Massachusetts father jailed for opposing teaching of homosexuality

[Larry]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

Schools shouldn't promote homosexuality or make decisions on what it deems to be morality correct either. That is exactly what they are doing buy having these books avail to young children.

"The Book" being objected to is shown (well, actually, the two pages that the parents object to are shown) on the referenced web page. I defy you to show any mention of sex, or sexuality, or values in them.

I'm willing to just assume (without any evidence whatsoever) that the couple shown are homosexual, just for the sake of argument. But the couple aren't shown having sex, or discussing it, or even doing anything that's related to sex.

What the parents (of the real kid, not the fictional people in the story) are doing is demanding the censorship of any work of fiction in which a (hypothetical) gay couple may exist.

(They're also demanding that the school protect their child from anything else in the world that might reveal to him that same-sex couples exist. Should the school ban their child from all after-school functions, because a same-sex couple might be present?)

That's why I drew the analogy to the round-earth theory: It's one thing to demand the school not teach values. It's another to demand that the school assist in keeping the child ignorant.

Does a parent have the right to demand that the school protect his child from the knowledge that Santa Clause doesn't exist?

This isn't a fight over wheteher the school can "teach homosexual values". It's a fight over whether the school can be required to never reveal that same-sex couples exist.

The day after the initial communication, the Principal responded with

I can tell you that we do not have any part of the Kindergarten curriculum that teaches students about gay values. What I can't control is what students may say to one another, as we do have children in our school who have parents who are same sex partners. These issues may come up in talk on the playground, during show and tell, when a student shares a picture about what the family did over the weekend, or when their parents come in to the classroom to volunteer or for a party. In some cases, teachers will need to respond, and they do their best to do it in a way that is factual and respectful of all families, referring children to their parents if they have more detailed questions. Also, the school libraries in Lexington all contain, as part of our collections on families, a couple of books that depict a variety of family configurations (as in the one you saw in the bookbag). [Your son] might choose such a book to look at and bring home, though he certainly wouldn't be guided to one.

Aparantly, a blanket declaration that the school has not, and will not, discuss gay values (but can't insure complete ignorance) isn't acceptable.

[tex]

Originally posted by chomerics

No, this is an absolute lie trying to make you think the way you do. You have just read a PROPAGANDA piece, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

THe father refused to call a lawyer because he wanted to make a publicity stunt out of it. The judge admonished him for his outrageous behavior, and rightly so. I'm glad to see that hatred and bigotry is still rampant down in Texas, at least we know where you stand.

Some believe that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and do not want their children exposed to it until they reach an adequate age and level of maturity so that they may properly understand the ramifications of living one's life as a homosexual. If you see this viewpoint as being bigoted or as fostering hatred by all means go ahead believe what you want. I will say however that my experiences point toward tolerance being more the rule here in Texas then the exception. Your antiquated stereotyping is somewhat dated.

What the school has done is poke the camel’s nose under the tent. The indoctrinations of very young minds have only just begun with the apparent goal of normalizing the homosexual lifestyle there.

We are competing in a business world that grows more competitive every day. To maintain our economic vitality and world standing our focus should be on preparing our youth to compete in the global marketplace rather than distracting them with the above.

Tarhog:

Thank you for changing the title. I do have the tendency toward bluntness that puts folks off at times. If any Extremer was offended please know that no insult or malice was intended. My apologies.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by tex

Some believe that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and do not want their children exposed to it until they reach an adequate age and level of maturity so that they may properly understand the ramifications of living one's life as a homosexual. If you see this viewpoint as being bigoted or as fostering hatred by all means go ahead believe what you want. I will say however that my experiences point toward tolerance being more the rule here in Texas then the exception. Your antiquated stereotyping is somewhat dated.

It was not the viewpoint that I found bigoted, but the derogatory words in the thread title. When I came into this thread, I saw title that had the words homos and lesbos in it, and a post was calling Bostonians commies. I took offense and called out both you and redman on it, and threw some right back at you. I should have taken a less abrasive tact, but after my initial post, I didn't have to read the word homo or lesbo again, and the thread was a bit more civil.

