Marcus, your family is a "dirty word."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but 'liking' a woman doesn't really explain what it means to be gay. I would rather avoid having to discuss what it means to be gay.

Wait... so you think it's okay for a teacher to send a rebuking letter home with a kid for saying something that doesn't even explain what 'gay' means?



This is the absurdity of the hysterical religious right. Make up your mind--either he was being too explicit for the school, or not explicit enough!

That's not the truth, though. Are you gay because you like men? I have many friends I like, though that would not make me gay.

You're really stretching your "logic" to absurdity here. How is it not the truth to say that a gay woman "likes" another woman? Note the child's definition wasn't limited to "like," as he did not say that's all being gay encompasses. He spoke merely what he knows to be true, since he's only seven years old. Again, you're now complaining that the kid wasn't being accurate enough rather than being too accurate.

Hey, I'd rather have had the kid said "love" myself. Then I'm sure this busybody teacher would have really gone apeshit.

For all your calls for honesty, why do you allow a lie when it suits your cause?

Where's the lie, Ben? Quote a lie. A lie is telling a falsehood. Unless you somehow know that gay women don't like other women, then I'd be stunned to see what the lie spoken by little Marcus was here.

[strawman]Oh, I know you probably think it's a lie that gay people can have genuine feelings for each other...but we're not interested in your denegrations of gay people and their families.[/strawman]

(I had to throw one in, since you're so fond of making your own...like below)

What double standard? Where have I said that religion ought to be taught by the teachers in class?

Who said anything about teachers teaching religion? We're talking about a student telling another about his religion. If you were asked by a classmate what being a Christian means, should a teacher have the right to scold you like this one did? Or send a letter like I posted above? Of course not--if they did, you'd be outraged.

The double standard is in rebuking this kid at all. If a kid said "my mommy loves my daddy," would this be a punishable offense?

Moreover, in your scenario, the double standard is that the teacher gets to mouth off about his beliefs to the kid's parents in a letter, but the kid can't say that his moms like each other. A public school teacher as NO authority to say in a letter to parents, "I personally think you're arrangement is wrong." When acting in an official capacity, as a teacher would be, injecting their personal beliefs about such matters is glaringly inappropriate. This would be no different than a teacher sending a letter to Christian parents stating something along the lines of, "I personally think your religion is a bunch of crapola."

Man, fundamentalist lunacy is seemingly endless.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but 'liking' a woman doesn't really explain what it means to be gay. I would rather avoid having to discuss what it means to be gay.

Actually it does. Homosexuality is exactly when a person can only be romantically involved with a member of the same gender.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't think any ACLU lawsuit is going to change society. To many people, homosexuality is still morally wrong. This is just one more battle in a cultural war that is beginning to tear this nation apart.

Yeah, much better when the vote was reserved to white males, or we had darkies to whup on. Yep, the country is falling apart, and it's the fault of all those pervs and freaks and malcontents and uppity coloreds, and those so-called women who don't know their rightful place.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I remember being in grade 7 and asking about how gay people 'do' it, and having my teacher hem and haw.

Heh. You were always one of those students who just had to ask the *tough* questions, weren't you?

As for the topic at hand, I think it's a disgrace what the school district and its personnel did. I could understand some concern if the child had gone into detail of the sexual nature of his mothers' relationship, but that's something I'd be concerned about even if his parents weren't lesbians. I mean, there *are* some things that six-year-olds simply shouldn't know about. As it was, the little dude simply and forthrightly told his friend what sort of relationship his mothers' have, nothing more, nothing less. A gay relationship.

Gatekeeper

[uh Clem]

The fact that a child exists is evidence -- not proof necessarily, but evidence -- that Daddy once got on top of Mommy and pushed his hot throbbing manhood into her moist nether regions.

Fortunately, we usually don't need to dwell on the details. It's sufficient to say that Mommy & Daddy love [or like] each other. Most seven-year-olds wouldn't understand the real explanation. Hell, they wouldn't believe it anyway.

In Marcus's case, Mommy likes girls. Cool. We don't need to know whether Mommy is butch or submissive or anything else.

So if it isn't necessary to explain the details implicit in a hetero relationship, why would it be necessary to explain the details of a gay one?

Unless, of course, you were trying to single out gay relationships as inherently repulsive. Which I'm sure no one was attempting to do.


Edit: I wonder if the teacher found the room getting oddly warm while she was writing that letter.

[East Street Trader]

Somehow it just does not seem surprising that the teaching of spelling in the school does not appear wonderful.

