When is early too early?

I would understand the school being against this if Mr. Parker wanted his son to not learn multiplication. Sorry. Facts are facts.

But indoctrinating kids with a laissez faire morality on an issue like homosexuality, which Mr. Parker has already expressed a desire to have his child removed from the discussion of, is just plain stupid.

If schools spent more time teaching reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic and less time teaching tolerance, morality, and feelings our kids would be much better off. If everyone is puzzled about why the schools are not up to par with the rest of the world in Math and Science, start there.

Pete, that’s a rather broad generalization there. I’ve been called a liberal more times than I can count (and I can count pretty high, really), yet I think a voucher-type system should be a possibility (and for home-schooling, the taxes that were levied for your school district should be returned to you or used to provide home-schooling supplies).

Either way, Mr. Parker does have a choice. He can take his kid out of school. Sure, it might be difficult (or even—gasp!—different from the societal norms). He might have to home school in the evenings and leave his kid at daycare. He may have to get a crappy apartment with a roommate or two dozen to afford to do so, but the fact of the choice still exists—just as the fact that same-sex relationships exist.

I’m going to agree with RKB here that teaching tolerance is not a bad thing. Unless the school is spreading absolute falsehoods such as “everybody agrees that same-sex relationships are morally good/bad”, I don’t see this as an issue.

The pitfall of generalizations is that a single example can invalidate it. Generalizations are nothing more than a pointless exercise in self-validation—something which I know I’ve fallen victim to on the occasional occasion here and there.

My basic point is that generalizations really do nothing to further an argument.

This however, is all part of a bigger scenario that is being played out in our education system where “feelings” and “self-esteem” trump academics. That’s one of the reasons that kids are growing up to be spoiled, self-centered, and arrogant young people. These kids are being told that they are great, that they could do no wrong, that everything is relevant. They are rarely criticized or corrected for fear that it will hurt their feelings.

The kid is six. He’s probably in kindergarten. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not even a full-day kindergarten, since most public schools can’t afford it. The goal at that age isn’t to “prepare kids for the real world,” but to make sure they are prepared for the next twelve years of their scholastic life. Let’s let high-school prepare ‘em for the real world. You WANT six year olds to feel like they belong, because if they don’t, they’re gonna fight with the desks, and the sitting patiently in your chair, and the raising hands (asking permission to speak), and the lining up, and the waiting your turn, and all of the other critical societal skills they need to understand. It’s not just book learning that goes on in your typical public school.

And you’re right, Pete. Six year olds don’t know what a “homosexual” is, but they do understand the concept of “a family,” and they’ll ask questions of each other like “why don’t you have a mommy?” or “why do you live in two houses?” or, maybe, “why do you have two dads?”

As a teacher, how would you step in to help these kids understand the differences? Six year olds don’t understand divorce, either, but does that mean you don’t talk about it? Do we tell them that their parents are bad because they didn’t keep their marriage vows? Or can we at least acknowledge — as the book tries to do — that there are a number of different ways to define “family?”

Just to enhance the discussion.

in·doc·tri·nate Audio pronunciation of “indoctrination” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dktr-nt)
tr.v. in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates

1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

“I would understand the school being against this if Mr. Parker wanted his son to not learn multiplication. Sorry. Facts are facts.”

How about ID, then?
Anyway, homosesuality is normal regardless of what your religion says about it. Teaching kids about sex at all at that age is inappropriate.
The fear of homosexuality has more behind it than just the bible.
The fear is that it actually might be as natural as heterosexuality, which opposes religious interpretations.. The fact of the matter is, it’s only immoral according to christianity because it is a waste of seed.
Remember, it was Paul who created christianity, not Jesus. It was Paul who borrowed from Plato and other Greek philosophers, as well as the rival religion of Mithraism. He never even met Jesus. Most christians don’t know this stuff.
Mithra was born on December 25th
Mithra’s birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave
Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples
Mithraism, which predates christianity (label coined by Paul himself), was also mysogonistic.
The similarities are endless.

God is no more a homophobe than mysogonist.
What most religious flok fail to understand is that they are attempting to understand God’s wishes and failing, right from the beginning.

