"Let's face it: Teachers know what's best for your kids better than you do. After all, they got very easy-peasy Education degrees from some of the finest fourth- and fifth-tier colleges in the country."

And don't you forget it, pal, 'cause woe to you if you try to convince the education establishment that your higher education and many years of experience mean you can teach children subjects effectively even though you never attended the politically-correct puppy mill that is the Masters of Education school.

Bah. Teachers are like Scientologists. If you pay me and promise to be really quiet about it all and never speak ill about the rest of us, you too can join our cult/union for life.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

If the father were crafty, he'd pencil in a cross on one of those gay parents. Then he'd get results.

Ace, please don't lump all of us teachers together. There are many of us who vote Republican (even out here in California), who are parents, who don't like their unions speaking for them, who would be absolutely outraged to have a school pass out "Diversity Backpacks" without notifying parents first of their content. As a teacher, if my district tried to pull this, I would be the first to object.

On a side note, I graduated from the University of San Diego. While it may not be an Ivy League school, I was proud of the fact that its professors held a variety of political beliefs from very conservative to very liberal...it prepared me for dealing with all kinds of people as a teacher.

Todd,

I'm sorry, but half-assed and unfair generalizations are one of my strengths.

Not to go all Dave from Garfield Ridge on you, but I posted extensively on this back in May.

http://thecliffsofinsanity.blogspot.com/2005/05/updated-father-jailed-for-protesting.html

Heyyy, when did I become shorthand?

I was proud of the fact that its professors held a variety of political beliefs from very conservative to very liberal

That's interesting. I'm enrolled in (and work for) a college of education in Ohio, and here, almost all of the professors are liberals (although not all of the students are). Although a couple of the statistics/research methodology professors (my area) are more conservative.

...er, waiddaminnit. There's funding for "Diversity" bookbags but not for actual books?

Heyyy, when did I become shorthand?

Just today. But don't worry Dave, you were one of the first to know.

Y'all really should at least try to read sources other than fox news.

The Massachusetts statute in question allows people to opt their kids out of sex ed classes, not to shield them from any mention of those evil homos.

In fact: the Massachusetts law in question DOESN'T EVEN REFER TO HOMOSEXUALITY AT ALL.

So, when Faux News says that " Massachusetts law provides that parents must be notified when children are going to be taught about sex and specifically homosexuality," they are reprinting lies circulated by the far right.
Tsk tsk.

homsexuality isn't sex?

What the hell is it?

You know, when someone uses "Faux News" in that snarky oh-so-smug tone, they oughta get a Wet Willie as payback. I don't watch Fox News, but still: that particular bon mot is long past its sell-by date. It's kind of like your fiftyish dad trying to impress your friends by saying, "Yo, dawg, what up!" when they come over. It embarasses everyone in the room.

It's not clever. It's not funny. It's not even funny accidentally.

P.S. -- The same goes for Rethuglican, Dhimmi-crat, and the like.

Well, when Fox actually behaves like a professional news and journalism outfit, instead of just rebranding conservative propaganda, I'll swear off the term.

Btw, did the Fox article also mention that this guy was arrested because he refused to leave school property after the meeting, and that police were there trying to get him to leave for over two hours? Or that he WANTED to be arrested?

Who wrote that article--James Dobson?

Geek, Esq.

The Massachusetts Dept. of Education disagrees with you. In a sample advisory letter to parents, it says this is what will be taught:But maybe Mass Ed is just another arm of the far right.

Read for yourself.

Thanks, Todd.

I still love you, Ace, but here's another point: I don't choose curriculum, I just teach. However, I would have called the parent as he requested.

Darn.

This is what I meant to quote:

"Sex education is part of the health education curriculum in grades 7 and 8, including topics such as puberty; dating; relationships and communication skills; pregnancy; birth control; abortion; homosexuality; prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases; and prevention of sexual abuse."

Guidelines written by the Mass Commissioner of Education, a known right-wing liar.

"homsexuality isn't sex?

What the hell is it?"

Showing a family with a black father and white mother isn't about interracial sex.

They weren't talking about homosexuality--they were talking about the inevitable fact that in Massachusetts, there are going to be family units that are comprised of two parents of the same gender.

Now, not everyone is going to agree that a family can have two parents of the same gender--but that's the state of the law in Massachusetts.

