Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School
 

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news...l.html?taf=bos

There is more controversy at a Lexington elementary school, where once again a parent is upset about gay themes being inserted into the curriculum.

This time, the mother of a second-grader is upset that her son's teacher read the class a book highlighting two gay princes.

NewsCenter 5's Gail Huff reported that some parents of students at the Estabrook Elementary School are upset that the students were read a book called "King and King," the story of prince who is interested in the brother of the princess.

"My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful and good and the way things should be," parent Robin Wirthlin said. "We feel like 7 years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes."

The Estabrook School is the same school that garnered attention last year after another father, David Parker, was arrested when he protested the school's decision to have his 5-year-old son's class read a book depicting gay families. Parker was arrested and banned from school property for refusing to leave without a promise from school officials that he would be notified in advance if similar material was going to be taught.

Although school officials said their goal in exposing the children to such topics was to be inclusive as possible, Parker's position was not tolerated.

"We want all of our families and all of the children to feel that they're welcome and included there, and one of the ways to do that is to show different kinds of families," school committee member Helen Cohen said.

The school superintendent, Paul Ash, issued a statement about the latest controversy saying, "The Lexington school system cherishes diversity ... we welcome children and families of all backgrounds, including families headed by same-sex parents."

Wirthlin said she and other parents should be notified in advance when such topics will be addressed so they can remove their children from the class.

:rant: Man, If I was a parent at that school they would have had to arrest me too. This is just plain sick. This crosses the line. I hope he sues and gets the "educators" responsible for this fired and kept away from children.

Do you think kids from gay families should be kept out of the school too? after all, they might talk about their parents. That would be tragic.

Now here's someone whose skill with English clearly shows they should have heavy input into public education. :-)

I hate people.

ESPECIALLY bigoted, prejudicial, discriminatory, twisted people. Which someone would HAVE to be to discriminate like that against ANYONE for ANY reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, creed, or anything else.

If there was no sex described in the book (and I think it's safe to assume there wasn't), then it is probably considerably less sexually disturbing than Snow White. Not that the kids are going to be looking at the sexual themes of either story.

"My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful and good and the way things should be," parent Robin Wirthlin said"

I agree completely.

Have you read the book Jordon?

I'd be interested to know if it really presented homosexuality as "the way things should be" or, more likely, "they way things sometimes are".

Children can adapt,.... if a hetro feeling little kid can make friends with another hetro feeling kid with gay/lesbian parents./// what the fuck.

Should a white kid not make friends, or happen across literature that talks about some mixed married kid having white superior parent fucking and being in love with a member of the lowsome minority race?

The fact is there are gay people and it is normal for them to be gay.
The fact is that those who think being gay is anti Christian do not understand their own religion (abomination is not sin and eating shrimp and wearing a polyester cotton blend shirt is as much an abomination as a gay relationship. Do you work on Saturday... that is a sin).
The fact is that recent studies show that homophobia is based in repressed homosexual tendencies.

Please don't infect kids with your sickness.

It didn't even take ten posts for someone to try to wrap this issue in the mantle of Civil rights. Pathetic.:violin:

and your point Jordan? ... civil rights, or just plain human endeavors?

Princes? Princess? Well, it is only a fairy tale. :eyebrow:

lol,

watch "Breakfast at Puto"

Actually, it only took one. What's truly pathetic is you didn't even seem to notice.

Given what still happens self-righteously out in the open, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised what happens in a darkened street, or a deserted Wyoming field. No wonder we need the Pink Pistols. We managed to get some decent press the other day,though...

The same was probaly said for interracial relationships in childrens' books. I wonder what the first example of that was?

Why is it everyone thinks children should be exposed to what they feel is acceptable and the parents have no say in the matter?

Bitch about parents not parenting, ignoring their kids, just using the school for a baby sitter, but when a parent gets involved he gets shouted down. :confused:

Erm...I happen to *be* a parent.

If somebody thinks their kids shouldn't be exposed to the public, maybe they shouldn't be in a public school. There's plenty of "Christian" "academies" founded on creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts.

