NationStates Jolt Archive

Books with gay characters have been given to pupils as young as five to read in class. And older pupils in sixth class at the same Dublin school have received detailed lessons on gay rights.

Griffith Barracks Multi-denominational School has become one of the first in Ireland to give children gay literature such as 'The Sissy Duckling' and 'King and King'

The move is likely to spark a debate on teaching about homosexuality, especially as the Department of Education said last night that sexual orientation is not on the primary school curriculum.

The multi-religious school itself says it has received positive reaction from the pupils about the classes.

The two teachers involved in the programme say addressing homosexuality in the classroom is a challenge to human rights education. But it makes teachers uncomfortable.

"It may put us into conflict with our own prejudices and the belief systems of our patrons but also it may force us to deal with the messier subject of sexual attraction, and to acknowledge the burgeoning sexuality of children," say Fintan Walsh and Fionnuala Ward.

They describe the initiative in their school which started last October in the current issue of the INTO journal 'Intouch'. They say they wanted to correct the obvious bias in the curriculum, and to challenge the use of homophobic language -- such as the pejorative 'gay', bandied about by children throughout the country -- as they would if any other marginal group were implicated.

Mr Walsh and Ms Ward say: "We found that while children clearly understood that the word 'gay' referred to same-sex orientation, they also assumed they could go unchecked for using the term, not least of all because adults appeared reluctant to discuss the matter in depth, for fear of broaching more awkward issues."

The topic was introduced by examining the life and work of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected city official in the USA who was shot and killed shortly after taking office.

In response to the children's interest, the class continued to explore the history of gay rights in the Ireland.

The work was supported by complementary analyses of human rights and gender discrimination.

"To consolidate this scheme of work, the school invited Senator David Norris to speak to the children. His brief was to talk about his role in the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Ireland, and his involvement in other human rights campaigns.

"Although Senator Norris had never spoken to primary school students on this matter before, he engaged the class immediately," Mr Walsh and Ms Ward say.

"The scheme of work for Sixth Class, which culminated in Norris' visit, marked a significant step in the school's commitment to human rights education.

"Teachers from other classes reported positive feedback from the children on the story books that addressed gay issues.

"Some challenging discussions took place from Second to Fourth class on various characters' motivation, plausibility and likeability.

"For the younger classes (Infants to First), the sexual orientation of the main characters failed to be of relevance.

"We remain aware that a single module exploring homosexuality in Sixth Class, and a handful of story books scattered throughout the junior classes will not rectify the imbalance in addressing issues surrounding homosexuality and gay rights in the primary school, but it is a necessary first step towards fulfiling our obligation as educators" they add.

However, the Catholic Church, which runs more than 90pc of the country's primary schools, won't be following the initiative taken by Griffith Barracks multi-denominational school.

Brendan O'Reilly, Director of the Bishop's National Cathetical Office said homosexuality was not dealt with at primary level in Catholic schools.

Sexuality was dealt with in the context of right relationships with oneself, between a man and a woman in the context of marriage and in relationship with the Kingdom of God.

He did not think the Catholic Church would look favourably on the use of the books with gay characters in Catholic primary schools.

The Department of Education and Science said that "sexual orientation and safe sex are not featured as part of the curriculum in primary schools, but the generic skills and values for respecting difference and relating to others are fostered".

At second level there is emphasis is on recognising the ways different sexual orientations can be discriminated against, discussion of attitudes to sexual orientation, and understanding the need to value and respect difference, it said.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/a-gay-lesson-for-kids-1406223.html
Huzzah for Ireland! Now if we can just get some more schools that aren't run by the Catholic Church we'll really be making progress.

Look, Dumbledore isn't gay okay, it's a frickin' publicity stunt.

When I was at school we didn’t have any gay children books, why? Because they didn’t exist back then, and they shouldn’t. Neither should children that be covering such things as civil rights, no wonder people say kids are getting older quicker. Such issues should be left until later on in school life, keep with the basics at that young age.

When I was at school we didn’t have any gay children books, why? Because they didn’t exist back then, and they shouldn’t. Neither should children that be covering such things as civil rights, no wonder people say kids are getting older quicker. Such issues should be left until later on
in school life, keep with the basics at that young age.


I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

Look, Dumbledore isn't gay okay, it's a frickin' publicity stunt.
That was a rather sickly piece of PR on Rowling's behalf.

"I'm sooooo down on gay rights that after I've made loads of money by offending nobody, I can re-cast my character so that I appeal to a certain section of the public even more. Buy my books you dirty muggles!!!!!"

Christ almight, I thought Faith Schools in the UK were bad.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.

It's not really about human sexuality, it's just introducing the idea that there are gay people and it's not ok to be assholes to them. Well, I don't think there's much use of the word asshole, but you get the picture.

Yeah, we're pretty bad, though we never get any press for it. Our constitution actually references the Catholic Church, and prohibits abortion.

Kids aren't stupid. They're going to ask what "gay" means.

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.
It's not really about human sexuality, it's just introducing the idea that there are gay people and it's not ok to be assholes to them. Well, I don't think there's much use of the word asshole, but you get the picture.
Christ almight, I thought Faith Schools in the UK were bad.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.

Yeah, we're pretty bad, though we never get any press for it. Our constitution actually references the Catholic Church, and prohibits abortion.

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

I hear this a lot, and it really doesn't make sense.

Should we therefore throw out all the fairy tales in which the girl ends up with a handsome prince? Get rid of every story in which children have a mommy and a daddy? Those teach about heterosexuality to the same extent as a story with a gay character teaches about homosexuality.

It's one thing to say that we shouldn't be introducing very young children to sex, but to pretend that children aren't deluged from the moment they pop out of the womb with stories of love, romance, and marriage is simply silly - so why shouldn't some of those stories include partners of the same gender?

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

At age 5 a kid has already been masturbating for 4 years, they already ask questions about kissing, where babies come from and how they get in there, they already know there is a difference between boys and girls and that couples might be "doing it", although they have varied ideas about what "it" actually entails. Not answering questions is irresponsible and harmful. If a child is confronted with two same sex adults who are obviously a couple, questions abound. Reading a book about Jane and her two mommies won't kill a kid and it might make the conversation easier when it comes up.

When I was in kindergarten the big scandal was reading books where mom and dad were separated.

Kids aren't stupid. They're going to ask what "gay" means.

Kids aren't stupid, most of them know already. And I don't think that "There are some men who love other men and some women who love other women" really counts as human sexuality.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.

This is news to you? :confused:

I hear this a lot, and it really doesn't make sense.

Should we therefore throw out all the fairy tales in which the girl ends up with a handsome prince? Get rid of every story in which children have a mommy and a daddy? Those teach about heterosexuality to the same extent as a story with a gay character teaches about homosexuality.

It's one thing to say that we shouldn't be introducing very young children to sex, but to pretend that children aren't deluged from the moment they pop out of the womb with stories of love, romance, and marriage is simply silly - so why shouldn't some of those stories include partners of the same gender?

When one is introduced to a story of a prince and a princess, is there really conotations of sex at all? Does sex even come up? I don't even recall it crossing my mind. Why? Because the male-female relationship is a very common and normal thing for children to see. They don't question it, or give it second thought. So what happens when you introduce a new aspect? They start to ask questions. Inevitably it leads to a talk about sexuality.