It looks like there’s some hypocrisy too many of our Leftist or “social-moderate” (better, Spencer? ) friends seem to miss or conveniently ignore that lies in the justification being used by many school officials to remove things like the American Flag from the classroom. This so-called “sensitivity” for the opposing moral views of some moonbat parents to patriotism doesn’t apply to opposing moral views of parents of some traditionalist, conservative parents to acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

A word I see being thrown around on this thread, in particular, is tolerance. Sorry, but telling a parent he has no right to teach morality to his own child is not very tolerant in any form of the word. So much for the sensitivity so many of these relativists preach, too.

From the article – even Vinny highlighted it:

Parker said school officials have continued to tell him he has no right to control whether or not his child is taught about same-sex marriage

The issue encompasses more than just a what and why, RKB. It is also a matter of when (at what age), where (at home or in school), who (teacher or parent – or peers), and how (presented in a secular, or religious perspective) our kids learn certain things.

If we expect schools to be sensitive about things because of the possibility some parents might disagree with the presentation of the lesson (e.g. the Pledge of Allegience) and act on that sensitivity by not even touching the subject with kids, we should be consistent and leave other issues of morality to be taught elsewhere as well.

Like you said, we should know our own kids more than schools. So, we, as parents should be able to and be expected to have control over our kids’ education.

Gordon, you missed the point, it’s not about sensitivity; it’s about logic. Yes, generalizations aid us by giving us a series of best choices for our daily adventures, but in the context of an argument—the idea of coming to a conclusion by a set of premises—generalizations do nothing to further a claim because they are so easily falsified. The idea of discussions like these are to prove your point (pete’s being that liberals – or “social-moderates” – are only pro-choice when it comes to abortion), so generalizations are therefore bad.

Chet, this quote

Parker said school officials have continued to tell him he has no right to control whether or not his child is taught about same-sex marriage.

states nothing about “telling a parent he has no right to teach morality to his own child.” Teaching that different types of families exist (which they obviously do), including two mommy or two daddy families, does not necessarily mean they’re teaching the morality of the gay marriage issue (something I agree they shouldn’t be doing). Again, from the articles we’ve seen, we don’t know if this book is part of a classroom activity or merely a book in the library. And it doesn’t even come close to stating how or even if the issue of gay marriage and sexuality are being discussed.

The funny thing is, the book seems to have done what it was designed to do. It gave the parent the perfect opportunity to discuss the existence of these varying families with his child.

Actually, Chet, it doesn’t. Teaching the facts of same-sex family existence* does not imply a discussion of the right or wrong of it. In fact, it gave the parent the opportunity to discuss the moral issues of a situation that the child could very run into.

Again, I agree that schools shouldn’t get into the morality of it, but “facts are facts”. Same-sex families do exist. As long as the idea of the lesson follows the idea of the book—it’s OK if you’re family is different, a sort of “love the sinner, hate the sin”—I don’t see a reason for outrage. It’s certainly not any more forceful than a child running into a same-sex family or hearing about it from a schoolmate.

*which is all we can assume by the articles in question, has anybody found any further information?

“It’s all about timing,” ?? What does timing have to do with teaching morality? Sounds a bit relativist to me.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I’ll check those out this evening.

I forgot to answer your question.

What does timing have to do with teaching morality?

A lot.

Would you discuss your support or opposition to condom use among teens to a 5-year old? If not, why not? My reason would be that a 5-year old isn’t at a stage in his development and comprehension to be able to process the information in that discussion.

Perhaps you could, but there really wouldn’t be any reason to force the issue on them at such a young age.

At five, most kids wouldn’t even have the capacity to put sex and pregnacy together, let alone even guess what would prevent it. If the remote chance exists that they do, the parent should make the call and explain it.

Like I said, the parent has the power and responsibility to determine whether the child is ready for these lessons. Schools aren’t equipped for that one-on-one type of instruction, nor should they bare the responsibility to determine their readiness. That’s the parents’ job.

Except that homosexual families are taught in the context of being normal average everyday families.

That’s like saying Geoffrey Dahmer had an eating disorder.

I’m not one that thinks gays should be smited from the earth, but I hardly find homosexuality “normal” and teaching it’s normal to a child of parents who specifically asked that it not be taught to their kids because of moral objections is just wrong.

Teaching homosexuality as normal is equivalent to an endorsement of the normalcy of those relationships.

They work for anyone who wants to be taught it. If a parent decides not to teach his kids that homosexuality is just like being a single mom or someone with a lisp, that’s his right, and he has the right to opt out of it at school.