Happily the quality of the answers he gave to his school mate's questions suggest that the unpbringing he gets at home makes up for that.

[SpencerH]

I've been reading this thread wondering whether I could contribute something to the discussion. From my perspective, there's not much to discuss. Based upon what we know so far, it's hard to imagine a more appalling abuse of school authority that doesnt involve corporal punishment. What we dont have yet is the schools side of the incident. The only snippet I've found so far is from the nytimes.com

Administrators at the school in Youngsville, 57 miles southwest of Baton Rouge, did not return calls. But Dr. H. James Easton, the superintendent of the Lafayette Parish School System, released a statement yesterday disputing the A.C.L.U. account and saying the school's actions had nothing to do with the issue of sexual orientation.

"I have concluded," he said, "that the discipline was related to ordinary student disturbances, which were hindering the classroom learning process and which were addressed in an appropriate fashion by the teacher and school administrator."

He added, "The student was not belittled or embarrassed and this entire matter was reported based on a lack of accurate information."

I havent found the schools complete statement online, but the partial quote is clearly a lie given what the boy was forced to write as punishment.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Starchild:
No, it (A letter from the teacher to the parents) would probably have been more along the lines of:

"As a teacher of your son's kindergarten class, certain comments he made have raised my concerns. Just yesterday, when asked by another child as to his family, he responded that he has two gay moms.

While I do not agree with this arrangement, it is every parent's right to have a say in their child's welfare. Just as I would not wish to interfere with the arrangements of other children, I will not interfere with yours.

That being said, I feel discussion of what it means to be gay as inappropriate for a kindergarten class and will raise the ire of many other parents who wish to protect their children. Therefore, I ask that you instruct your child to talk about his adopted family, because, as we all know, your sexual preferences ought to have no bearing on your child rearing."

You may be overestimating the vocabulary of this teacher...
Also, this is LOUISIANA. Where are the grammattical mistakes? :P

[atawa]

Was this a public school?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

On a separate form for the Louisiana Department of Education, Bethea said Marcus "told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room," she continued. "I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way."

This is about the only thing I do NOT have a problem with in this scenario, otherwise it is damned silly and a damned shame.

Huh? It's not the teacher talking to the students, it's one student talking to another. I remember the discussions we used to have in the schoolyard at this age, including explicit descriptions of sexual acts etc....

One of my friends had me convinced that Asian girls' equipment went horizontal instead of vertical.

[Bereta_Eder]

There was a great book for children I had which explained the whole process of "how babies are born" quite clearly and delicately for the age group concerned. I remember the only picture that had left me with a bit of a question was the one who had as title something like "and in a magical night they create the new life through an act of love". The picture had a couple in bed under a star filled night, indeed it seemed magical, naked the man on top of the woman. That was the only bit of the book I asked clarifications about. "What happens in that magical night and what is the act of love"? To which I was explained the technicalities namely that the man inserts his erect reproductive organ to the woman's vegina.
No problems, no "scars", no nothings from the reply and the book.
My new found knowledge was quickly applied in real life when with my best female friend, we tried to reproduce the act. Somewhat difficult given that at that age I didn't even have an erection. It wasn't a magical night either but a magical midday summer siesta at her parents house with her mother sleeping in the next room. It was pretty fun. Before the act we had arranged that we would get married, agreed about the name of the baby and that I would buy her some fancy shoes she wanted. It was a good deal I thought.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by paiktis22
No problems, no "scars", no nothings from the reply and the book.
My new found knowledge was quickly applied in real life when with my best female friend, we tried to reproduce the act.

A-HA! Proof-positive that if you teach children about sex they're gonna try it!

[Bereta_Eder]

I doubt that would qualify as "sex". Unless touching your willy at her vegina is what you have in mind

[DRoseDARs]

Atawa:
Yes, it is a public school. That's the problem. Had this been a private school, like a religious school, we probably wouldn't have heard about it.



Let's compare reality to fiction:

PlanetOut:

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Marcus McLaurin was in line for recess on Nov. 11, when a classmate asked about his parents. Marcus explained that he had two mothers, because his mother was gay. When asked what that meant, the boy replied "gay is when a girl likes another girl."

NYTimes:

"I have concluded," he said, "that the discipline was related to ordinary student disturbances, which were hindering the classroom learning process and which were addressed in an appropriate fashion by the teacher and school administrator."