I am all for equality of people. But is it really necessary to introduce something not of the norm to our children, at that age, and confuse them? I really didn't know what gay was until I found out that my grandmother was, when I was 9. I have no problems with gays. I'm not bashing anyone or calling people fags. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people are already tolerant towards gays. Just because TV explodes the matter of intolerance of a small group of people, doesn't mean the rest of us are already homo haters. But what is going to happen with things like this, is that there will be some people that were tolerant, into people who are a little less tolerant. It doesn't help, only polarizes, as far as adults are concerned.

Kids aren't stupid. They're going to ask what "gay" means.
And this is bad because...?

When one is introduced to a story of a prince and a princess, is there really conotations of sex at all? Does sex even come up? I don't even recall it crossing my mind. Why? Because the male-female relationship is a very common and normal thing for children to see. They don't question it, or give it second thought. So what happens when you introduce a new aspect? They start to ask questions. Inevitably it leads to a talk about sexuality.
Snip

Thats a good thing not a bad one ... them coming forward with honest questions is absolutly 100 percent a positive thing

And this is bad because...?

Yeah no kidding ... asking for information is never EVER a bad thing on the part of a child.

I don't see why not especially since I never paid attention to the stories anyway

When I was in kindergarten the big scandal was reading books where mom and dad were separated.

its a good thing we have Lindsay Lohan to set kids right these days

And this is bad because...?

I'm not saying it's bad.

I'm saying you'll have to provide an explanation.

Kids ask questions. You need to have an answer.

I'm a parent, and I already have my own answers. One would suppose the education system will have agreed on an answer.

It seems to me it's a good idea that children grow up aware that love between men and love between women is as normal as love between an man and woman. No sex has to be involved in fostering that awareness. And as a matter fact gay characters in children's books do not hump each other every other page; anymore than they do in real life.

Yeah, we're pretty bad, though we never get any press for it. Our constitution actually references the Catholic Church, and prohibits abortion.

This is news to you? :confused:
I knew abortion is unconstitutional in the Republic (and illegal in NI) but I didn't know they were that bad. Guess I haven't really thought about it that much.

When one is introduced to a story of a prince and a princess, is there really conotations of sex at all? Does sex even come up? I don't even recall it crossing my mind. Why? Because the male-female relationship is a very common and normal thing for children to see.

and man on man relationships are not? do you see something wrong with this picture your painting?

I really didn't know what gay was until I found out that my grandmother was, when I was 9.

didn't you have a TV?

as a matter fact gay characters in children's books do not hump each other every other page; anymore than they do in real life.

so the stories are just going to be endless going to bars and having sex with anything that moves?

When one is introduced to a story of a prince and a princess, is there really conotations of sex at all? Does sex even come up?

No, and I don't see why it would come up in a story about two princes or two princesses, either.

I don't even recall it crossing my mind. Why? Because the male-female relationship is a very common and normal thing for children to see. They don't question it, or give it second thought. So what happens when you introduce a new aspect? They start to ask questions. Inevitably it leads to a talk about sexuality.

I don't see that as being at all inevitable with children as young as we're talking about (heck, when I was five, the sum total of my knowledge on the subject was something like "Boys have gross-looking parts I don't have. That's weird. Oh, well." I quite definitely neither knew nor cared what the boys did with their gross-looking parts.) - but even if it were, why is it a bad thing to answer children's questions? How would it harm children who are apparently already aware of the existence of sex to know that two boys can do that, too?

I am all for equality of people. But is it really necessary to introduce something not of the norm to our children, at that age, and confuse them?

I really think people don't give children enough credit. We put our own preconceptions onto them, and forget that a child simply has no reason to believe there's anything unusual or icky or confusing about boys kissing boys until we tell them so. There are much, much trickier concepts out there that young children are regularly introduced to - death springs to mind as an obvious choice, but even things like money (People will give you stuff if you hand them crinkly old pieces of paper? Weird!), or jobs, or new baby siblings are all a lot more complex and confusing than the idea that whom you're allowed to kiss doesn't depend on what's in your pants.

I really didn't know what gay was until I found out that my grandmother was, when I was 9. I have no problems with gays. I'm not bashing anyone or calling people fags. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people are already tolerant towards gays. Just because TV explodes the matter of intolerance of a small group of people, doesn't mean the rest of us are already homo haters. But what is going to happen with things like this, is that there will be some people that were tolerant, into people who are a little less tolerant. It doesn't help, only polarizes, as far as adults are concerned.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone opposed to this is a "homo hater" - I'm suggesting that their own associations and experience are coloring their opinions and making them forget that children think differently than they do.

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

Agreed. When they're older however...

Y'know, like 10 or 11.

so the stories are just going to be endless going to bars and having sex with anything that moves?Yes, and then they get AIDS and die, and then god kicks them to hell and laughs. And everyone else but them lives happily ever after.

Or maybe something that doesn't totally deny the realities of homosexuality and isn't based on the excesses of a few.

When one is introduced to a story of a prince and a princess, is there really conotations of sex at all? Does sex even come up? I don't even recall it crossing my mind. Why? Because the male-female relationship is a very common and normal thing for children to see. They don't question it, or give it second thought. So what happens when you introduce a new aspect? They start to ask questions. Inevitably it leads to a talk about sexuality.
So do a million other things. If you can manage to raise a child that doesn't ask about sex then you have achieved what parents since the beginning of human history could not.

I am all for equality of people. But is it really necessary to introduce something not of the norm to our children, at that age, and confuse them?
Yes. They'll have to learn eventually. Better now and from responsible adults than later from their ill-informed friends. First time I heard the word gay(I think) was it being used as an insult. I really didn't know what gay was until I found out that my grandmother was, when I was 9. I have no problems with gays. I'm not bashing anyone or calling people fags. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people are already tolerant towards gays. Just because TV explodes the matter of intolerance of a small group of people, doesn't mean the rest of us are already homo haters.
Good :)
But what is going to happen with things like this, is that there will be some people that were tolerant, into people who are a little less tolerant. It doesn't help, only polarizes, as far as adults are concerned.
Same thing with trying to teach children that there's noting wrong with being black, or your parents being divorced.
Thats a good thing not a bad one ... them coming forward with honest questions is absolutly 100 percent a positive thing
Indeed. Questions lead to answers. Answers leads to learning. Such is the path to the smart side.

Making a point of interjecting homosexual tolerant literature into a curriculum for it's own sake lacks the semblance of good sense.

Making a point of interjecting homosexual tolerant literature into a curriculum for it's own sake lacks the semblance of good sense.

About as much sense as putting guns in a story solely to hammer home the Founding Fathers' ideas about the Second Amendment. I'm sure some people would object mightily.

If the stories just happen to have gays in them, it's fine. I don't think we should try to convince kids that somehow, gay people don't exist.

Yes, and then they get AIDS and die, and then god kicks them to hell and laughs. And everyone else but them lives happily ever after.

thats the spirit!

Or maybe something that doesn't totally deny the realities of homosexuality and isn't based on the excesses of a few.

yeah and only a few Englishmen drink tea excessively :p

I don't see anything wrong with having a few homosexual or even bisexual stories in children's story books for any age, especially if the stories have some other literary value. The children usually accept things at face value when they see them at first, and later start to ask questions and ask for explanations. But just like they accept that it is OK for a princess to get married to a prince, they will also accept that it is perfectly fine for a princess to marry another princess, or for a prince to marry another prince. If they are accustomed to seeing the traditional heterosexual pairs in stories, they will ask why is it different, but the simple answer that would satisfy them would be that they just like it that way, just like the kid might like chocolate more than strawberry. Younger kids will not find anything sexual about it, they will just take it as is and go with it, especially if the story is interesting and engaging.