I was called out for using my stereotypes as well, and I did apologize for them, because I truly do not believe this way. I just take offense when I see one segment of society castigating another segment of society simply because of their preference. You don't have to agree with me, but if you want to have a discussion I would appreciate it if you could avoid using derrogatory terms .

What the school has done is poke the camel’s nose under the tent. The indoctrinations of very young minds have only just begun with the apparent goal of normalizing the homosexual lifestyle there.

As well they should normalize the homosexual lifestyle, because it is NOT frowned upon in Lexington. Gay people are not an abomination to society in Mass, they are just people, the same as everyone else. Tolerance is the way to teach their children here, not hatred. The children will have to face the fact that their classmates have two fathers or two moms. This is a reality. The parents want to shield their child from homosexuals and want to make sure their kids know homosexuality is not normal. This is OK, and it is their right to do so, but it is not their right to make sure everyone else has to think the same way as them.

We are competing in a business world that grows more competitive every day. To maintain our economic vitality and world standing our focus should be on preparing our youth to compete in the global marketplace rather than distracting them with the above.

Then why make a specticle out of the situation, and get arrested???

]

[stevenaa]

I have a question. Along with pointing out that some kids have same sex parents, is there a long authoritative list that is provided to all these kids that demonstrates exactly what behaviors, or other things, they are to be tollerant of?

Did they get a book that outlined all of the different religions fellow students might practice?

Did they get a book that showed all of the countries represented by their fellow students?

Did they point out that some kids only have one parent because of divorce?

Did they get a book that shows unmarried couples living together, where only one of the adults is the childs parent?

You can go on and on here, but you see the point. Enforcing tolerance does not have to include a thesis on what items children should be tolerant of. Teaching and enforcing the Golden Rule should really suffice in this matter.

This is about indoctrination, not tolerance. Larry points out how small and innocuos it really is. He's probably right, but that is how this is done. Make it seem small and unimportant, and gradually increase the information as people get desensitized to it.

It seems to me you could make a good argument that pointing these things out only makes the children more aware of the differences.

If my 6 or 7 year olds found out a friend had same sex parents, they'd find it odd, but would have no inclination to tease. I haven't discussed this with them yet, but when it happens, i'm sure to get questions. Then I can be the parent and explain it to them. Now some children this age will have parents who have begun indoctrinating them in how awful a practice this is. This child will be more inclined to say something hurtful, even if he/she doesn't realize it. No amount of "tolerance training" is going to change this.

My children are being raised to be respectful of peoples choices and tolerant of their actions, so long as their behavior is within the law. They'll be taught that it is not acceptable behavior, but that people have the right to make their own choices.

Now, Larry, you can call this bigotted if you desire, though in a twist of irony I find that very intolerant of my beliefs . I call it raising my children with the values I believe should be instilled in them.

Ghost said it well. "tolerance for me, not for thee" You have no tolerance, nor does the homosexual lobby, for my constitutional rights to practice my beliefs. If the masses have to be taught tolerance of homosexuals, then homosexuals ought to be taught tolerance of those who don't agree with their behavior. Afterall, they are the minority, even in Massachusettes.

[bearrock]

This may be the most misleading thread title I've ever seen. It appears that the father was jailed for trespass not opposing teaching of homosexuality.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by stevenaa

Ghost said it well. "tolerance for me, not for thee" You have no tolerance, nor does the homosexual lobby, for my constitutional rights to practice my beliefs. If the masses have to be taught tolerance of homosexuals, then homosexuals ought to be taught tolerance of those who don't agree with their behavior. Afterall, they are the minority, even in Massachusettes.