Just don't ask me to pay for it.

(For a minute there I thought a "gay book flap" was a new kind of centerfold... :-) )

I think the parents should get involved. The teachers should teach about the real world.

If the christian parent has a bias against islam let them talk about it
... will they?
Fuck no. The parent has an agenda... MY WAY or the HIWAY.


Education is to open your minds and if ya can't handle the future, or maybe the way things are in the 21st century...

the children might save the total shit that our previous/present governments have left your potential great great great grandchildren with...

(and, we're not even talking about ecosystems that big biznezz govtments exploit... this is just about two human beings within this topic that might find love and support with each other)

Yes, but not that kid's parent. Would you want your kid taught "creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts", ie, Kansas? And have to pay for it.

Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world? :confused:

good point,....

the reason they would fire me in a heart beat, is that I would want YOU're kid to think...


AND then at the dinner table... he/she might bring up a question or discussion... (That is if you as a parent COULD even draw a response from them about what they learned at school)

BUT then again,,,, does anybody even sit at the dinner table and talk to each other?

And if happened, could you put on csny "teach your parents well" song, and listen to both?

NOPE> Parents are factory/assembled workers,
ie:"do what I say, don't break the rules, and don't think aloud about stuff I haven't in my mighty significant brought forth"

(fortunately most "parents" grow up when they get out of their Nazi stage, they become grandparents)

It reeks of self-loathing that the worst insult gays can hurl at their critics is to accuse them of being one of them.:biglaugha

The first resort of any criticism being to brand the person as a homophobe, although few straight people have anything resembling fear of them.

hahahahah, Objection your honor,

A "fact" does not preclude "self-loathing" or that it is even an "insult"

Facts is facts.

and no, you fuckface bigots, it doesn't mean Im gay.


I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body.

From where I sit, teaching creationism and homophobia (regardless of whether it's the Christian flavor or the Islamic brand) is teaching religion..fine in a private school, but no business of the government.

You can't teach reading (one of your R's) without books. I was taught to read from textbooks that had no black people in them...in the 1950's that was the norm. It did not serve me well in the "real world". (Actually I learned to read before I got to grade school, but that's another story)

Uh...if I thought accusing you of being queer was an insult, I'd be a homophobe too. I just conclude that somone who wants to erase me (and then wants me to help pay the bill for it) is an enemy...I don't particularly give a crap what their orientation is; that's their problem.

You think it's an insult?

Teaching bias and other social graces is not the same as teaching OF creationism, homophobia, etc. We were taught Darwinism. We were also taught of other theories such as creationism and spontaneous reproduction. Schools must introduce the concepts - which is not same a teaching the agenda.

I am an anti-communist. Therefore I don't want my kid to be taught about the USSR? That is nonsense. But that failed logic can easily be promoted by not defining a difference. Responsible schools must teach of what exists. That does not mean schools need teach how to murder. Just that murder does exist and what it is. Today, some could hype that into schools teaching how to commit Columbine. Therefore kids should never be taught what murder is?

Its unacceptable for a parent to deny children knowledge of what does exist. Denying that knowledge so can even make society ripe for hate crimes. There is a major difference between teaching how to and teaching of basic society realities. Some so fear that knowledge as to not know the difference.

That depends of what they're teaching. There's no reason for Dick & Jane to be escorted by Jamal. History books are quite another matter, however. :cool:

I disagree. I bet Jamal does too. Black people aren't just historical, I understand there actually are some still alive today.

I'd prefer black kids to not get a message that reading is only for white kids.

Do you have kids? There's no way you can educate them in literacy without exposing them to culture.
http://www.juliascollectibles.com/hj1587.jpg
http://www.juliascollectibles.com/hj970.jpg

There's no reason for Dick and Jane NOT to be escorted by Jamal, either. Jamal exists. Jamal Jr. may be sitting in that very classroom. Jamal is as human as everyone else.

So, I read Cinderella at age 7. I didn't run right out to find what she and Prince Charming did on their wedding night. And I might equally make the case that exposing children to the story of Cinderella encourages women to have an unhealthy dependency on men to come rescue them and for men to view themselves as rescuers.