One more very important point on this, because it hasn't been mentioned yet - people talk about the idea of homosexuality confusing children, but I suspect it's a great deal more confusing to be a little girl who kinda wants to hold hands with and kiss the little girl who sits next to her on the bus, but is constantly barraged with information telling her that girls don't want to do that, they want to kiss boys, and who hears kids calling each other "gay" and knows only that it's a bad thing you don't want to be. I think that child will be a lot more confused, and a lot more unhappy because of it, than any child might be at the notion that people are different.

None of our school literature is homophonic, is simply doesn’t mention gays. And why should it? This will have no benefit what so ever. The young children simply wont understand and will almost find it normal seeing as young children seem to despise the opposite sex. Once the children are older they will simply take hold of age-old prejudices which will perhaps never go away, those who think people aren’t prejudiced anymore haven’t been in a high or middle school for a while.

When I was at school we didn’t have any gay children books, why? Because they didn’t exist back then,

When were gays invented then...?

>.< Egh...yes, I do think it's kind of inevitable that children will learn about same-sex relationships, but I think it's better to involve characters who happen to be gay to explain the lifestyle, rather than having the moral of the story 'homosexuality is GREAT--go try it!'. Basically, this is upsetting to me because while I don't condone bashing gays in any fashion, I don't accept it as a legitimate lifestyle. I do think that it's important to promote understanding among children, because people will be gay whether I want them to or not, but still...I dunno.

In short, I suppose, it is important that these children are informed, and classes/books are a fine way to do it.

>.< Egh...yes, I do think it's kind of inevitable that children will learn about same-sex relationships, but I think it's better to involve characters who happen to be gay to explain the lifestyle, rather than having the moral of the story 'homosexuality is GREAT--go try it!'. Basically, this is upsetting to me because while I don't condone bashing gays in any fashion, I don't accept it as a legitimate lifestyle. I do think that it's important to promote understanding among children, because people will be gay whether I want them to or not, but still...I dunno.

In short, I suppose, it is important that these children are informed, and classes/books are a fine way to do it.

I don't think the books are encouraging kids to try being gay. Though I haven't read them.

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

They HAVE a sexuality. If you've ever been around kids that age, you'll know how developed their sexuality is and how they want to express it.
What's the point of keeping them deliberately ignorant?

They HAVE a sexuality. If you've ever been around kids that age, you'll know how developed their sexuality is and how they want to express it.
What's the point of keeping them deliberately ignorant?
Time for an anecdote. Believe or reject at your leasure, everybody.

My mum works as an teaching assistant for kids with special needs in an infant's school (where kids areat the age of around five) and claims to be able to tell a kid's sexuality at that age, and even kids that are going to have a sex change when they are older (and have had parents claim to know as well.) Obviously, not working around kids of that age, I don't know whether it's true or not, but it sunds plausable.

Christ almight, I thought Faith Schools in the UK were bad.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.

I thought Poland was the Poland of Europe.

"I'm sooooo down on gay rights that after I've made loads of money by offending nobody, I can re-cast my character so that I appeal to a certain section of the public even more. Buy my books you dirty muggles!!!!!"

Because, of course, Dumbledore couldn't actually have been gay... all characters in fantasy are automatically straight.

I think a lot of the angry reaction to this revelation was rooted in people annoyed at having their assumptions overthrown. The evidence is there.

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

Indeed. That's why we take babies from their parents and raise them collectively, lest they be exposed to heterosexuality at too early an age.

When one is introduced to a story of a prince and a princess, is there really conotations of sex at all? Does sex even come up? I don't even recall it crossing my mind. Why? Because the male-female relationship is a very common and normal thing for children to see. They don't question it, or give it second thought. So what happens when you introduce a new aspect? They start to ask questions.

Justifying heteronormativity with heteronormativity! How convenient.

Of course, you might want to be careful--these days some children have two fathers or two mothers. (Maybe we should segregate them... the poor other children might get ideas.)

Inevitably it leads to a talk about sexuality.

No, it doesn't. No more than seeing heterosexual couples leads to "a talk about sexuality."

"Some people fall in love with people of the same sex. Some people fall in love with people of the opposite sex." This is objectionable how?

I am all for equality of people. But is it really necessary to introduce something not of the norm to our children, at that age, and confuse them?

Children at that age are always experiencing new things, and often are confused... that's how learning happens.

I really didn't know what gay was until I found out that my grandmother was, when I was 9.

Is this supposed to be a good thing?

Believe it or not, the vast majority of people are already tolerant towards gays.

What planet are you living on? Seriously.

Making a point of interjecting homosexual tolerant literature into a curriculum for it's own sake lacks the semblance of good sense.

Fostering acceptance of diversity at an early age is an intrinsic good.

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

QFT. Why when I was a boy, we read books on the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly.

And if you don't like the way an organisation runs its school, don't send your kids there.

And if you don't like the way an organisation runs its school, don't send your kids there.
:eek: But that would mean having to something other then whine and complain about it!

QFT. Why when I was a boy, we read books on the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly.
I read one of those to my class when I was teaching 3 year olds. First question "where do caterpillars come from?" and I explained what? The reproduction process. Butterfly sexuality is okay though right?

And if you don't like the way an organisation runs its school, don't send your kids there.
Pretty much. Do it your way and leave everyone else alone.

At age 5 a kid has already been masturbating for 4 years

Umm what? Or is my son just slow?

As for the rest of it yes that is quite true.

But why does a story for small children have to have any sexuality in it, I mean are the stories going to be like Hansel and Gretel, and while in the forest Hansel just says 'Gretel I never really told anyone this before but I am gay". Are the stories going to be like that or are they going to be a case where a child is dropped off at school by two mothers. I think it will be closer to the later but will be telling children about why this it is so good to have two mothers rather than how indifferent it is like it should.

I read one of those to my class when I was teaching 3 year olds. First question "where do caterpillars come from?" and I explained what? The reproduction process. Butterfly sexuality is okay though right?

I have no idea Smunkee, oh and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Talking about the reproduction process of any animal even humans, is not the same as talking about sexuality.

Pretty much. Do it your way and leave everyone else alone.

Hey it works when people complain about TV shows "Don't watch it if you don't like it"

:eek: But that would mean having to something other then whine and complain about it!

No there is always something we as Generalities can find to whine and complain about.

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.

shrugs my kids are three years apart. the second one didn't drop from the sky. when the older asked about it, i answered her.

if they're old enough to ask or notice, they're old enough to get a decent answer. it's pretty common for a 4 or 5 year old to know that babies don't just spontaneously appear from the aether.

Umm what? Or is my son just slow?
Check with your wife, he touches himself, they all do. She's probably seen him.



But why does a story for small children have to have any sexuality in it, I mean are the stories going to be like Hansel and Gretel, and while in the forest Hansel just says 'Gretel I never really told anyone this before but I am gay". Are the stories going to be like that or are they going to be a case where a child is dropped off at school by two mothers. I think it will be closer to the later but will be telling children about why this it is so good to have two mothers rather than how indifferent it is like it should.
The only book I've come across was about a prince who had to marry and he didn't like girls so he found a boy and they got married and there were two kings. It was innocent. Hansel and Gretel is much more traumatic, abusive stepmothers, cannibalistic grannies and the like.

There is no reason "sexuality" is automatically more prevalent in a story with gay characters than one with hetero characters.

I have no idea Smunkee, oh and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Talking about the reproduction process of any animal even humans, is not the same as talking about sexuality.

Humans are animals.