Steven, I am really struggling to understand why a gay person should feel subordinate and immoral simply because their lifestyle is against someones beliefs. I don't see the logic, or the reasoning behind telling children that their classmates are different and that their parents are not accepted by society, but the gay couple should accept this because they should be tolerant of others beliefs. :confused:

You have the right to practice your beliefs, and I don't see the gay lobby picketing churches, or castigating out christians. In fact, I see it the other way around, I see people like Fred Phelps picketing the death of Matthew Sheppard. I see people who are leaders in christianity preaching that 9-11 was gods damnation for the homosexual movement in the US. I see pamphlets put out by religious zealots suggesting that the tsunami was gods rath on homosexuals and peodaphiles. In other words, I see your religion persecuting homosexuals simply because they are not like you.

If people want to teach their children this doctrine of hatred, that is their choice. It is a free world, but don't misunderstand that predjudices and intolerance towards others is OK, and a free thinking society should accept your thinking because of your religion. IMHO, it is using religion to hide the hatred. It is saying well, I don't like these people because god tells me not to.

I do not see homosexuals persecuting christians. I do not see homosexuals standing outside churches holding up signs saying christians are devil lovers. In fact, all I see is a group of society who wants to be treated just like everybody else.

[jpillian]

If this is truly just an issue of tolerance, I can live with that. Homosexuals should NOT be persecuted for their lifestyle.

However, Chom -- you've got to understand Christianity's struggle. If we were to do nothing at all, we will be judged with the rest of our depraved society as it crumbles around us. From our perspective, this is always one of the last moral depravities that is suffered before a society implodes upon itself (ala Sodom and Gomorah) And I generally LIKE the American way of life -- I do not want to see it go away for myself or my children's sake; there is no place like it,nor has there even been.

So what are we Christians to do when we see something that we consider to be just another step down the slippery slope of moral decay? Stand back and watch it happen?

I honestly don't know. I think it should be a case of hating what we consider the sin, and loving the sinner -- on the individual level. That does not mean accepting the behavior, but it does mean accepting the person.

To me -- it really is a conundrum on how to lovingly engage the issue. If I am really trying to live by the example of Christ -- He was often seen in the company of the worst sinners of His day -- the tax collectors and the prostitutes, for example. He alone showed them love and compassion; in doing so, I don't think he said "What you're doing is okay" -- but at the same time He still said, God loves you! As a result, many of them changed their behavior.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Destino

I didn't say don't protest. I just think that moving to a liberal state and using a liberal run education system when you disagree with it is a little stupid. And now that I've read the e-mail exchanges, which clearly read like political speeches intended for public release, I can see that this poor "family" is little more then the right wing version of the nut who tried to force god out of the pledge.

Yeah...uh...that's what I was going to say.

I was talking to chomerics... don't protest against me .

So now this guy who "needs" his job to feed his family and was moved because of it, can't get involved with his school?

Your promoting vouchers? Or should he quit his job and move his family somewhere "more suited" to his beliefs?

[twa]

Originally posted by jpillian

If this is truly just an issue of tolerance, I can live with that. Homosexuals should NOT be persecuted for their lifestyle.

However, Chom -- you've got to understand Christianity's struggle. If we were to do nothing at all, we will be judged with the rest of our depraved society as it crumbles around us. From our perspective, this is always one of the last moral depravities that is suffered before a society implodes upon itself (ala Sodom and Gomorah) And I generally LIKE the American way of life -- I do not want to see it go away for myself or my children's sake; there is no place like it,nor has there even been.

So what are we Christians to do when we see something that we consider to be just another step down the slippery slope of moral decay? Stand back and watch it happen?

I honestly don't know. I think it should be a case of hating what we consider the sin, and loving the sinner -- on the individual level. That does not mean accepting the behavior, but it does mean accepting the person.

To me -- it really is a conundrum on how to lovingly engage the issue. If I am really trying to live by the example of Christ -- He was often seen in the company of the worst sinners of His day -- the tax collectors and the prostitutes, for example. He alone showed them love and compassion; in doing so, I don't think he said "What you're doing is okay" -- but at the same time He still said, God loves you! As a result, many of them changed their behavior.