If children are given a solid emotional and moral foundation at home, reading about Jamal or Cinderella or the two kings is not going to drive them into a life of depravity.

Seven year olds do not need to learn about homosexuals, and no one has the right to override the wishes of their parents, no matter how enlightened they fancy themselves. This is the kind of thing that only serves to create a backlash against gay rights. Believe it or not, it is possible to be opposed to this kind of thing, or gay marriage, and not be a homophobe or wish all gays herded into concentration camps and gassed. That kind of shrill, frantic, knee jerk reaction just sets back their cause even more and slams the door on any kind of sincere discussion.

There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.

That's exactly the hysterical attitude I mean, heterophobe.

Gays should come up with their own sacrament appropriate to their unique situation and stop trying to mimic a heterosexual sacrament by simply replacing "husaband and wife" in the ritual with whatever.

However, Civil Unions should be available to anyone.

And IF civil unions and marriage were considered completely equal in every way by the law, that would be all fine and dandy. Not the [i]best[i] option, but better than nothing.

is it not better to teach children not to be prejudice against any one regardless of who they chose to take to bed. children are a lot smarter then most parent give them credit for, at the age of seven they probably know enough about how life works it would make you roll over and die.

Wow, your State dispenses sacraments. [sarcasm] I can't imagine that becoming problematic.[/sarcasm]

I am actually no fan of public schools. My kids go to a Catholic school. There are far worse things going on in public schools than teaching tolerance, but if that's the thing that sets you off pull your children out.

I'm heterosexual myself. It's not hysterical, it's factual. But i'm happy to be proven wrong. Do you have any reasons other than "it's against my religion" or "it's yucky"?

There are gay parents, too...their wishes count as well. If you want your kids to receive education that comports with your religious beliefs, that's fine: send them to a private school.

But this is a *public* school. Anybody can go; everybody pays. Your beliefs don't get any more weight than anybody else's. You're not entitled to turn the curriculum into a fantasy land where things that you don't like don't exist.

You're entitled to believe in anything from the Invisible Guy in the Sky to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and live accordingly. But don't erase me and people like me from the public school library and then expect us to pay part of the bill.

Oh, while we're burning books. let's take Robin Hood out of the library too...don't teach our kids that terrorism is "normal and desirable".

Then certainly we need to include felching and fisting for seven year olds as well. We don't want anyone to feel marginalized or that their sexual practices are anything except completely normal.:flipbird:

It's real hard to imagine this sort of emotional reaction not having a psychological basis of some sort, innit?

You can tell us Jordon... did you suck a dick? It's OK, we're friends here and won't judge you.

I've noticed that gay-bashers often seem to be obsessed with fetishism, and equate that to the defining characteristic of a person. Would it be "okay" though, if that person were heterosexual? "Hi, I'm Bill, I'm an executive at a reputable corporation, I have a nice home with an immaculate lawn, three lovely honor students, and I like to stick a red-hot poker up my wife's a-hole. Oh, and I hate gay people, because God hates gay people. Gay people are the devil. I'm not gay, by the way, if you were thinking that. I'm not."

Typical of you types to drag religion into the fray first thing while I have never even mentioned it.

Let's look at some of the new texts for this fall's second graders:

Daddy likes it up the ass
Pappa's Prolapsed Rectum
Daddy loved sucking dick more than he loved me; (that's why he's all crusted over with Kaposi's Sarcomas)
One Dick, Two Dick, Big Dick, You Dick
Dykes on Tikes
The Fag in the Bag who wants to Shag
My Secret Friend who Lurks in the Restroom
The Leering Queer who gave me Beer

If you meant me, or any other specific person, why say "you types"?

I must have missed the place where you were advocating teaching straight sexual practices to seven year olds. Or was that when the cops showed up?