Hey it works when people complain about TV shows "Don't watch it if you don't like it"
You don't have to convince me, my kids are already homeschooled.

shrugs my kids are three years apart. the second one didn't drop from the sky. when the older asked about it, i answered her.

if they're old enough to ask or notice, they're old enough to get a decent answer. it's pretty common for a 4 or 5 year old to know that babies don't just spontaneously appear from the aether.
shhhhhh, people who aren't around children idealize what they are like.

I agree though, if they are old enough to ask they are old enough for an answer. Doing otherwise is stupid and ill advised. They will find out what they want one way or another, at least if you answer you get to set the stage for honesty and trust.

Humans are animals.

I was going to say that's what I said, but then relised that it wasn't as clear as I meant it, but yes they are.

You don't have to convince me, my kids are already homeschooled.

Good.

Check with your wife, he touches himself, they all do. She's probably seen him.

I will ask his mother, and while I have seen him touch it, I doubt he has had any sexual pleasure from it, isn't that masturbation?


The only book I've come across was about a prince who had to marry and he didn't like girls so he found a boy and they got married and there were two kings. It was innocent. Hansel and Gretel is much more traumatic, abusive stepmothers, cannibalistic grannies and the like.


There is no reason "sexuality" is automatically more prevalent in a story with gay characters than one with hetero characters.

I wasn't implying that there was I was wondering if they were going to be like how being gay is so good, rather than how being gay is indifferent. I think that is where some people may get wary when hearing about these sort of things.

But if the intention is to ensure that kids understand a characters sexuality than it would be more prevalent

Of course, you might want to be careful--these days some children have two fathers or two mothers. (Maybe we should segregate them... the poor other children might get ideas.)

Fostering acceptance of diversity at an early age is an intrinsic good.

If you truly believe that this is will stop it when the kids reach high school, then you are sadly mistaken.

I will ask his mother, and while I have seen him touch it, I doubt he has had any sexual pleasure from it, isn't that masturbation?
If he touches it, it feels good. If it feels good, he touches it. It's masturbation, lustful thoughts not needed.



I wasn't implying that there was I was wondering if they were going to be like how being gay is so good, rather than how being gay is indifferent. I think that is where some people may get wary when hearing about these sort of things.
Being gay isn't "bad", it's just being gay. Being hetro isn't "good" it's just being hetro. Like I said earlier, when I was in elementary there was a big stink about a book with divorced parents.... "oh noez! they're promoting the divorce culture!" seriously. The book didn't say it was good, it just said "some kids have parents that don't live together" that's all. Jenny has two moms, Bobby lives with his grandma, Susie lives with her father and stepmother and Jim is in foster care. It just is.

If you truly believe that this is will stop it when the kids reach high school, then you are sadly mistaken.

Stop what?

Stop what?

Any prejudice or bullying

Any prejudice or bullying

You know this based on what? A guess?

You know this based on what? A guess?

Well it must be wrong then, how dare I going on past experinces of myself and others, on what is happening now in schools from people who work there and are around the kids everyday, on what I see everyday at the bus stop overhearing what these kids are talking about despite knowing that throughotu most of their school life they have been told the complete opposite on what they are thinking, in this case not on sexuality but on racism. But hey I am wrong arne't I and you can keep living in your little world if you want, I really don't give a shit. But boy will I love saying in 15 years time "I told you so". How do I know I love it because I have said it so many times before.

That was a rather sickly piece of PR on Rowling's behalf.

"I'm sooooo down on gay rights that after I've made loads of money by offending nobody, I can re-cast my character so that I appeal to a certain section of the public even more. Buy my books you dirty muggles!!!!!"

No she did it for the fanfic writers. You know the types...

Well it must be wrong then, how dare I going on past experinces of myself and others, on what is happening now in schools from people who work there and are around the kids everyday, on what I see everyday at the bus stop overhearing what these kids are talking about despite knowing that throughotu most of their school life they have been told the complete opposite on what they are thinking, in this case not on sexuality but on racism. But hey I am wrong arne't I and you can keep living in your little world if you want, I really don't give a shit. But boy will I love saying in 15 years time "I told you so". How do I know I love it because I have said it so many times before.

So a guess ... possibly educated but a guess based on nothing but personal experience.

Coming from a stats background the long term effects of the type of exposure to information in children as they age over a period of time to highschool age hardly seems to be something one mans experience is equipped to accurately measure

None of our school literature is homophonic

I don't think that means what you think it means . . . (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophonic)

So a guess ... possibly educated but a guess based on nothing but personal experience.

Not possibly at all, and not just my personal experience but of the many people I have talked to.

Coming from a stats background the long term effects of the type of exposure to information in children as they age over a period of time to highschool age hardly seems to be something one mans experience is equipped to accurately measure

Well as I said more people, so perhaps instead of coming from your statistical background (which yes I will agree with you on, one persons response is not enough for a general consensus, why do I agree with you on that not because you claim to have a background on it, but I to have done many statistical courses as well, maybe not as much as you but some nevertheless). But as I say you can believe that it will change it if you want to.

I don't think that means what you think it means . . . (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophonic)

Maybe he does, and that is what he is saying, vastly off topic but lets give him the benefit of the doubt. ;)

>.< Egh...yes, I do think it's kind of inevitable that children will learn about same-sex relationships, but I think it's better to involve characters who happen to be gay to explain the lifestyle, rather than having the moral of the story 'homosexuality is GREAT--go try it!'.

Name one children's book that does this, just ONE.

Basically, this is upsetting to me because while I don't condone bashing gays in any fashion,

That's great!

I don't accept it as a legitimate lifestyle.

Too bad you don't actually believe it.

Time for an anecdote. Believe or reject at your leasure, everybody.

My mum works as an teaching assistant for kids with special needs in an infant's school (where kids areat the age of around five) and claims to be able to tell a kid's sexuality at that age, and even kids that are going to have a sex change when they are older (and have had parents claim to know as well.) Obviously, not working around kids of that age, I don't know whether it's true or not, but it sunds plausable.

Well, I'm reminded of one kid who at dress up time liked to put on the princess cloths and prance around.

One day I asked him why, apparently he just likes it.

Well, I'm reminded of one kid who at dress up time liked to put on the princess cloths and prance around.

One day I asked him why, apparently he just likes it.

A lot more thought goes into girl's dress up clothing than boys. Girls get lace and tulle and beading and prettiness, boy dress up clothes are mostly plastic and boring. I know this because my daughter wanted some fireman dress up stuff, I couldn't find anything quality.

Also, a boy dressing up and prancing might be comedic and he might like that attention.

I think priests do a fine job teaching kids about this sort of stuff.

Because, of course, Dumbledore couldn't actually have been gay... all characters in fantasy are automatically straight.
Then why didn't she just come out and say it in the books, instead of pussy-footing around?

I've got no problem whatsoever with characters in fiction being gay, straight, bisexual or whatever. What pisses me off, however, are calculated moves by money-grubbing authors.

Any prejudice or bullying

I'm not so sure. The way homophobia functions in our society has a whole lot to do with the normative status of heterosexuality... and while incorporating gay-inclusive children's books won't magically abolish it, it might help a little.

on what I see everyday at the bus stop overhearing what these kids are talking about despite knowing that throughotu most of their school life they have been told the complete opposite on what they are thinking, in this case not on sexuality but on racism.

But, then, the literature and the media they are exposed to is often also racist.

Prejudice doesn't happen by magic. People learn it.

Then why didn't she just come out and say it in the books, instead of pussy-footing around?

When you're writing a massively best-selling series of books for children and then incorporate an openly gay character, you're just inviting a huge controversy.

Would that have been the absolute best thing for her to do? Probably. But it's understandable that she would want to avoid it. As it stands, her course of action was, while not saintlike, certainly not unethical, and doesn't clearly suggest dishonesty at all.