The resistance of the school to follow his wishes is proof that they have no interest in taking care of the children and every interest in taking en loco parentis way too far.

I would understand the school being against this if Mr. Parker wanted his son to not learn multiplication. Sorry. Facts are facts.

But indoctrinating kids with a laissez faire morality on an issue like homosexuality, which Mr. Parker has already expressed a desire to have his child removed from the discussion of, is just plain stupid.

If schools spent more time teaching reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic and less time teaching tolerance, morality, and feelings our kids would be much better off. If everyone is puzzled about why the schools are not up to par with the rest of the world in Math and Science, start there.

Pete, that’s a rather broad generalization there. I’ve been called a liberal more times than I can count (and I can count pretty high, really), yet I think a voucher-type system should be a possibility (and for home-schooling, the taxes that were levied for your school district should be returned to you or used to provide home-schooling supplies).

Either way, Mr. Parker does have a choice. He can take his kid out of school. Sure, it might be difficult (or even—gasp!—different from the societal norms). He might have to home school in the evenings and leave his kid at daycare. He may have to get a crappy apartment with a roommate or two dozen to afford to do so, but the fact of the choice still exists—just as the fact that same-sex relationships exist.

I’m going to agree with RKB here that teaching tolerance is not a bad thing. Unless the school is spreading absolute falsehoods such as “everybody agrees that same-sex relationships are morally good/bad”, I don’t see this as an issue.

The pitfall of generalizations is that a single example can invalidate it. Generalizations are nothing more than a pointless exercise in self-validation—something which I know I’ve fallen victim to on the occasional occasion here and there.

My basic point is that generalizations really do nothing to further an argument.

This however, is all part of a bigger scenario that is being played out in our education system where “feelings” and “self-esteem” trump academics. That’s one of the reasons that kids are growing up to be spoiled, self-centered, and arrogant young people. These kids are being told that they are great, that they could do no wrong, that everything is relevant. They are rarely criticized or corrected for fear that it will hurt their feelings.

The kid is six. He’s probably in kindergarten. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not even a full-day kindergarten, since most public schools can’t afford it. The goal at that age isn’t to “prepare kids for the real world,” but to make sure they are prepared for the next twelve years of their scholastic life. Let’s let high-school prepare ‘em for the real world. You WANT six year olds to feel like they belong, because if they don’t, they’re gonna fight with the desks, and the sitting patiently in your chair, and the raising hands (asking permission to speak), and the lining up, and the waiting your turn, and all of the other critical societal skills they need to understand. It’s not just book learning that goes on in your typical public school.

And you’re right, Pete. Six year olds don’t know what a “homosexual” is, but they do understand the concept of “a family,” and they’ll ask questions of each other like “why don’t you have a mommy?” or “why do you live in two houses?” or, maybe, “why do you have two dads?”

As a teacher, how would you step in to help these kids understand the differences? Six year olds don’t understand divorce, either, but does that mean you don’t talk about it? Do we tell them that their parents are bad because they didn’t keep their marriage vows? Or can we at least acknowledge — as the book tries to do — that there are a number of different ways to define “family?”

Just to enhance the discussion.

in·doc·tri·nate Audio pronunciation of “indoctrination” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dktr-nt)
tr.v. in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates

1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

Sure it has the possibility to become indoctrination, as most everything does. But this story* makes it sound like a chance encounter with the library, which, taking into consideration the topic of the book, makes it far from indoctrination.

Who’s in a family? The people who love you the most! Chances are, your family is like no one elses—and that’s just fine!

Even if it was taught in class as part of the curriculum, it can’t be bad to teach children of the existence of families they could very well run into in their kindergarten career, and to tolerate the children of said families.

*(unfortunately the only other source I could find, via pesky apostrophe, a couple quick google searches didn’t turn up anything related)

Why is it that every time someone says they’re against homosexuality, someone invariably brings up fear. I doubt anyone is “afraid” of homosexuality. Seriously, that’s a weak argument.

Now, on to your assertion that “it’s only wrong because it is a waste of seed.”

So?

That’s why masturbation and oral sex are wrong according to Catholic doctrine also. The Catholic church has also said on numerous occasion that homosexuals are to be treated with respect. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

No one can fully understand God’s wishes or intentions. If we could, we’d be gods ourselves, and that’s just not possible. We are fallible beings trying the best we can.