Very Well Said

[Larry]

Originally posted by tex

What the school has done is poke the camel’s nose under the tent. The indoctrinations of very young minds have only just begun with the apparent goal of normalizing the homosexual lifestyle there.

We are competing in a business world that grows more competitive every day. To maintain our economic vitality and world standing our focus should be on preparing our youth to compete in the global marketplace rather than distracting them with the above.

Um, so we should continue being bigoted, because it's good for business?

[Larry]

Originally posted by stevenaa

I have a question. Along with pointing out that some kids have same sex parents, is there a long authoritative list that is provided to all these kids that demonstrates exactly what behaviors, or other things, they are to be tollerant of?

Did they get a book that outlined all of the different religions fellow students might practice?

Did they get a book that showed all of the countries represented by their fellow students?

Did they point out that some kids only have one parent because of divorce?

Did they get a book that shows unmarried couples living together, where only one of the adults is the childs parent?

You can go on and on here, but you see the point. Enforcing tolerance does not have to include a thesis on what items children should be tolerant of. Teaching and enforcing the Golden Rule should really suffice in this matter.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet, from what I've seen of The Book, that the creators made absolutely certain that every single Politiclly Recognised Minority Group was included at least once. I'd bet they had a checklist: Native American, Hispanic, Oriental, and what I label as "Hindu Indian" (to distinguish from "American Indian"), I'd bet, were all included.

Ghost said it well. "tolerance for me, not for thee" You have no tolerance, nor does the homosexual lobby, for my constitutional rights to practice my beliefs. If the masses have to be taught tolerance of homosexuals, then homosexuals ought to be taught tolerance of those who don't agree with their behavior. Afterall, they are the minority, even in Massachusettes.

"Tolerance" does not mean "anything goes". I suspect we'd all agree that there exist things that are Not To Be Tolerated. (There's a wee chance that we'd disagree on what those things are.)

The parents here aren't asking the school to be tolerant of homophobia. (I know, the term gets overused. But it seems apropriate to apply in this case.) They're asking (actually, I think "demanding" would be a better term) the school to alter reality to fit their steriotypes.

They're not asking the school to not hold "Gay is Good" classes. They're asking the school to guarantee that any child that has same-sex "parents" can't be permitted to mention their home to The Child. They're asking that the library get rid of any book that contains any character that might be gay.

Tolerance of bigoted parents does not mean the school must become bigoted, too.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Larry

Um, so we should continue being bigoted, because it's good for business?

'Bigoted' is in the eye of the beholder, its not some immutable truth.

I want to make a comment. I keep hearing about the parent's 'stunt', that they wanted a big public scene. Thats not what I'm reading happened here. The school officials and parents had apparently agreed that their child could opt-out of any subject matter related to homosexuality, and that the school would notify the parents prior to any such discussions (as btw, they apparently were bound to do BEFORE this incident). They were conversing with the school superintendent via telephone and he agreed this was a reasonable solution. Then he called back, said he would not in fact sign it, and called police to remove the parent for 'trespassing'.

Now you can spin it any way you want, and as I said in my first post, unless you were there, its hard to know exactly who got out of hand. But everything I've read so far leads me to believe it was school officials that were escalating the situation and perhaps reacting angrily here.

If someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

[Bang]

Originally posted by jpillian

If this is truly just an issue of tolerance, I can live with that. Homosexuals should NOT be persecuted for their lifestyle.

However, Chom -- you've got to understand Christianity's struggle. If we were to do nothing at all, we will be judged with the rest of our depraved society as it crumbles around us. From our perspective, this is always one of the last moral depravities that is suffered before a society implodes upon itself (ala Sodom and Gomorah) And I generally LIKE the American way of life -- I do not want to see it go away for myself or my children's sake; there is no place like it,nor has there even been.

So what are we Christians to do when we see something that we consider to be just another step down the slippery slope of moral decay? Stand back and watch it happen?

I honestly don't know. I think it should be a case of hating what we consider the sin, and loving the sinner -- on the individual level. That does not mean accepting the behavior, but it does mean accepting the person.