I've got no problem whatsoever with characters in fiction being gay, straight, bisexual or whatever.

I didn't suggest that you did. The problem I was noting was not homophobia in the strict sense. What I suggested instead was that people believed Dumbledore was straight a priori, absent any outright explicit statement otherwise, and that's at the root of their surprise and shock and "it makes no sense"... not the actual content of the books, which certainly allow for the possibility and in some respects suggest it.

What pisses me off, however, are calculated moves by money-grubbing authors.

You really think Rowling wants more money?

But it's understandable that she would want to avoid it. As it stands, her course of action was, while not saintlike, certainly not unethical, and doesn't clearly suggest dishonesty at all.
Mmmphh.

I've never liked the woman, nor her elitist stories. You could say I'm biased.

You really think Rowling wants more money?
Yes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7088336.stm).

QFT. Why when I was a boy, we read books on the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly.

And if you don't like the way an organisation runs its school, don't send your kids there.

Quite. This is only one, private school doing this, it's much easier to keep your kids out of it than get them into it.

Pity about the opposite though, with over 90% of our primary schools being run by the catholic church.

When one is introduced to a story of a prince and a princess, is there really conotations of sex at all? Does sex even come up? I don't even recall it crossing my mind. Why? Because the male-female relationship is a very common and normal thing for children to see. They don't question it, or give it second thought. So what happens when you introduce a new aspect? They start to ask questions. Inevitably it leads to a talk about sexuality.
And that's the point. As long as homosexuality is treated as something uncommon and weird, homosexuals will never be treated with true equality in te society. By introducing homosexual relationships at a young age you will make the children accept it, and when it becomes a normal thing for them as well your fears can be laid to rest.

I am all for equality of people. But is it really necessary to introduce something not of the norm to our children, at that age, and confuse them?
Why would it be any more confusing than heterosexual love?

And - to make it the norm as well.


Believe it or not, the vast majority of people are already tolerant towards gays.
Only six countries allow homosexuals to marry. Many countries have the death penalty for homosexual behavior. Your statement is debatable at best.

Indeed. Questions lead to answers. Answers leads to learning. Such is the path to the smart side.

Wise Master Ifreann is wise :D

I've never liked the woman, nor her elitist stories. You could say I'm biased.

I don't know Rowling, and can't really judge her person, but I like the books... I guess I'm biased too. :)

Yes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7088336.stm).

I don't think it's money she's after there. She's quite fine with having it on the Internet; she just doesn't think other people should profit from it.

In any case, authors exercising control over their own work is something that can have a multitude of motives beyond simple monetary greed.

Christ almight, I thought Faith Schools in the UK were bad.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.

How can Ireland be the Poland of Europe when Poland is already in Europe..?

How can Ireland be the Poland of Europe when Poland is already in Europe..?
Because Poland is the Kansas of Europe.

Christ almight, I thought Faith Schools in the UK were bad.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.

First of all, who's talking about the UK?
And secondly, I can't imagine they're banned, when Tony Blair is currently so busy establishing Catholic schools?

Mmmphh.

I've never liked the woman, nor her elitist stories. You could say I'm biased.


:confused:

:confused:

I suspect (but I'm not certain) that he is referring to the perecption of cultural elitism that some people have found in the books, such as those described in this article (http://www.slate.com/?id=2073627).

:confused:
All this talks of 'muggles' and how they're inferior to wizards and witches gets my goat.

I much prefer Ursula le Guin's take on the status of wizards in the Earthsea books, where (for example) a young wizard treats an old fisherman like shit, simply for not being a wizard, and is promptly given a stern lecture by a senior wizard on how, compared to the old fisherman's talents at catching fish and feeding his community, the young wizard's flashy spells are gaudy distractions.

EDIT> The points the article Cosmopoles links to above are also worth thinking about; though I don't agree fully with them all.

I don't think it's money she's after there. She's quite fine with having it on the Internet; she just doesn't think other people should profit from it.

In any case, authors exercising control over their own work is something that can have a multitude of motives beyond simple monetary greed.
Definitely that can be the case, but not in this one, I fear.

A writer I respect a lot more than Rowling (http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html) puts it better than I ever could.

But, then, the literature and the media they are exposed to is often also racist.

Prejudice doesn't happen by magic. People learn it.

Pray tell good sir, what common children's literature teaches them that it is right to be racist?

IF you say so.

All this talks of 'muggles' and how they're inferior to wizards and witches gets my goat.

There is no such suggestion in the books--quite the opposite! The elitism of wizards is one of the primary evils in the Harry Potter books, and explicitly portrayed as such.

Definitely that can be the case, but not in this one, I fear.

A writer I respect a lot more than Rowling (http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html) puts it better than I ever could.

I actually loathe Orson Scott Card... never read his books, but I've read some of his political writings, and they sicken me.

This essay is in much the same vein: distort (he spends most of it discussing creative inspiration, which is irrelevant) and rant (how many times does he need to call her some variety of greedy and self-serving?)

Pray tell good sir, what common children's literature teaches them that it is right to be racist?

I didn't say that common children's literature teaches people to be racist (though you could make an argument in some cases), I said that literature and media in general are often infested with racism.

You're right, children's media isn't all of media, but apparently unlike you, I prefer better to worse even if better isn't perfect.

I didn't say that common children's literature teaches people to be racist (though you could make an argument in some cases), I said that literature and media in general are often infested with racism.

And yet despite 5 year olds, still getting books on how people with different coloured skin is alright, we still see them as they get older exhibit racist tendencies.

And yet despite 5 year olds, still getting books on how people with different coloured skin is alright, we still see them as they get older exhibit racist tendencies.

So?

The question is, would there be more or less racism if we did not make a concerted effort to fight it in the culture? And the answer is obvious.

The fact that we have not abolished racism in its entirety proves nothing.

So?

The question is, would there be more or less racism if we did not make a concerted effort to fight it in the culture? And the answer is obvious.

The fact that we have not abolished racism in its entirety proves nothing.

So, my friend is that placing books that encourage the tolerance of homosexuals in books for 5 year olds isn't going to work in reducing any intolerance towards homosexuals which is what I said before you decided to disagree with me.

So?
The fact that we have not abolished racism in its entirety proves nothing.

Of course, it only proves that our societ(y/ies) still has respect for basic freedoms and liberties.

5 year olds? Gay books? The Sissy Duckling? If they are concerned about homophobia, they should just teach kids to be nice to people, I guess?

5 year olds seem to be young for these things.

These "tolerance policies" should be controlled by experts, like psychologists and child development experts rather than PC types.

Look, Dumbledore isn't gay okay, it's a frickin' publicity stunt.

Maybe DUMBLEDORE wasn't....

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1331/867273226_e724eaa235.jpg

I think that schools should not go out of their way to teach about homosexuality, nor should they try to hide it. Schools should only make it an issue if someone else does first, or if its in the context of a law class/political debate. This would hopefully reinforce the concept that gays are just people too, and that this stuff shouldn't be an issue in this century.

I have no problem with books with gay characters as long as their good books. But five is pretty damn young. I wouldn't want a five year old knowing to much about sex at all.

5 year olds? Gay books? The Sissy Duckling? If they are concerned about homophobia, they should just teach kids to be nice to people, I guess?

5 year olds seem to be young for these things.

These "tolerance policies" should be controlled by experts, like psychologists and child development experts rather than PC types.

Again, why would that be too young? They're not to young for "and they married and lived happily ever after" when it's a prince and princess, so why would they be too young for a prince and another prince?

