This all brings to mind a specific story from my past. You see, I went to my first grade teacher and explained that my Uncle George and Uncle Dick were getting married (keeping in mind that this was in 1985). My white suburban teacher took this in stride and really didn't make anything of it. A few months later I gracefully announced to the class that my Uncle Dick and Uncle George were having a baby. Now my teacher continued to take it all in stride, didn't make a fuss, but she did place a call to my parents to find out exactly what I was being exposed to as a young impressionable child.

Turns out my aunt diane hated being called 'aunt' so my parents and her decided that Uncle George would be perfectly acceptable. The whole point of this being, most six year olds don't know any better. I never realized there was anything 'wrong' with stating that I had two uncles having a child together.

Uh, I don't think the book *was* going into the more sexual aspects of homosexuality. It's not, y'know, "and then Prince Stallone bent Prince Cruise over the table, said 'Take it all, bitch,' and stuffed him full of cock, and Prince Cruise loved it." It's, "and then the two princes got married and ruled their kingdoms and lived happily ever after." Where's the problem?

What's the big deal IS a pretty valid answer, because, well--what IS the big deal? Two princes kissing isn't going to raise any more questions than a prince kissing a princess.

If the gay prince was sent to exile, that wouldn't be okay.
Just like a story with a black prince would be okay, but with a black prince beign enslaved wouldn't be okay.

"Two princes" isn't a sexual matter. When you're in second grade, relations aren't sexual, 'cause, well, what the hell is sex? Certainly not something you *understand*, even if it's been explained to you.

If it is not a big deal, then why bother bringing it up?  If they won't bother getting it, then why bother bringing it up? 

Likewise, you have determined through the editorialization that you only approve of bringing up specific issues in only one context.  If the princes life happily ever after, it is ok to address.  If the gay prince gets exiled, it would not be ok.

I did that to illustrate the point of putting controversial items in younger grades.  What's the big deal, they won't notice is ok if it's a point of view with which you agree, but it is not ok if it's a point of view you do not think ok.

It's the parent's call at that age, not yours. 

The reason the activists want to bring it up is precisely because *some* will get it and bring it up, thereby asking questions.

That's the beef.  That's why parents are wrapped around the axle about it.

I am all for gay marriage, adoption and all the rest.  I am not for using my fucking 7 year-old daughter as a pawn in "the movement."

You already know such antics will rile up those opposed to gay rights.  Add to that pile folks such as myself, and it doesn't take a James Carville or a Karl Rove to figure out its a fucking bad idea, does it?

Kids could give a shit less about those subjects and it is needless to force it down their throats.  Sexuality questions and issues pop up around puberty.  Somewhere in grades 5 though 8 make sense.  Not the primary grades, for chrissakes.


I don't really like that insinuation of that "if" argument.


Did that include discussiions of sex?  Did it have you and/opr your friends then getting into discussions pro and con about the different pairings associated with it?


And you cannot control that which flows from other families as to what is deemed good or bad or otherwise.  Putting such a delicate ball in play that early is only going to cause greater problems.  Agenda driven activists, however, do not give two shits about what damage they may cause as long as it raises awareness of their pet project.  This would be just such an example of extremism in my view.  Let kids maintain their aesexuality as long as possible.  Let them fucking be kids.

I don't want to have to get into any detailed discussions of all of this shit with a seven year old to either pre-empt school yard or bus talk or anything else.  When the time is right, it will be addressed.  Second grade is not going to be deemed the right time by very many people in this country, of this I am pretty damn certain.


Living arrangements, to extend it to whatever the heck else would fit the bill besides moms and dads, will, by definition raise a sexual component that is inappropriate at that age level.

And yet, when you get properly 'riled' you're participating in the process of using your child as a pawn.  If she asked, and you told her, "People who love each other live together," would it go much further?  It's not 'no big deal' as such, but it's the people in the middle who can help make it less of an issue by not contributing to the conflagration.  The left and right have gone mad, essentially, and no matter whether the prince lives happily ever after with a prince or a princess, one of them is going to scream about indoctrinating children into an agenda.  It's not right, honestly, that all the sources kids see reinforce traditional heterosexual norms.  If they're going to reinforce anything, it should be across cultural borders, but I'd rather see that prince celibate than have all the princes in all the stories have to have princesses.

All of children's education is being used as a battleground right now.  Girls are underrepresented in science fields.  Do we recognize this as evidence of male mathematical superiority or a reason to fund girls' math programs?  Do we teach evolution or Intelligent Design?  Prayer or a moment of silence?  No matter what, Gwoo, someone is indoctrinating your child right this very moment, and she's being used for someone's agenda no matter what you do.  Don't delude yourself that just because it's a less 'out there' agenda that it's any less present.  All kids are pawns these days to someone's agenda.

What if, for example, I wanted a book in which a prince rescues a fair maiden taken out of the schools because I believed it was my right to educate my daughter about self-reliance instead of relying on some stupid boy with a sword to rescue you from your dragons?  Or if I demanded that Winnie-the-Pooh not be read because having a Bear of Very Little Brain glorifies anti-intellectualism?  You'd call me a wingnut, but I'd be no different than the people insisting that no mention of homosexuality be allowed in schools because they object to it on a personal level.

I accepted long ago that I was a pawn with regard to education.  Your kids have no hope of being anything but.

It *begins* to end as soon as they begin expecting and requistioning public resources to help raise their children.
If you want to be in complete control over what your child's education - then educate them at home, using your own means, end of story.
If you aren't willing to commit to that, maybe private shcool is an option, where you don't have complete control, but you can still probably find something more attuned to your sense of values, for instance an all-boys Catholic school.
And then, at the very other end of the spectrum, you have general public school - whereby the good taxpayers support your child's education, and as such, also reserve a right to have a collective say in what they feel it is appropriate for your children to learn.

Don't like what the masses are teaching your children? Then stop asking them to pay for it. *shrugs*

See Rapunzel.
See Rover.
See Rover mount Rapunzel!

*twitch*

I see, that does make sense.  If they are going to legalize such things as homosexual marriages and adoption, then it would make sense to have the children understand that those are accepted lawful ways of life.