It looks like there’s some hypocrisy too many of our Leftist or “social-moderate” (better, Spencer? ) friends seem to miss or conveniently ignore that lies in the justification being used by many school officials to remove things like the American Flag from the classroom. This so-called “sensitivity” for the opposing moral views of some moonbat parents to patriotism doesn’t apply to opposing moral views of parents of some traditionalist, conservative parents to acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

A word I see being thrown around on this thread, in particular, is tolerance. Sorry, but telling a parent he has no right to teach morality to his own child is not very tolerant in any form of the word. So much for the sensitivity so many of these relativists preach, too.

I’ve been thinking about this a good deal over the weekend. I don’t think anyone is telling this parent, Chet, that he has no right to teach morality to his own child. At least I hope not.

The reason I’ve been thinking about this so much is because it’s making me think about what our expectations should be of our public school system. Initially, I’d thought that if the parent didn’t want their child to learn about X, then the school should respect that. But how do you manage that? As a public school, how do you accomodate all of the potential demands made on you by parents.

And it’s not just the morality issue. Should a parent be able to dictate what is or is not taught to their child — for any subject — at a public school? Should any parent have this latitude? Should ALL parents?

When our daughters learn something in school that we disagree with (either from their teachers, or, more often, other kids) then we TALK to them about it. We reinforce what we want them to know about that subject. We try to use it as an opportunity to learn about the subject, even if it’s a thorny one, all the while presenting OUR beliefs about it as the ones we want them to follow.

In other words, they know MORE about how we want them to feel about an issue after it’s been brought up and we’ve talked through it as a family, instead of ignoring the issue altogether because we think we’re somehow protecting our children.

From the article – even Vinny highlighted it:

Parker said school officials have continued to tell him he has no right to control whether or not his child is taught about same-sex marriage

The issue encompasses more than just a what and why, RKB. It is also a matter of when (at what age), where (at home or in school), who (teacher or parent – or peers), and how (presented in a secular, or religious perspective) our kids learn certain things.

If we expect schools to be sensitive about things because of the possibility some parents might disagree with the presentation of the lesson (e.g. the Pledge of Allegience) and act on that sensitivity by not even touching the subject with kids, we should be consistent and leave other issues of morality to be taught elsewhere as well.

Like you said, we should know our own kids more than schools. So, we, as parents should be able to and be expected to have control over our kids’ education.

My basic point is that generalizations really do nothing to further an argument.

You’re just being tad bit oversensitive. Everyday we all base our actions and reactions based on common threads, expected responses, and lord forbid – generalizations. How else would you expect anything in life?

Perhaps in this PC world / Nanny State we should start referring to generalizations as expectations.

We’d all feel better about it. That’s all PC is anyhow – turning happy into glad.

As for teaching 6 year olds about sexuality – you got to be fucking kidding me? What have these moonbats done to our educational system? It’s in the shitter. There needs to be a conservative movement to take back our schools, this is ridiculous.

Gordon, you missed the point, it’s not about sensitivity; it’s about logic. Yes, generalizations aid us by giving us a series of best choices for our daily adventures, but in the context of an argument—the idea of coming to a conclusion by a set of premises—generalizations do nothing to further a claim because they are so easily falsified. The idea of discussions like these are to prove your point (pete’s being that liberals – or “social-moderates” – are only pro-choice when it comes to abortion), so generalizations are therefore bad.

Chet, this quote

Parker said school officials have continued to tell him he has no right to control whether or not his child is taught about same-sex marriage.

states nothing about “telling a parent he has no right to teach morality to his own child.” Teaching that different types of families exist (which they obviously do), including two mommy or two daddy families, does not necessarily mean they’re teaching the morality of the gay marriage issue (something I agree they shouldn’t be doing). Again, from the articles we’ve seen, we don’t know if this book is part of a classroom activity or merely a book in the library. And it doesn’t even come close to stating how or even if the issue of gay marriage and sexuality are being discussed.

The funny thing is, the book seems to have done what it was designed to do. It gave the parent the perfect opportunity to discuss the existence of these varying families with his child.

Chet, this quote … states nothing about “telling a parent he has no right to teach morality to his own child.”