Look, Dumbledore isn't gay okay, it's a frickin' publicity stunt.

Yeah, and Gandalf isn't gay either...

I think that schools should not go out of their way to teach about homosexuality, nor should they try to hide it. Schools should only make it an issue if someone else does first, or if its in the context of a law class/political debate. This would hopefully reinforce the concept that gays are just people too, and that this stuff shouldn't be an issue in this century.

I have no problem with books with gay characters as long as their good books. But five is pretty damn young. I wouldn't want a five year old knowing to much about sex at all.

Why? I honestly find this mindset disturbing... 5 year olds know about sexuality already, they do masturbate, they get presented with heterosexuality EVERY SINGLE DAY and it's considered perfectly ok... so what's wrong with telling them not every guy likes girls, and not every girl likes guys?

So, my friend is that placing books that encourage the tolerance of homosexuals in books for 5 year olds isn't going to work in reducing any intolerance towards homosexuals

You have no basis whatsoever for making that statement.

I'm not sure if there's a fancy name for the logical fallacy here--there probably is, but I don't remember it--but what you're doing is the equivalent of saying, "Because there is still murder, no effort to prevent murder has any effect."

The fact that anti-racist or anti-homophobic efforts don't destroy all racism and homophobia doesn't prove that they aren't effective in reducing some of it.

5 year olds? Gay books? The Sissy Duckling?

:rolleyes:

5 year olds seem to be young for these things.

And that's why we should separate them from their parents... mustn't expose them to heterosexuality, either.

And definitely nothing about all those princes and princesses. Five-year-olds shouldn't be taught about sex.

I think that schools should not go out of their way to teach about homosexuality, nor should they try to hide it.

The problem is, in a society where the "default" is hiding it, there is no "neutral" option.

Either you actively seek to undermine normative heterosexuality, or you participate in it.

Christ almight, I thought Faith Schools in the UK were bad.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.

I lol'd

You have no basis whatsoever for making that statement.

I'm not sure if there's a fancy name for the logical fallacy here--there probably is, but I don't remember it--but what you're doing is the equivalent of saying, "Because there is still murder, no effort to prevent murder has any effect."

The fact that anti-racist or anti-homophobic efforts don't destroy all racism and homophobia doesn't prove that they aren't effective in reducing some of it.

Well no that is not what I am saying at all, and we will see in 15 years time won't we.

Yeah, and Gandalf isn't gay either...

Gandalf and Dumbledore are fictional characters UB, made up magic people, it's like saying God is gay.

Perhaps when the Bible's sales are slipping, the Pope should out God.

There is no such suggestion in the books--quite the opposite! The elitism of wizards is one of the primary evils in the Harry Potter books, and explicitly portrayed as such.
That's certainly not what I took from the first book, which is admittedly all I could stomach. I felt a distinct feeling of superiority over normal humans from Harry and the other man 'good' characters; hell, they've got their own (pejorative) name for them - muggles.

This essay is in much the same vein: distort (he spends most of it discussing creative inspiration, which is irrelevant) and rant (how many times does he need to call her some variety of greedy and self-serving?)
As many times as he wishes, for she has shown herself to be just that. The way Rowing has behaved over the whole lexicon issue is absolutely appalling. I may agree with you that Orson Scott Card's politics are not exactly my cup of tea, but I feel he's bang on in his analysis of Rowling's behaviour.

this is great news, tolerance should be encouraged, discrimination should be discouraged!

That's certainly not what I took from the first book, which is admittedly all I could stomach.

Your picture is rather limited. The first book is mostly apolitical. The series gets more serious and more sophisticated over time.

I felt a distinct feeling of superiority over normal humans from Harry and the other man 'good' characters; hell, they've got their own (pejorative) name for them - muggles.

That's influenced by the fact that the particular Muggles who play a large role in the first book aren't particularly nice... and the "Wizarding World" is liberating for Harry.

But that's the first book. That element is far from the focus of the entire series.

I solemnly declare Ireland to be the Poland of Europe.
I hate to rain on your parade, but Poland already IS a part of Europe. Just like Ireland, Poland is a member nation of the European Union.

"The problem is, in a society where the "default" is hiding it, there is no neutral option. Either you actively seek to undermine normative heterosexuality, or you participate in it."

That sounds a lot like "either your with us or your against us." That is, simplistic and divisive black and white thinking designed to vilify anyone who doesn't take your exact stance on a given issue. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misunderstood me.

I don't think it serves the long-term interests of equality to make a big deal out of some one being gay, point out gay people in books to kids, etc. I don't really have a problem with homosexuality being talked about in schools, as its part of the world and a major issue these days. I just don't think it should be made into a big deal, or explicitly pointed out to kids at such a young age (that last goes for sex in general). All this does, it seems to me, is underline that gays are different, outsiders.

Maybe you've given up on a world where such distracting group-based politics is no longer an issue. Well if that is the case, you need to find your idealism. And perhaps you need to learn to be a bit more tolerant yourself, buddy. The world is not divided into the anti-gay and people who agree with you. If you support equality for everyone, gay and otherwise, then we are on the same side. If you've reached the point where not a different agenda, but simply a different policy on how to achieve that end is enough to make me an enemy, then so be it.

(Sorry I couldn't post this as Skyland Mt. Something's screwy with my other nation).:confused:

I never understood why public schools should be making recommendations to kids about sexual lifestyles and behaviors. It makes sense for a kid to hear about exactly what goes on during sex when they hit puberty so they know what's going on with their body, but to tell a kid things that might tread on the moral (pro- or anti-gay rights) upbringing of the child in a way that suggests that one way of thinking about it is preferable to another on such a hot-button topic is bound to tread on thin ice with some people. So, I think schools should teach what's going in biologically, but leave it to the parents to teach about the whole homosexuality issue in my mind. I'm not saying I'm for or against gay rights (as I tend to be on a tight rope myself on that), but I do have an opinion on how people are educated on the issue.

Well talking about homosexuality in schools does not mean that the schools have to advocate it as a life style. I do think schools should teach about the principles of democracy and human rights in general, and how they apply to everybody.

The way to have a just, equal, and tollerant society is to give everyone equal opportunity at birth, teach them what there rights are, and then not make a big deal out of differences like sexual orientation. Plus, if there is overt oppression, stamp down on it with the proverbial steel-toed boot.

I never understood why public schools should be making recommendations to kids about sexual lifestyles and behaviors. It makes sense for a kid to hear about exactly what goes on during sex when they hit puberty so they know what's going on with their body, but to tell a kid things that might tread on the moral (pro- or anti-gay rights) upbringing of the child in a way that suggests that one way of thinking about it is preferable to another on such a hot-button topic is bound to tread on thin ice with some people. So, I think schools should teach what's going in biologically, but leave it to the parents to teach about the whole homosexuality issue in my mind. I'm not saying I'm for or against gay rights (as I tend to be on a tight rope myself on that), but I do have an opinion on how people are educated on the issue.

You might notice that they don't "recommend" anything. They do what schools ought to do, provide information about the world.

I never understood why public schools should be making recommendations to kids about sexual lifestyles and behaviors.
Well talking about homosexuality in schools does not mean that the schools have to advocate it as a life style.

Gee. You two almost make it believable that gay people actually choose to live "a lifestyle", and that kids can be convinced of joining them in those deliberate life choices. Instead of, you know, being genuinely attracted to whatever gender(s) they are naturally attracted to, and following those genuine attractions in an attempt to be psychologically and romantically coherent and honest with themselves.

Good thing we know better.