Interesting, so standing in line for goof-off period is now considered part of the "classroom learning process?" Thanks for the article, SpencerH. Nice to see the NYTimes still producing bad journalism.

[Boris Godunov]

How is it bad journalism for the NY Times to quote an official's position?

[Az]

Actually it does. Homosexuality is exactly when a person can only be romantically involved with a member of the same gender.

By definition, homosexuality isn't about love or romance. But that doesn't mean that many many gay people may develop such feelings.

[Ben Kenobi]

My BF came from a conservative background his parents didn't teach him anything about sex education, probably why most of his relatives have knocked up their girlfriends not even knowing what they were doing was sex. He was told that gay people were evil people, and that was it, the end of the explanation.

You are leaving too much up to the parents, unless you like ignorance to continue on through generations it is a bad idea.

Thorn:

Don't presume I come from a conservative background. My mom's a nursing instructor so she will be pleased to hear that you think she will not do a good job teaching sex education.

Again, most teachers are not qualified to do sex education, so why rely on them to teach what they do not know?

I would rather let the parents decide how much, and when rather than the schools. If they want to keep their kids ignorant, then they will have to pay the price later on. What cost is it to the schools if the kids remain ignorant?

One of the most popular classess in my university is a sex education class. Now, if schools were doing a good job of teaching kids, why would they feel the need to be educated here? The fact is that the kids are still ignorant after their supposed sex education.

[Ben Kenobi]

By definition, homosexuality isn't about love or romance.

It's all about getting your wang up and finishing, eh? That's all it takes to be gay?

[General Ludd]

Why are you griping about the school not being a good enviornment for sex educationg at the same time that you're griping about how kids shouldn't be allowed to talk about sex in school?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sex education is much more than classroom talk about who's doing what. Schools cannot provide proper sex education.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sex education is much more than classroom talk about who's doing what. Schools cannot provide proper sex education.

Of course they can't when they treat it like a horrible taboo that can't be talked about!

[Kuciwalker]

Again, BK, given that it would be EQUALLY WRONG for children to say in their family their dad likes their mom. The teacher wasn't saying anything - one student was talking to another. IT WASN'T EVEN SEX EDUCATION! How does "when a girl likes a girl" qualify as sex eduction?

[Ben Kenobi]

Osweld:

Even if they talk about sex they will not be able to provide proper sex education. The two are seperate issues, and I have indulged your earlier point to make my position clear.

Skywalker:

Again, BK, given that it would be EQUALLY WRONG for children to say in their family their dad likes their mom.

No. I would hope that his dad likes his mom. Both senses should apply. Bringing this back to the point at hand, Boris and Azazel both understand that the child does not fully understand, nor should he ought to fully understand what it means to be gay.

Now, I would have no problem with the child saying that he has two moms, and that they like each other, just as I would allow for a child to say that he has a mom and a dad and they both like each other.

Where I disagree is having to explain the term gay, and what it means to be gay, an explanation provoked by the use fo the word gay, in the example, " I have two gay moms."

Boris:

I disagree with how the teacher handled that situation, which is why I posted my own response rather than merely criticising.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Osweld:

Even if they talk about sex they will not be able to provide proper sex education. The two are seperate issues, and I have indulged your earlier point to make my position clear.

No, they are not seperate issues. On one hand you're saying that schools should encourage ignorance about sex, while on the other hand you accuse them of being unable to provide proper sex education. Well, no ****, of course people come out of school not knowing anything about sex if the school teaches them that it's a taboo which shouldn't be talked about.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thorn:

Don't presume I come from a conservative background. My mom's a nursing instructor so she will be pleased to hear that you think she will not do a good job teaching sex education.

Again, most teachers are not qualified to do sex education, so why rely on them to teach what they do not know?

I would rather let the parents decide how much, and when rather than the schools. If they want to keep their kids ignorant, then they will have to pay the price later on. What cost is it to the schools if the kids remain ignorant?

One of the most popular classess in my university is a sex education class. Now, if schools were doing a good job of teaching kids, why would they feel the need to be educated here? The fact is that the kids are still ignorant after their supposed sex education.

Yeah well its not those damn parent that pay the price, it is society!! Welfare, prison, drugs all play into families that weren't intended to be created... and it goes on for generations. People beat their wives...children....

All I'm saying is that there would be LESS of this if there was manditory sex education...

Unless you think Jesus will solve everything... seems to be most conservatives response.

Look at Scandanavia, they have plenty of sex education. Are they the spawn of Satan? Have all their heathen bastard children bred a society filled with filth and sin?! I DON'T THINK SO.