I'm sorry, but half-assed and unfair generalizations are one of my strengths.

and Ace, when they don't deal with me, I find them damn funny...that's the thing about hypocricy, it's always funny until it's turned on you...

Geek, Esq.:

"Gunga" Dan Rather worked for CBS. Jayson Blair worked for the New York Times. Stephen Glass worked for The New Republic. All known fabulists employed by the MSM, and all known liberal apologists.

Number of FOX News staff busted for fabricating the news (so far): zero.

FOX News people may report conservative propaganda, but at least they do it accurately.

P.S. - Bill O'Reilly is a special case; I hate that windbag so much I'd sell him out for a tarnished nickel. So you can feel free to bash on him and call him Bill Faux-Reilly all you want with no complaint from me.

This wasn't part of the sex ed curriculum.

If you send your kids to school in Massachusetts, they're going to run across other kids who have two moms or two dads. And they're certainly going to run across married couples comprised of same-gendered parents.

At age five, kids don't know what sex is, so terms like homosexual and heterosexual don't make a lot of sense.

But, they will see two men holding hands, and they will have kids who have two moms.

Home school. That way you can shield your kids from this until they are a tad older. Then, one day, they visit a friend's house who has Showtime. That is when the real education begins.

"FOX News people may report conservative propaganda, but at least they do it accurately."

Fox News flat-out lied about the Massachusetts law in question.

Section 32, the parental notification law, concerns any "curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues."

I would say homosexuality, in any form, is a human sexuality issue.

Oops!

Fox revised that story while I wasn't looking.

Never mind--I thought John Cole was quoting the Fox story, when he was in fact quoting this blog.

Apologies to Fox News. Now, I'll return to work before I make a bigger ass of myself.

carin,

Nah, the real action is over on Skinemax. Boobie heaven, man! Nothing but European softcore from 9pm on Friday night until about 4AM Saturday morning.

...or...ahem...so I hear...you know...'cause I'd never watch that trash...

Geek, please grab a dictionary that has a good pronunciation of each word in it. Most of 'em will work

Faux - pronounced 'foh'
Fox - pronounced 'fawks'

Just because they start and end with the same letters doesn't make them similar. It's like trying to make a naughty joke by saying 'firetruck' simply because it starts with 'f' and ends in 'uck'. It's not funny, it just makes you look like an idiot.

'Course, lefties and irony go hand in hand like the two men pictured in the book.

I am SO out of it Monty. Of course, my poor children don't even know what MTV is.

Wow, I've already had to say prayers for Liberals three times today (and I did it too!). I don't think I can stomach it again! Maybe later...

It's like trying to make a naughty joke by saying 'firetruck' simply because it starts with 'f' and ends in 'uck'. It's not funny, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Well, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, here!

Wordplay and puns can be funny; it's just that the politically-motivated ones tend to be labored and heavy-handed: Bushitler, Rethuglican, and so on. Not just unfunny, but pretty dumb. The Kossacks seem to have added these terms to the basic Leftist dictionary, so that by now they've lost their standing as puns (even if bad ones) and are now seen as simple descriptive terms: witness Geek's complete lack of irony when using "Faux News". He was't aware that he was making a joke.

Sometimes the right word in the wrong place (or vice versa) can be hilarious, and malapropisms still crack me up every time (the classic one is where Stafford Cripps was referred to as "Stifford Crapps"). But the key has to be a sense of humor, and this seems to be in rare supply in political discourse these days.

Plus some words just sound funny -- no one knows why.

Booger. Turd. Hummock. Flatus. See? You're giggling; admit it.

"It's kind of like your fiftyish dad trying to impress your friends by saying, "Yo, dawg, what up!"

Oops! Although I said it more like "Yo, dawg, 'sup!"

Bottom line: anyone who puts their kid in public schools these days is clueless (or simply doesn't care) about the kind of brainwashing/indoctrination that is going on right from the start.

Is it any wonder that home schooling is on the rise?

carin:

I am SO out of it Monty. Of course, my poor children don't even know what MTV is.

Cinemax may be different now than it was back in the 80's, but it used to be the destination for exploitation flicks and boobie movies.

If you wanted to see the hoity-toity type of movies, you had your HBO, but the discerning among us knew that Skinemax was where you went for your naked-chick fix.

Every male teenager in my neighborhood envied this kid named Gilbert because his folks were rich and could afford pay-cable. We'd have sleepovers at his house nearly every weekend so we could O.D. on Skinemax.