I never understood why public schools should be making recommendations to kids about sexual lifestyles and behaviors.
Information is not recommendations.

It makes sense for a kid to hear about exactly what goes on during sex when they hit puberty so they know what's going on with their body, but to tell a kid things that might tread on the moral (pro- or anti-gay rights) upbringing of the child in a way that suggests that one way of thinking about it is preferable to another on such a hot-button topic is bound to tread on thin ice with some people. So, I think schools should teach what's going in biologically, but leave it to the parents to teach about the whole homosexuality issue in my mind. I'm not saying I'm for or against gay rights (as I tend to be on a tight rope myself on that), but I do have an opinion on how people are educated on the issue.

Surely they should be told about sex long before they hit puberty. I haven't seen any thing treading on any morality, just books that state factually that sometimes men like men more than they like ladies which is to say not at all.

Again, if you don't want your kid to discover people who are different than you, then lock them in a basement or something.

I'm not sure if there's a fancy name for the logical fallacy here--there probably is, but I don't remember it--
"false dichotomy" (presenting two extremes as if they were the only possibilities, arguing that if you are against one you must be for the other)

Again, if you don't want your kid to discover people who are different than you, then lock them in a basement or something.

They call this the Fritzl Method of Parenting.

I hate to rain on your parade, but Poland already IS a part of Europe. Just like Ireland, Poland is a member nation of the European Union.
You know that thing that went straight over your head? That was the joke. ;)

I agree. Teaching a kid about sexuality at age 5 is a bit early. They should be learning to count, read, and share at that age, and NOT learn about human sexuality.
This idea always baffles me.

Are you saying that a 5 year old should not be read the Story of Sleeping Beauty, since it involves heterosexual relationships? Should 5 year olds be prevented from watching The Lion King because Simba and Nala get together? Are you actually saying that Aladdin is inappropriate for young children because he's got a crush on Princess Jasmine?

Seriously, how stupid do you think kids are?

This idea always baffles me.

Are you saying that a 5 year old should not be read the Story of Sleeping Beauty, since it involves heterosexual relationships? Should 5 year olds be prevented from watching The Lion King because Simba and Nala get together? Are you actually saying that Aladdin is inappropriate for young children because he's got a crush on Princess Jasmine?

Seriously, how stupid do you think kids are?

I don't believe, however, that there is heterosexuality in those stories merely to promote the idea that "Heteros Are Great People, Too".

If people in a story happen to get together, and happen to be of one orientation that's OK with me, regardless of age.

When people deliberately write a story, then pick that story primarily because of its political content ("Homos Are Great People, Too") then I do have a problem, regardless of age.

I honestly believe that the original Huckleberry Finn is homoerotic fiction. It just happens to be that way - and including it in a set of stories to read is OK by me.

But "Heather Has Two Mommies" is deliberately written as promotional material for a political cause. To me, it's not OK to use a school as a political pulpit.

But "Heather Has Two Mommies" is deliberately written as promotional material for a political cause. To me, it's not OK to use a school as a political pulpit.


Heh because our kids are better served learning that at home?

Heh because our kids are better served learning that at home?

It's better to read a story that happens to have homosexuality in it (as a secondary item, as in Huck Finn) than to have it as the sole reason we're reading the book.

When you make it the sole reason, kids are going to think "oh, we're learning this because it's fucking strange".

I don't believe, however, that there is heterosexuality in those stories merely to promote the idea that "Heteros Are Great People, Too".

If people in a story happen to get together, and happen to be of one orientation that's OK with me, regardless of age.

When people deliberately write a story, then pick that story primarily because of its political content ("Homos Are Great People, Too") then I do have a problem, regardless of age.

I honestly believe that the original Huckleberry Finn is homoerotic fiction. It just happens to be that way - and including it in a set of stories to read is OK by me.

But "Heather Has Two Mommies" is deliberately written as promotional material for a political cause. To me, it's not OK to use a school as a political pulpit.
Maybe you see it as a political issue, but to most people it isn't(well, to me at least). Gay people exist. Always have, always will. To bully, tease or otherwise mistreat people because they are gay is bigotry. If children are taught that such things are wrong then they will hopefully be less likely to do it.

Maybe you see it as a political issue, but to most people it isn't(well, to me at least). Gay people exist. Always have, always will. To bully, tease or otherwise mistreat people because they are gay is bigotry. If children are taught that such things are wrong then they will hopefully be less likely to do it.

I'd rather have a story where it's wrong bully or tease anyone.

And stories (and there are plenty of them) that show homosexuals occurring naturally as part of a story.

I'd rather have a story where it's wrong bully or tease anyone.

And stories (and there are plenty of them) that show homosexuals occurring naturally as part of a story.

Well these stories are just reinforcing the point

At the age of five (back in 1981), I, just as any other kid, was using extensively sex-related words as insults. Including the italian equivalents of "fag", like "finocchio" and "culattone".
Why? Because homosexuality was (as still is in many places) feared as a sign of "abnormality". So, as presenting homosexuality as a "normal" behaviour leads to better knowledge and better understanding, I'm all in favour of it.

Will we ever stop thinking that children ignore anything about sex? :rolleyes:

Well these stories are just reinforcing the point

When my youngest boy came home, and told me that it's ok to bully boys who like girls, and not bully boys who like boys, I figured something was wrong.

I had to (at home) teach him that it's not OK to bully anyone - girls, boys, of any kind.

I also seriously doubt if specific "Homosexuals Are Normal People You Shouldn't Bully" are effective in families where the homophobia runs deep.

The most popular slur in my youngest son's school for any male figure who is unwanted or unpopular for any reason is "gaywad". I've asked several kids who've said it, "And what do you think the word, 'gaywad' means?" Most have no real answer, but I think they have a definite idea.

I've been on my own sons not to say it - and it hasn't been a problem with them - but if I go to the school, you can hear it every few seconds at recess or when the students are lining up to go home.

At the age of five (back in 1981), I, just as any other kid, was using extensively sex-related words as insults. Including the italian equivalents of "fag", like "finocchio" and "culattone".
Why? Because homosexuality was (as still is in many places) feared as a sign of "abnormality". So, as presenting homosexuality as a "normal" behaviour leads to better knowledge and better understanding, I'm all in favour of it.

Will we ever stop thinking that children ignore anything about sex? :rolleyes:

Huck Finn seems pretty natural and normal to me.

When my youngest boy came home, and told me that it's ok to bully boys who like girls, and not bully boys who like boys, I figured something was wrong.

I had to (at home) teach him that it's not OK to bully anyone - girls, boys, of any kind.
Well then I guess all efforts to teach children not to bully gays is doomed to failure. :rolleyes:

I also seriously doubt if specific "Homosexuals Are Normal People You Shouldn't Bully" are effective in families where the homophobia runs deep.
And antibiotics won't cure every sickness. I guess we'll just stop using them.

The most popular slur in my youngest son's school for any male figure who is unwanted or unpopular for any reason is "gaywad". I've asked several kids who've said it, "And what do you think the word, 'gaywad' means?" Most have no real answer, but I think they have a definite idea.

I've been on my own sons not to say it - and it hasn't been a problem with them - but if I go to the school, you can hear it every few seconds at recess or when the students are lining up to go home.

I'm not sure what the point of this anecdote is.

I'm not sure what the point of this anecdote is.

Obviously, the books read to the students about "don't bully the homosexuals" have failed to impress most of the children.

It only seems to have impressed the children of parents who already taught them that homosexuality is normal, and bullying is wrong.

As for the other parents, I believe that public advocacy of the book has caused them to redouble their bigot efforts, and their children shouting "gaywad" at nearly every turn is a sign of this.