To me -- it really is a conundrum on how to lovingly engage the issue. If I am really trying to live by the example of Christ -- He was often seen in the company of the worst sinners of His day -- the tax collectors and the prostitutes, for example. He alone showed them love and compassion; in doing so, I don't think he said "What you're doing is okay" -- but at the same time He still said, God loves you! As a result, many of them changed their behavior.

I'd like to think most folks have this level headed approach to their religiously based morality. Take for instance the last sentences..

"I don't think he said "What you're doing is okay" -- but at the same time He still said, God loves you! As a result, many of them changed their behavior."

That would be great! Unfortunately the problems I see all too often when it comes to these things is that hardly anyone can practice this turn-the-other-cheek attitude. After all, the teachings of Christ point out more than a few times that we should love our neighbor regardless, and that in the end, they will reap what they sow, so to speak. Vengeance is His. Judgement is His.

I don't have a problem with trying to indoctrinate kids into being tolerant of each other's differences. Beats indoctrinating them into fear and hatred and violence,, which is what we pretty much do now. Frankly, I'd rather my kid grow up in a world that was much more tolerant of others than it is now, that's for sure.

Now, if these books showed Bobby's two dads wearing leather jock pouches and grabbing each other, then I'd have a problem. But it shows them pretty much as any other couple. And it does show a single father as well, by what i saw on the first few pages. (having been a single dad for a few years, I can tell you there's a lot more of them out there than people think.. if i had a dollar for every time someone stared at me in amazement when they found out I was a single male parent... they behaved as if I had done something monumentally heroic. All I did was raise my kid.)

Besides, the overall beneficiaries of this tolerance are NOT the gay dads or moms,, it's the kids who are being raised by them. You cannot CHOOSE your parents. To be harrassed because of intolerance towards your parents.. no kid deserves that.

~Bang

[Tarhog]

I guess there are lot of ways to approach this.

I don't see this as a question about homosexuality. The issue, to me (and its the only reason I have ANY interest in this thread, since I'm not religious, and could really care less about the 'homosexual teaching' aspect of it in terms of my own kids) is that parents ultimately DO have a right to know what their kids are being exposed to, and to have a say in what constitutes the curriculum. I do think its reasonable for a school system to say 'look - this is part of our current curriculum thats been approved, we can't consider any changes now, but present your case to the schoolboard at our next meeting and we will consider your viewpoint'. I also think its entirely reasonable to ask the school for permission for your child not to participate in portions of the curriculum if it violates your belief system. Of course, that could get out of hand, but the truth is that I think there are relatively few instances where this kind of objection comes up. How hard is it, really, to excuse a kid to the library if you're going to be talking about 'family makeup'?

What strikes me about this, as I've already said, is that the entire point of this curriculum is to foster 'tolerance'. I'm absolutely in favor of that. I don't deride homosexuals, people of other cultures/religions/race, etc...and I certainly wouldn't do so in front of my kids even if I had those feelings. I want them to judge people as individuals. However, here you have a set of parents, deeply concerned about the schools curriculum, and they are treated as wacko's (thats how I view the schools calling of the police anyway).

Theres got to be some common-sense middle ground here folks. Everyone involved has the best interests of the kids here. I really believe though, in every case possible, you have to do everything in your power to meet the needs of the parents who's taxes pay the bills, and who's flesh and blood is occupying the seats of the classroom. There are ways, even if the school system is not able to meet the requests of the parents, to make them feel their concerns were heard. Arresting them is not one of those ways.

[iheartskins]

I've avoided clicking on this thread for fear of finding a lot of the same vitriol that tends to accompany this topic. But a lot of this discussion has ended up well. Cho--I think you raise some great points and articulate a very reasonable point of view. jpillian--an excellent response, and I wish more people felt the way you do. And finally Bang I couldn't agree with you more.

I think a lot what gets confused in the media is what exactly the kids are learning in the curriculum. Some of the media sources miscontrue by hinting and or selectily referencing that what is taught is "advocacy" as opposed to "tolerance."