It sure does. As RKB points out, the parent knows his child better than any school official can ever hope to. If the parent knows his child is has not yet reached a point his development to process the astounding information – yes, this information is astounding to any child who is not raised around “alternative” families – that parent should be allowed to determine when, how, where and by whom his child gets exposed to it.

At some point in their lives, children will eventually get exposed to these things no matter what protection the parents try to impose. The question we have to ask is why should a school force it upon those kids whose parents know aren’t ready? Parents should have the power here – not the school.

Actually, Chet, it doesn’t. Teaching the facts of same-sex family existence* does not imply a discussion of the right or wrong of it. In fact, it gave the parent the opportunity to discuss the moral issues of a situation that the child could very run into.

Again, I agree that schools shouldn’t get into the morality of it, but “facts are facts”. Same-sex families do exist. As long as the idea of the lesson follows the idea of the book—it’s OK if you’re family is different, a sort of “love the sinner, hate the sin”—I don’t see a reason for outrage. It’s certainly not any more forceful than a child running into a same-sex family or hearing about it from a schoolmate.

*which is all we can assume by the articles in question, has anybody found any further information?

It’s all about timing, Spencer. That’s part of teaching morality – determining when the student is at a point in his/her development to effectively process the information that is presented. How it’s presented is also part of it.

The school’s telling the parents they really have no choice in the matter, they are taking away that opportunity and obligation to determine and decide these vital things.

If you haven’t seen them yet, the emails exchanged between the parents and the school principal are posted here.

Check it out. Looks very much like a violation of school-parent trust as well as disrespecting the diversity they like to preach.

“It’s all about timing,” ?? What does timing have to do with teaching morality? Sounds a bit relativist to me.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I’ll check those out this evening.

Sounds a bit relativist to me.

Hardy Har Har.

I forgot to answer your question.

What does timing have to do with teaching morality?

A lot.

Would you discuss your support or opposition to condom use among teens to a 5-year old? If not, why not? My reason would be that a 5-year old isn’t at a stage in his development and comprehension to be able to process the information in that discussion.

I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t. You may have to simplify it quite a bit, but you could do it quite easily without getting into the specifics of how a condom works.

And I’m going to get to those emails, really… It’s been a rough week.

Perhaps you could, but there really wouldn’t be any reason to force the issue on them at such a young age.

…unless they have a teen brother/sister/cousin/x or a friend that has a teen brother/sister/cousin/x who’s pregnant (which is probably fairly likely) and they start asking questions. Damn kids.

At five, most kids wouldn’t even have the capacity to put sex and pregnacy together, let alone even guess what would prevent it. If the remote chance exists that they do, the parent should make the call and explain it.

Like I said, the parent has the power and responsibility to determine whether the child is ready for these lessons. Schools aren’t equipped for that one-on-one type of instruction, nor should they bare the responsibility to determine their readiness. That’s the parents’ job.

Teaching about the existence of pregnancy or homosexual families does not mean teaching about sex. A teacher telling children that Ricky has two dads and Jamie has two moms is not “implicitly equating this family structure as a morally equal alternative to other family constructs.” (from emails) Facts imply nothing about morality, nor are these facts adult themed, as children understand what families are.

The question Parker asks, “do parents have the right to exclude/shield their children from these contrary values being pushed upon young children in elementary school,” is not a valid question in this context. We’re not talking about contrary values. We’re talking about facts. According to one of the emails from the principal, they “do have children in [their] school who have parents who are same sex partners.” Therefore, it is a valid step to take to teach children about these possibilities.

Where parents do have the right to teach lessons in morality, schools have the right and responsibility to teach in facts.

Took me long enough to get back here, didn’t it?

Teaching that homosexuality exists is not teaching it as “normal”, nor is it similar to your hyperbole starring Dahmer—I doubt Dahmer’s dinner “guests”, even if given the choice, would have consented to the meal.

Personally, I think this book (and books like it) work for everybody. It teaches the kids to be tolerant, all while bringing the issue front and center for the parents to discuss with their children, where they bring morality into the discussion.

They work for anyone who wants to be taught it. If a parent decides not to teach his kids that homosexuality is just like being a single mom or someone with a lisp, that’s his right, and he has the right to opt out of it at school.

The resistance of the school to follow his wishes is proof that they have no interest in taking care of the children and every interest in taking en loco parentis way too far.