Then perhaps you'd care to explain your opposition to homosexuality. It's either "it's against my religion" or "it's yucky".I'm sorry, does the two princes book include any sex? At all? If not, then it is exactly like any fairy tale that ends up "and they lived happily ever after. I mean, if you want to get into sexual isues of fairy tale characters, then Cinderella's Prince was a massive foot fetishist and Snow White's was a necrophiliac.

Speak for yourself; I've already judged him. :-)

And have equal legal status to straight marriage? Cool...now let's figure out why The State should be involved in it at all.

If it does, I withdraw my objection to removing it from an elementary school curriculum...no matter who the Prince[s] is/are boffing.

Of course this is a sane and considered response. You hate queers. Why mince your words. You want us to agree with you that its ok to hate them. Sorry, no, I'm not going to agree. It looks most people here don't agree with your hatred, either.

Gosh, you seem to have that all sorted out. Does your whole life fall into two such easy categories?

Who said I was opposed to homosexuality? I disagree with it being pandered to seven year olds.

I don't hate queers either, but if you give me shit, prepare to get it shoved right back down your throat coated with Drano.

Yes, Civil Unions should have equal legal status to marriage. The govt should license Civil Unions to anyone, and let individual religions dispense marriage sacraments.

Among Pagans there are Covens composed entirely of Lesbians and others of Gay men. While some rituals are common to us all, they also have rituals specific to their sexual inclination. No gay man would insist on being allowed to participate in a Moon Lodge ritual for Lesbians. No Lesbian would insist on being included in a Gay coming of age ritual. Homosexuals should write their own rituals and sacraments, rather than simply imitating the heterosexual marriage rite. There is no hatred in that. The hatred is in the minds of you who are so eager to perceive it. But sadly, instead of any genuine debate, all you want to do is fling poo.

This does, unless you're willing to provide a counterexample.You did, with your "reading list" that implied that if kids are shown fairy tales about two princes in love, the next step is showing them hardcore gay sex. The same is obviously not true for Sleeping Beauty, so why would it be for the two princes?I agree with this. Of course, everyone will still call it marriage, since the ones who think marriage must be religious in nature will have it done by their religion, and the ones who don't won't care what the religions think.Marriage ceremonies are based at least as much on culture as religion. In homogenous societies, where there's only one religion and only one culture, that may be hard to distinguish, but a Catholic marriage in Ireland will be considerably different than one in Ghana. "Gay" isn't a religion. If their church performs gay marriages, then their marriage will be whatever their church does. If they do it without a church, it will be whatever they want it to be, which will probably be informed by the culture they grew up in.

I see. If we say a man loves a woman, that's romance. But if we say a man loves a man, that's "pandering". But you're not prejudiced against gay people, of course.

(By the way...you need to look up "pandering". Gramatically, if a child is "being pandered to", it's an appeal to his existing vices, not an attempt to seduce him into new ones.)

Wooo I like you people already :) .. .. well put

Well, either your objection is based on religion or it isn't.. Let's start by answering that one.

I assume we'll now see some handwaving approxiately along the lines of why "Intelligent Design is different from Creationism": religious objections trying to sneak into government policy masquerading as something else.

Confusion began when you did not distinguish between teachings of a lifestyle verses teaching how to live that lifestyle. Having not provided sufficient details - distinguishing between both concepts - your responses assumes you are so opposed to homosexuality as to even condemning teaching of its existence.

To better understand what was posted: first legal marriage requirements. I read you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages. Is that correct?

Second, religion. You stated that sacraments (I take that to mean Catholic Church) should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct?

Third, education. You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist? That existence of standard society features (lifestyles) should never be taught to kids? That some realities should never be taught to kids (answering this question in detailed terms of what exists and of how it exists)? Is that correct?

I do, I do, I hate queers. The bastards ruined the word gay. Gay was a great descriptive word. There isn't another word that can take it's place and be as effective. I'll always hold it against 'em. :mad:

You're so full of shit you're developing buck teeth. My objection to 7 year olds being exposed to homosexuality is based on simple human decency.
:dedhors2:

Nope. Never said that. However your assumption is quite telling.:lol:

Blythe
Bonnie
Jocund
Merry