"false dichotomy" (presenting two extremes as if they were the only possibilities, arguing that if you are against one you must be for the other)

Because I'm a pedant:

Sort of, but I don't think so. He's not suggesting (say) "Either you oppose children's books with gay characters or you support homosexual supremacy." That would be a false dichotomy.

Instead, he suggests that the imperfection of the solution advocated proves its worthlessness... which is a rather different line of argument. I guess there's a dichotomy there--"it's either perfect or useless"--but I don't think it's the same technical fallacy.

That sounds a lot like "either your with us or your against us."

More like (to quote Howard Zinn) "You can't be neutral on a moving train."

I don't think it serves the long-term interests of equality to make a big deal out of some one being gay, point out gay people in books to kids, etc.

I'm fairly sure it does.

Why? Because when heterosexuality is constructed as "normal", unless you actively expose non-heterosexuality, the culture will obscure it.

This is the point of "coming out of the closet." Straight people don't need to do it, because the dominant culture doesn't assume that straight people are not straight.

I don't really have a problem with homosexuality being talked about in schools, as its part of the world and a major issue these days. I just don't think it should be made into a big deal, or explicitly pointed out to kids at such a young age (that last goes for sex in general).

I don't think reading a children's book about, say, a prince who falls in love with a man instead of a woman is "explicitly" pointing anything out.

Homosexuality is no more inherently sexual than heterosexuality. Even if you want children to be shielded from sex (a questionable goal in the first place), there is still no excuse for applying a double standard.

All this does, it seems to me, is underline that gays are different, outsiders.

But non-heterosexuals are different, and in this society we are in some respects outsiders. Just ignoring these facts only maintains the status quo.

We need to draw attention to homosexuality for the same reason we need to campaign for legal equality for same-sex couples: the current situation is unfair, and it is in need of correcting. By refraining from drawing attention, we just refrain from changing anything. We're not adopting a genuinely neutral stance; we're just being complicit in normative heterosexuality.

Maybe you've given up on a world where such distracting group-based politics is no longer an issue. Well if that is the case, you need to find your idealism.

Since when does idealism imply blindness? I identify with ideals of freedom, justice, and equality. I'm concerned with actually concretely achieving them, and in an (in some respects) unfree, unjust, and inequitable society, that means taking an active stance against those elements. Even if it means being loud. Even if it means making a big deal out of things.

And perhaps you need to learn to be a bit more tolerant yourself, buddy.

Of what? The ridiculous nonsense that typically gets tossed out in threads like this? Why, exactly?

If you support equality for everyone, gay and otherwise, then we are on the same side.

That's nice. But show, don't tell.

If you've reached the point where not a different agenda, but simply a different policy on how to achieve that end is enough to make me an enemy, then so be it.

Why are you spending space on this absurd fit of defensiveness rather than actually responding to my argument?

I'm sorry if I was overly defensive, though hardly more so than your self. But I suppose your defensiveness is justified, since your right and I'm wrong.:rolleyes:

On consideration, I'll acknowledge that having a book with two men in love rather than a man and a woman is not a bad thing. In fact, that's the way I'd rather this issue was presented, if it does have to be an issue. Just show it as a matter of fact, everyday part of life. My issue is with making a big deal out of homosexuality as if its something special. And I didn't mean to insinuate that homosexuality is more sexual than heterosexuality. That came out badly, I guess. Its just that its difficult to discuss issues related to sexuality without telling to much.

Still, I must take exception with two points you raised. First, I am fully aware that idealism does not mean blindness. God only knows how often I've had to argue against those who seem to think that it does. Idealism, for me, means looking for a world where we don't identify people according to such and such little group. It means judging people on an individual basis, and refusing to allow this kind of thing to define who we are.

Secondly, you are wrong to say that society does not assume strait people are not strait. Plenty of strait people are assumed to be gay based on their personal behavioral traits. Actually, a non-prejudiced individual would probably assume some one was probably strait, since statistically that is the likeliest possibility.

I'll concede that your possision has some merit. If it didn't, this wouldn't be a debate, it would be me doing this::headbang::headbang::headbang: I don't have a problem with discussing the issue in schools; I merely have some concerns over the manner in which it is done. If I articulated those concerns in a poor or misleading way, I apologize.

I'm sorry if I was overly defensive, though hardly more so than your self.

I don't think I was defensive at all... it's really not in my nature. Not on this topic, anyway.

My issue is with making a big deal out of homosexuality as if its something special.

What do you mean? Can you provide examples?

Idealism, for me, means looking for a world where we don't identify people according to such and such little group.

I find this goal rather unmoving. I don't really care whether people notice my particular group membership; what I care about is that people treat me (and everyone else) fairly.

More relevantly, in the context of a society dominated by a prejudiced culture, to insist upon "moving past group identity" amounts to simply accepting that prejudice. Any challenge to it by its victims is automatically an assertion of such identity; it cannot help but be so. (Consider the people who whine about gays "flaunting themselves" or "shoving homosexuality down their throats"... for doing things that straight people feel perfectly comfortable doing themselves.)

It means judging people on an individual basis, and refusing to allow this kind of thing to define who we are.

But it does define in part who we are. Doesn't it?

Sure, people should be allowed to be more than gay or straight or bisexual... but why should that identity be irrelevant? Even in an ideal world?

Secondly, you are wrong to say that society does not assume strait people are not strait. Plenty of strait people are assumed to be gay based on their personal behavioral traits.

Plenty of straight people are insulted or teased for having "gay" traits, yes, and undoubtedly there are occasional cases of misperception. But this is not equivalent--because the issue is not so much assumptions in a particular individual case (which can be corrected) as it is social recognition and cultural equality, and because straight people generally aren't the victims of prejudice. They usually need not worry about "outing" themselves as straight; it's not an issue.

Actually, a non-prejudiced individual would probably assume some one was probably strait, since statistically that is the likeliest possibility.

No, we don't assume what people are based on averages--that's the worst kind of the sort of group thinking you attacked earlier. We try to understand them as individuals.

That last came out badly. I mearly said that people will probably assume someone's strait, before they get to know them, given how most people are, in fact strait. Obviously, it would be better if people got to know each other before making assumptions about their personal lives. I fail to see the relevence to this argument anyways, however.

Look, I've got to hand it to you. You've made very good points. I still think I'm at least partly right, but I jumped into this without thinking my position out, or preparing a convincing argument. I apologize for anything stupid I may have said. But I will say this: I support the rights of the gay community like I support the rights of every human being. And I still look forward to the day when gays and all other minority groups can be who they are without having to go out of the way to assert themselves, because they are just fellow human beings in an equal society.

I'd rather have a story where it's wrong bully or tease anyone.

And stories (and there are plenty of them) that show homosexuals occurring naturally as part of a story.
I like such stories, too, but I think more "political" books do have a place in schools.

For instance, when I was in primary school I remember reading a children's book about a little black girl who went to school with white children for the first time. It was a good children's book.

My mother also got me a children's book about a boy who was in a wheelchair after a disabled child joined my third grade class. It explained things like how hard it was for a person in a wheelchair to use "able" spaces, and why it's so important that we have handicap-accessible public spaces. The use of tax dollars for such purposes was still being debated at the time, as my father grumbled over dinner.

There are kids who get all sorts of anti-gay messages, or who are completely isolated from learning anything about sexuality at all because their parents think it's "inappropriate," but those kids are going to school with the children of gay couples. Having books that explain how Heather's Two Mommies are normal parents, too, is a helpful resource for young children.