Thank God his mom was the trusting type who thought we were watching Star Trek re-runs on the VCR!

Well, my kids are going to have to make due with the National Geographic channel.

Ah, National Geographic.

Or, as we called it in middle school, "the library's Playboy."

I live in a suburb of San Francisco and there is a poster in the infant room of my daughter's preschool which shows the usual assortment of families, including ones with same-gendered parents. And no, they don't ask parents if they approve. But Geek Esq is right--this is the real world, especially in Massachusetts and San Francisco, and what are they supposed to do if both of Little Hannah's daddies come to pick her up at the same time, hide all the other kids in another room so they don't see?

BTW, why is it when Fox reports something incorrectly it's a "lie", and when the left-leaning MSM reports something incorrectly it's an honest mistake? I think we know the answer to that one...

...what are they supposed to do if both of Little Hannah's daddies come to pick her up at the same time...

See, this is where the lefties lose sight of reality. Little Hannah doesn't have two daddies. She has one daddy, and one mommy. The first one supplied the sperm cell, and the second one supplied the egg cell.

That's the way babies are made.

Now, I'm sure there are two men who take care of Little Hannah (most of the time, anyway), but they're not her daddies. One of them might be, but it is impossible for anyone to have two daddies or two mommies.

And this is why stupid shit, like the Diversity Bookbags, is opposed by the vast majority of American parents.

Dogstar, you don't know shit. First of all, I'm not a lefty. Second, thanks for the biology lesson, but since I'm a PhD molecular biologist it's a good bet that I know more about this stuff than you do. Thirdly, my wife and I are the daddy and mommy of two beautiful children, even though neither or them were made with our own sperm and eggs. We adopted both of them. Are you implying that adoptive parents are not really daddies and mommies? You insult all adoptive parents and children in that way. Now, I could assume you are some sort of right wing religious zealot, or I could just consider you an idiot and a jerk, regardless of your political opinions.

Dogstar, Came Home To Chaos:

Okay, okay, break it up and back to your corners. I want a clean fight: no head-butting, no spitting, and no low blows.

That was a clean fight and Dogstar just lost.

Hey, Come Home - like it or not you aren't those kids biological parents. Someone else contributed the necessary biological pieces - since you're molecular biologist, I would have presumed you knew this.

Of course that isn't important, but if you read what people actually write - as opposed to what you WANT TO THINK they wrote, it may be meaningful.

And yea - if you're pissing and moaning about drivel like this, you are by definition a lefty.

Came Home...:

Regardless of the reality of same-sex parents, I think most parents would want the opportunity to explain the situation to their children before the school leapt in. I know I do - I've broached subjects such as divorce and homosexuality with my kids, and I'd hate for others to intercede on such delicate topics. If the school wants to make supplementary resources available to help me explain, that's wonderful, but I'd like to decide when and how my kids are exposed to these types of topics.

"homsexuality isn't sex?

What the hell is it?"

Showing a family with a black father and white mother isn't about interracial sex.

Notice how Geekesq didn't answer the question, but instead used the usual leftard "questioning homosex = racism" diversionary tactic.

The kid's they sent that book home with are 5 years old. You'd think an adult might just come to the conclusion that some parents might not want to be answering these questions so soon.

From what I've found on my own, it looks like the school, contrary to its claims, failed to notifiy parents of the content of the book in question. They try to dodge this issue by saying that parents were told about the diversity bags, but without knowlege of the material contained within, parents can hardly make an informed judgement.

Here's what I want to know: Would the apologists of this policy feel the same way if this book contained depictions of a polygamistic Mormon family?

I think it comes down to terminology: every human being has one (and only one) mother and one (and only one) father. The mother provides the egg; the father the sperm. This is a process of biology.

However, we conflate the term parent with mother and/or father because (until fairly recently) they were the same thing for most people. It is true that I can be a parent without being the father of a given child (via adoption or by being a legal guardian). But some people object to this; the consider "mother" and "father" to be honorifics rather than descriptors -- which is to say, nurture rather than nature confers parenthood.

Not having any children of my own, however, I don't really have a dog in this fight. But these nature vs. nurture arguments are always a predictable part of the culture wars, and it's always interesting to see how they play out.

Here's what I want to know: Would the apologists of this policy feel the same way if this book contained depictions of a polygamistic Mormon family?