I think this hits on a lot of parent's fears that if their children are exposed to this kind of stuff, then they will more likely be gay. I think that's a totally rational fear given the legal and social consequences that tend to define the gay lifestyle not to mention the potential stigma etc. that the kids will endure in school in family, etc. But it doesn't strike me that learning about something, at least is a safe abstract as it seems to be presented in the rendition offered in this school, will act as a deterrent or an incentive for kids--it will just enable people to be who they are and not fear persecution.

But as Tarhog mentions above, parents should be afforded a notice and/or ability to control when their kids learn about sensitive topics like Sex Ed and the like. What remains unclear is whether (and if) teaching tolerance of gays qualifies as a sensitive topic.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by iheartskins

What remains unclear is whether (and if) teaching tolerance of gays qualifies as a sensitive topic.

Heres the dilemma in a nutshell though, isn't it?

Who gets to decide whats 'sensitive'?

Obviously, in every case, its got to be the parents, not school teachers and administrators. The 'designers' of the curriculum are never going to have a problem with what they've designed. You have to err on the side of parents - anything else, in my opinion, means you really don't embrace respect for their belief and value systems. And again, its not about letting some parents with, perhaps 'fringe' belief systems dictate curriculum. But they absolutely must be allowed to voice their concerns, for however long they want to, and be given recourse.

The entire problem here revolves around the question of whether we want 'values' taught in our schools or not. I think the obvious answer is 'hell yes!'. My kid's teachers teach values every day. 99.9% of what they're taught, I am ecstatic about. The rest, well, personally, I'll filter through that with them when they're with me, not at school. I do tend to agree that these parents are over-estimating the impact of this kind of subject matter. Those kids are going to base their world view largely on what they are taught and see at home, not on some comic-book version of how things ought to be.

[tex]

Originally posted by chomerics As well they should normalize the homosexual lifestyle, because it is NOT frowned upon in Lexington.

It goes beyond that. They are publishing material with the intention of promoting homosexuality and teaching the acceptance of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

Originally posted by chomerics Then why make a specticle out of the situation, and get arrested???

I suspect that as the rhetoric on both sides ratcheted up the stakes grew such that "winning" became a consuming passion.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by jpillian

If this is truly just an issue of tolerance, I can live with that. Homosexuals should NOT be persecuted for their lifestyle.

JP, I truly believe this is a case of tolerance, and not homosexuality. They are trying to teach the children that there are a variety of different children and families that go to the school. They live in a progressive state with many diverse personalities and families and they are trying to eliminate any type of indoctrination of stereotypes so they will be tolerant to other children.

However, Chom -- you've got to understand Christianity's struggle. If we were to do nothing at all, we will be judged with the rest of our depraved society as it crumbles around us. From our perspective, this is always one of the last moral depravities that is suffered before a society implodes upon itself (ala Sodom and Gomorah) And I generally LIKE the American way of life -- I do not want to see it go away for myself or my children's sake; there is no place like it,nor has there even been.

So what are we Christians to do when we see something that we consider to be just another step down the slippery slope of moral decay? Stand back and watch it happen?

I do understand christianities struggle, but it is also a religious belief. There are numerous different religions in America and christianity is but one of them. If you think that there is something immoral going on in society, then it is your perrogative not to indulge yourself with that segment of society. Nobody is dictating that the children must meet homosexual couples, or that they visit a homosexual segment of society, they are just insisting that they do exist and that there are children of these families which go to the school. This is different then forcing them to accept a segment of their religion which they choose not to.

Again, this was about tolerance and accepting people for who they are, very christian values, this family however has been taught a different version of christianity. That is fine, but they also should understand that the community they currently live in does not have the same values instilled in to them.

I honestly don't know. I think it should be a case of hating what we consider the sin, and loving the sinner -- on the individual level. That does not mean accepting the behavior, but it does mean accepting the person.