Hell their population growth is so low they are encouraging people to have sex because they aren't doing it enough!

[DRoseDARs]

Boris, the official wanted it to look like the child was being a disruption inside classtime when in fact it happened at recess where no child is paying attention to any teacher anyway, hence no disruption of classroom instruction. The official wanted to create the impression of Marcus causing a problem where none existed. I don't have access to the full article, so perhaps I'm missing the part of the article where s/he points out the fact this happened during recess, not during instruction, hence didn't disrupt anything...'cept maybe getting Ms. Sticks-Her-Nose-Into-Other-People's-Business' knickers in a bunch. If no such distinction is made by the author, slanting the article towards the position of the school, then it is bad journalism because the readers will only get the official's opinion on the matter (being that s/he wasn't any near the "incident"). This child was questionably punished, and the official as to be expected is trying to cover his ass. The journalist shouldn't be helping him.

Besides, many of the major media outlets these days seem to be cheerleading, often for the wrong teams, when they should just be broadcasting the game without any inane comments.

(Sorry for sounding like a broken record in this post, but I'm bouncing between this post, other threads, and other sites. Plus I'm eating. Not too worried 'bout the grammar. )

[Ben Kenobi]

On one hand you're saying that schools should encourage ignorance about sex, while on the other hand you accuse them of being unable to provide proper sex education.

I argue that even given copious amounts of time, the schools are not properly educating kids about sex education. Therefore, I argue that schools are not the place for sex education.

Secondly, I fail to see why this approach encourages ignorance about sex? Could I not say, as a teacher, go talk to your parents? How is this encouraging ignorance?

[Ben Kenobi]

All I'm saying is that there would be LESS of this if there was manditory sex education...

Thorn, do you expect mandatory sex education to be the cure all for all of societies woes? Many of the problems you cite have little or nothing to do with sex education.

As for whether sex education ought to be mandatory, you must first prove that the current curricula is reducing the amount of stds and premarital sex.

Secondly, even with the best curriculum in the world, these children are still minors who have parents. No student is required to take any portion of their curriculum, in that they can attend a private school at their own expense, if this is the route they choose. Why should parents be prevented from opting their child out if they feel the sex education is of very poor quality, inappropriate for the age, or directly contradictory to religious beliefs?

Again, I would argue that schools are poor venues because the teachers are not properly trained in the medical aspects of sex education.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I argue that even given copious amounts of time, the schools are not properly educating kids about sex education. Therefore, I argue that schools are not the place for sex education.

Secondly, I fail to see why this approach encourages ignorance about sex? Could I not say, as a teacher, go talk to your parents? How is this encouraging ignorance?

Because you're telling them not to talk about it. Even if you tell them to ask their parents, that's basically saying "ew, gross. don't talk about that here, it isn't proper.... why not ask your mommy?"

Proper schooling isn't about pounding facts into children's minds, it is about creating a healthy environment where they feel comfortable and able to explore, or ask, everything. If schools stoped treating sex as taboo, they might be able to start teaching it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Boris, the official wanted it to look like the child was being a disruption inside classtime when in fact it happened at recess where no child is paying attention to any teacher anyway, hence no disruption of classroom instruction. The official wanted to create the impression of Marcus causing a problem where none existed. I don't have access to the full article, so perhaps I'm missing the part of the article where s/he points out the fact this happened during recess, not during instruction, hence didn't disrupt anything...'cept maybe getting Ms. Sticks-Her-Nose-Into-Other-People's-Business' knickers in a bunch. If no such distinction is made by the author, slanting the article towards the position of the school, then it is bad journalism because the readers will only get the official's opinion on the matter (being that s/he wasn't any near the "incident"). This child was questionably punished, and the official as to be expected is trying to cover his ass. The journalist shouldn't be helping him.

First, it's right that all you saw was a snippet of the article, not the whole thing. How do you know the NY Times article didn't present the other versions and opinions involved? Hint: it did. I read the NY Times daily, so I know these things. And I can attest that they gave MUCH more coverage to the views of the mother and outraged ACLU people than the school officials.

Now, this was likely because the school officials were all tight-lipped. But it IS good journalism to seek out all sides of a story and present them. That's why they included the quote.

So I don't think accusations of bad journalism have any merit. I certainly don't see the NYT as deserving an "OH, there they go again!" response wrt bad journalism--I doubt you could find an American newspaper with all-round better quality journalism (warts and all).