If polygamistic family's were common, then yes. Now will you admit that showing someone with parents of the same sex (my brother is still my brother, even though dogstar doesn't think so. Or maybe he does as my parents are straight and adopted him) is no where equal to talking about sex? Just because the kids may have questions you can't think of a way to answer without going into sex, doesn't make showing that there are children being raised by two men or two women about sex.

Monty, I agree with you some what about nature vs nurture part of the argument. I'll aggree about the one mother and father as discriptors, but I usually see mom and dad as honorifics. Someone saying that they have two mommie's to me doesn't imply that two women are responsible for her birth, just that she is being raised by two women.

[Posted by: on August 10, 2005 06:26 PM = Also posted by me]

Differentiating between sex and parents skirts the intent of the amendment, which was to allow parents to have control over their children's exposure to delicate topics. I would think that the broadest possible interpretation would be sought, rather than the strictest. After all, we're not advocating that children never learn about sex and non-traditional relationships, we're simply saying that parents want oversight of, if not full responsibility for, that education.

When was it decided that parents shouldn't be allowed to participate in their children's education on the topic of non-traditional relationships?

Geoff, we are probably going to have to dissagree on this, because I do see a diffrenece between sex and parents. Having control over you child's exposure to delicate topics is only controlable to the point of what the school is able to control. In MA, it is now considered more likly that children will be attending that have same-sex parents. To have the brodest possible interpretation is the strictest as you are causing an unnessasry hardship on the child who is being raised by same-sex parents. Are they not ever supposed to talk about their family in class? Or if they should be allowed, should children of parents who object be sent from the room before they are allowed to talk? I realize that may seem abit far fetched, but that is what the broadest interpritation would involve. I have no problem with the fact that he objects to the book being handed out. I do object to the fact that it's being made out to be a homosexual sex paphlet when it isn't.

Thanks for the more thoughtful comments, most of you. To the anonymous poster, of course I know we are not their biological parents. Duh. But we are their legal parents, their legal mother and father. Should the guy who knocked up my son's birth mother and then abandoned her be called his father? He was a sperm donor, nothing more. Should the man who raped my daughter's birth mother be called her father? I did read what Dogstar wrote, but he and you apparently did not read all that I wrote, otherwise you would not call me a lefty. I pointed out that the sort of indoctrination of children to accept homosexual parents goes on a lot earlier than kindergarten. And I also mentioned the double standard when it comes to errors by Fox versus the rest of the MSM. But that's beside the point. To be denied being considered my children's father is not a small thing. Do you think George Bush does not consider John Roberts to be the father of his children? Sorry to be so sensitive about this, but adoptive parents have to put up with this kind of shit all the time and it gets pretty annoying.
To Geoff and The Warden- you're right, the real issue is parental consent, and I agree with you about that. But if parents really want to shield their children from the realities of today's world, they better turn off the news and send their kids to a fundementalist school. I doubt you'd see a gay family on a book in a Christian school. Or an Islamic one, either.
To Monty--you are correct that people will use whatever terms they are comfortable with, and that there is a disconnect when the biological parents are not the same as the parents who are actually raising the child. That's why we use the terms birth mother and birth father. But this is hardly a recent development. People have been adopting children for thousands of years, and before IVF it was usually the only option for infertile couples. Also, there were a lot more orphans long ago since so many people died young, so many more children needed to be adopted.

Anyway, I'm done now. Just trying to "challenge the assumptions" of my fellow Ace readers. I'm with y'all on the war on Islamofascism, but I can do without the Republican social agenda for the most part. It's tough being a centrist hawk these days. Just ask Michael Totten. Those on the left think you buy the whole right-wing agenda, those on the right think you are a leftist moonbat. *Sigh*

Axien:

I think what gets conservatives riled up (especially religious conservatives) is that the "two mommies" thing is given to children as a morally-neutral stance by a state-run organ (the school). Many people feel that things like cohabitation, marriage, and suchlike are moral issues and should not be co-opted by the state.

The nature vs. nurture debate is always one fraught with emotionalism because it involves children, and everyone involved is convinced that they are acting in the best interests of the child (which I'm not sure is always the case). Read up on B.F. Skinner to see some really messed-up "parenting". The role of public schools gets caught up in this because there is a question about what schools are for: is it just to teach kids facts and figures, or is it to train them in the art of citizenship?