Exactly, and very well stated, and this is what the book was about. It was not about teaching homosexuality, but rather about teaching that there is a segment of their community which is different. You don't have to accept their lifestyle, but you do have to accept them as human beings and contributing members of society.

To me, I think the parents were right to express their opinion, but they wanted something the school could not guarentee, that the topic of why Sally has two moms will not come up during the year. I feel the princiapl's e-mail to the parents was very well thought out, and explained their position. It explained that teaching homosexuality was definately not part of the cirriculum, and that it is not a segment of their teaching, but they also could not guarentee that the topic would not come up. What is the teacher to do if the topic of show and tell comes up and Sally has a picture of two moms? Is she to ask the student to leave the room before they discuss anything? What about on the playground where children talk about visiting Sally's house and commenting on thier two moms?

There is nothing the school can do in this situation. They can not stop all children from talking about it, and they can not shelter only one student from this information. It is an impossible situatuation and impossible demands to put on any school system, and the principal was not in a position to guarentee them their demands.

Tarhog did make a real good point earlier as well, there was definitely a point when both sides "lawyered up" and they were expecting the worst for the meeting. I would like to also add that the father was asked to leave the premesis by the police even after they showed up. It was the fathers decision to be arrested, because even after the police arrived he was still given the chance to leave. He should have left.

If he feels as strongly about the issue, he has a few options, one is to petition the school board about the materials currently in the classroom, and the other is to gather up a petition of other parents and go to the board together. There is a place and time for democracy, and if there are enough people that feel strongly about it in the community, the I think the school board would rule in their favor.

Just to add one more comment about Tarhogs response, I do agree as a taxpayer he does have a say in the cirriculum. I aslo do believe that if the school committee has a right to decide the cirriculum , so he should petition the school committee. The problem arises that this is NOT part of the cirriculum. It was a pamphlet sent home with children so their parents can open up discussions on the subjects. If the parents don't want to do so, that is fine, but they can't expect the school board to change a cirriculum that does not exist. It isn't like there is a gay day at school where the children discuss homosexuality, if there was, I think this issue could be solved. The problem is that the parents are asking the impossible, that their child should be shielded form any and all discussions concerning Sally's two mothers, but you can't guarentee sheilding a child from a hypothetical situation. What is they didn't like Tom Brady and thought he was a bad influence, would they be able to have their child removed from class when ever Brady was discussed?

I think the only viable option is for the parents to remove the child from the school system. The school will not be able to guarentee the child will not be exposed to the fact that Sally has two moms, and they feel this strongly, then it is their duty to remove the child. If they want to change any of the reading materials, then petitioning the school board is the correct channels to go through, not placing yourself into the school and refusing to move until your demands are met, espcially when the demands can NOT be met.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by tex

It goes beyond that. They are publishing material with the intention of promoting homosexuality and teaching the acceptance of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

I suspect that as the rhetoric on both sides ratcheted up the stakes grew such that "winning" became a consuming passion.

This is the difference, they were not "promoting" homosexuality any more then they were promoting any of the other diverse segments which were sent home in the package. They were promoting tolerance there is a very big difference.

Read Bang's post, he explains it well, and I agree with him. If say they has the fathers wearing leather chaps, nipple rings and putting on skin care products, then you might have a point (not to stereotype, just using it as a point), but the gay couples were depicted as normal families. This is not to show a difference and to seperate their differences, but to show that they are just like everyones parents, loving and caring.

You may be correct about both sides ratcheting it up, and npt being there I can not say definitively who is right or wrong. It is only my perception and opinion that the father was making demands which could not be met. When he was not given a guarentee that his demands would be met, then he decided to protest by not leaving. He refused to leave even after the police arrived and asked him to leave. Calling the police may have been over the top as well, but what option did the principal have? To lie to the father and to say it would not come up? I think they had no other choice in the decision, but again, this is just my opinion.

[tex]

I guess what irks me the most chomerics is the age of the children. Six seems to early. That and my veiw that school is for the three r's and values come for the home. The topic seems better suited for sex ed class in high school verses kindergarden.

