (seeing as you've conveniently disappeared twice from this thread), so you should have no shortage things to reply to. I'm sure you just must have forgotten, because it couldn't be that you are ignoring that which you cannot refute. :wink:

like most of the inept debaters around here, i am sure that Bozzy is far too busy to read the parts of the thread he missed. after all, he will argue, HE has a "real life," and doesn't live on Nationstates like the rest of us clearly do.

because you know it takes a really long time for these people to read. i mean, we should go easier on them considering that they're still in the 4th grade and all.

(sorry for the venom, i'm just in a snarky mood today :))

Homosexuality is absolutely disgusting!

It should be punishable by death

Christianity is disgusting!

It should be punishable by death!

see how strong this argument is? here's a news flash: you do not have a Constitutional right to not be grossed out. your right to not be bothered by other people is not protected by the government. deal.

The Icelandi constitution states:

"Vandamálið með kjúklinga er oftast það að fólk notar sama bretti til að skera grænmeti og kjúkling. Þetta getur valdið Salmnellu, sem endar með því að typpið dettur af þér. "

Loosely translated as:
"The people shall not be disgusted by obscene behavior. Obscene behavior being for example, but not limited to, bestiality, hand-holding, sex, homosexuality and openly gay people"

whoa. that's interesting :). i wouldn't say people should be forbidden to be disgusted, but i certainly think they should be forbidden to use their personal disgust as any sort of valuable argument.

:wink: :wink: :wink:
psssst: find an online translator...

hmm, i appear to have one the "total sucker" crown for the day. all hail Queen Sucker!!! :P