Personally, this whole episode just illustrates why I think home-schooling and charter schools are better choices than public schools at least until middle school and maybe even until high school. I think that parents have the absolute right to guide the moral and social development of their own children; I profoundly dislike the direction that public primary and secondary schools have taken in the name of "diversity" and "cultural sensitivity". Iowahawk recently wrote a hilarious satire that pretty much sums it up for me.

But I must repeat: I don't have kids, so my opinion on this issue means approximately fuck-all.

Came Home To Chaos:

I should probably have made it clear that I in no way disagree that adoptive parents are "real" parents. I just wanted to make that clear. My point was that public schools should not be forcing a moral point of view ("gay marriage is fine and dandy") on the children of people who may violently disagree with that precept.

But then I'm also the wet blanket who thinks we ought to segregate the kids with peanut allergies. Why should everyone have to forgo a PBJ just because one kid has an allergy? (Then again: I don't have a peanut allergy; maybe I'd feel differently if I did.)

Axien:

I certainly never meant to imply that same-sex parenting should be hidden from children: it is a real, if disproportionately emphasized, part of our social fabric. The scenario in these cases normally plays out as follows: Little Johnny comes home and says, "Hey Dad, Heather has two mommies! What's that all about?" I then dispense my little gems o'knowledge with the wisdom of effing Solomon, resulting in enlightenment for my cherub.

But normally I'd gauge the depth of my response to match the magnitude of the interest of my kid (why explain more than you have to?) and the maturity of my kid. That's something that the school can't really do, with their one-size-fits-all approach to social enlightenment.

Sorry if I got you worked up, CHTC. I am opposed to anyone who uses the authority granted to them by the government to dictate to my children, or anyone else's, what is (according to them, not me) normal human behavior and what isn't.

I'm very glad my children went to Catholic school until eighth grade, even though their mom was the one pushing for it and I just went along with her decision. Public schools are becoming more and more destructive.

Since homosexuality is, by definition, abnormal behavior, I do not feel that it is in the best interests of society to teach children that having two parents of the same sex is normal.

However, I also recognize that homosexuality is not an optional condition, so I have sympathy for anyone who lives with an inherent, abnormal birth defect.

I think the issue of equal rights for homosexuals will become a moot point in another couple of decades, when medical advances give us the ability to locate and (if the individual desires) alter his/her sexual preference. At that point, if homosexuality is still as destructive as it is today, most homosexuals will probably opt for the normal sexual condition.

When I was a kid the last thing I wanted to hear about is homosexuality - second only to sex itself. Starting this crap in kindergarten or first grade is ridiculous.

I wish I could remember who this quote was attributed to, by a man who had two children, one adopted, the other conceived by he and his wife...

he said "I've got two great children. One of them we adopted

I can't remember which one".

Geoff, I agree with you point.

Monty, I agree that parents have the right (I would go so far as to say duty) to raise their children by their moral beliefs. I'm more of a schools are there for children to learn about math and science person myself. I don't agree with home schooling as a personal choice, but that's just me (I have no real reason for it, just it's not something I'd want).

Came Home To Chaos, that was me, and I was on your side of things. Although, I don't know if you think that's a good thing as I'm usually the first to say I'm a lib.

To Geoff and The Warden- you're right, the real issue is parental consent, and I agree with you about that. But if parents really want to shield their children from the realities of today's world, they better turn off the news and send their kids to a fundementalist school. I doubt you'd see a gay family on a book in a Christian school. Or an Islamic one, either.

And until the day comes when the government implements a school voucher system that includes private education, I will continue to oppose public school policy with which I disagree.

Whatever any individual's moral feelings on the issue of same sex families are, the law in Massachusetts treats them exactly the same as opposite sex families! If you are strongly opposed to this policy, argue that it is one of the consequences of legalizing same sex marriage if you want. But to compare it to depicting polygamist families is a bit ridiculous, since same sex marriages are legal and polygamous marriages are not. And before somebody replies that the state of Massachusetts legally sanctions many things you wouldn't want to show young children, let me say that I'm not arguing that anything that is legal must be moral, or that anything that is legal is something young children should be taught about (or even anything that is illegal must be immoral). The law is not the only, or even the best, arbiter of morality. I'm just saying that in this particular case, Massachusetts has decided that same sex couples should have equal rights with opposite sex couples, and that if you don't like that policy, find, argue against that policy, but accept that one of the consequences is that same sex couples are going to have to be considered 'normal', if perhaps non-traditional, and so it is inevitable that children will be exposed.