Have read every post most are well stated. The respect I hold for some of the posters has grown while others have lost some ground.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by tex

I guess what irks me the most chomerics is the age of the children. Six seems to early. That and my veiw that school is for the three r's and values come for the home. The topic seems better suited for sex ed class in high school verses kindergarden.

I understand your position, believe me I do. I would feel the same way if my child was going to a school where say creationism wasn't taught per say, but it was often discussed in the classroom, and evolution was ignored. I can honestly tell you that I would petition the school board, and try to use the proper channels to remove something that is against my beliefs. I would not react the same way the father did, but that is just a matter of personal tack, and we are all different people with different personalities. I would also not expect the school to remove my child from the class during the discussion, but I would politely explain to my child that this is not the way I think and I don't think it is appropriate for others to make you think it is OK. I would open up discussions with my child about the topic and use it as a learning experience, I would not try to shelter him from the information, espcially when it is a reality of the community.

Have read every post most are well stated. The respect I hold for some of the posters has grown while others have lost some ground.

I agree, this is one of the more civil discussions on a heated topic, and I do applaud all the posters who have kept their personal prejudices out of their posts and instead debated on the merits on the topic. This is a very good example as to how others should behave when faced with a differing viewpoint and it shows how logical discussion can lead not to changing opinions, but to a better understanding of peoples personalities and beliefs. You do not have to believe the opinions, or even respect their opinions, but you do have to treat people with the same civility and decorum you would want to be treated with. . . What tis the old cliche? Do unto others as you do unto yourself. . . If more Americans took the time to discuss and understand their opponents beliefs, it would be a much fuller and well rounded country.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I want to make a comment. I keep hearing about the parent's 'stunt', that they wanted a big public scene.....

If someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

In the first e-mail the good father here states "We wish to make our feedback known publicly." Which alone is no biggie.

But then in this Boston.com article I read this.

A handful of supporters of the Parker family appeared at the courthouse yesterday, including Brian Camenker, director of Article 8 Alliance. The group, which opposes same-sex marriage, posted e-mail exchanges between the Parkers and school officials on the matter on its website. Camenker said Parker contacted him in January.

So dad was in contact with a political group in January....when this all in fact started. We don't know when in January but we do know that going forward this was more then just dad versus the school, and that he was talking to this group before he got the bright idea to not make bail.

"''I chose to stay...I wanted to see how far they would go for asking something simple."

Also red flags went up when I read this in one of the e-mails "May God bless everyone who reads this to be shown his Love and truth of his Word." That line seems to me to be clearly intended to people outside the parties involved.

Anytime you get a political group involved and people choose to spend the night in jail to make a point, I think it's logical to think "stunt"

[Larry]

Originally posted by Destino

Anytime you get a political group involved and people choose to spend the night in jail to make a point, I think it's logical to think "stunt"

Oh, I'll agree, this was a stunt. (I'd picked up on the very first e-mail implying that it was intended for, shall we say, other audiences, but hadn't noticed that thing about the date.)

I'll also point out, though, that the concept of a Publicity Stunt for political purposes has a long history in this country. I'd point to the civil rights marches, and a certain party in Mass.

Nothing wrong with going to jail to generate publicity. I disagree with his cause and his ethics, not his tactics.

[stevenaa]

"Steven, I am really struggling to understand why a gay person should feel subordinate and immoral simply because their lifestyle is against someones beliefs. I don't see the logic, or the reasoning behind telling children that their classmates are different and that their parents are not accepted by society, but the gay couple should accept this because they should be tolerant of others beliefs. "

I'm not suggesting that kids should be told that others parents are different and not accepted. In fact, just the opposite. I'm saying that nothing needs to taught about the subject at all. It should be enough to teach the kids that people are different, and teasing and being mean will not be tolerated. Regardless of what they are teasing for. Enforce the rules. I don't understand why they feel it necessary to point out the differences. This can only make matters worse.

[Beaudry]

Can't we all just agree that all people from Boston are communists and all people from "the south" are racist.