Child disciplined for saying his mother is gay?
 

Not exactly, though that is what the ACLU would like you to think. (They're actually involved in this one, so don't jump my bones!)

Linky Linky

The teachers seem in the right to me on this. I can't imagine any sort of situation in a second grade classroom where it would be appropriate to discuss the sexual orientation of parents. I really don't see why the ACLU is getting involved in this. Is it a civil liberty to have a child discuss sexuality with another child in a second grade classroom?

Well, first off, we live in a strangely sexually repressed culture. Hello, sex is a part of life... are we going to pretend that it doesn't exist until high school? Not that we should be graphic about it, but we can't ignore it. If we don't let kids talk about it they're going to think it is bad. Why do you think in Europe the numbers of people under the age of 18 choose to wait to have sex a lot more than in the US? Why are teen pregnancies so much higher in the US?

Additionally, this isn't a religious issue, and what is so dangerous about homosexuality? This attitude is all the more reason why it should be talked about, to break down the myths. And compassion - what is compassionate about calling someone's parent dangerous and wrong? What is this lesbian doing that is such a threat (other than existing and being open about who she is)?

The message the school seems to be telling the child and the community is that "it is wrong that you're mother is gay, and you aren't allowed to talk about it". So, great, let's shame the kid for something he has no control over.

I agree with the ACLU... this attitude leads to violence, and I've seen it firsthand several times.

when a authority figure like that tells you not to do or say something because it's "wrong", it really has a big effect on you especially at that age. now the poor kid is going to think his parents are bad and be ashamed about it. it's this constant fear that controls everything.. and they just passed it on to the kid. this probably won't be the last time he has to face adversity in school either. what's next, kids will probably tease him.

this kind of attitude is really a big block for our society. we need an outlet to express sex openly. don't dismiss it like it's this hidden monster inside all of us. this hush-hush idealism on sex is teaching children to be afraid of their own sexuality.

sex crimes happen FAR less in other countries such as denmark, sweden and japan, where sex education starts in elementary school. so the sex negative attitude leading to violence is true.

true love and compassion doesn't discriminate against groups of any kind.

That comment makes me mental! Wanna bet that the majority of gay people who do get beat up are getting their asses kicked by a bunch of christians..... Hell, their own bible tells them to do it so why wouldn't they...

If we tell kids more about sex when they're young, they'll grow up knowing more about it and be able to make more responsible decisions about it. It's wrong to tell kids that their genitals are only used for urination until they get married.

Similarly, if we tell kids more about sexual orientation when they're young, they'll grow up being more tolerant of others. The unfortunate problem is that too many people don't want tolerance, they want to spread hate.

You're 100% correct. Now look at who's always trying to stop tolerance......... Christians!

I don't understand what all the hub-bub is about. Was it disruptive or was it just casually mentioned? It seems to me that if the women are gay then the child has spoken the truth and I see no reason for school authority to punish the child for speaking the truth.

I agree with this whole heartedly because you know all you have to do is mention the word "homosexual" around children and they instantly turn gay. :rolleyes:

I would venture to say that living in denial "is a dangerous way to live" as well.

As for tolerance. It's a lot easier to spread hate than tolerance.

Please note that it is not a trained instructor which is teaching kids about sexuality -- it is a seven year old boy. Now do you understand why it is worthwhile to discipline him for it? heh.

I would expect the same sort of discipline if a Catholic child were to start explaining the fundamentals of the religion in the middle of math class.

Oh really, I bet it isn't really hard... a 4-year-old could explain it. I guess I just see there being a very simple context here.

"My mom is gay... you have a mom and dad, they like each other... I have a mom and she likes girls"

What could the 7-year-old say that is so off knowing from experience what a gay mom is? What training does one need to broach this subject in a simple manner than the child who lives with his mom wouldn't have?

It isn't complicated like any sort of theology.

Says the epitome of toleration... Please. Christian bashing is fun and all...but if you could maybe, just maybe acknowldge that Christian is a label that encompasses a vast variety of viewpoints. Almost all of my friends who are Christian are either queer themselves, or allies...and so statements like this just make no sense to me. I know Jerry Falwell and the like are out there...but the reality is that while they are loud and brash, the liberals and moderates are winning the war. meh. I've been trolled.

I don't have to christian bash, they do a good enough job of that all on their own. I'm just pointing out a fact. So you don't have a problem with the statement from the article about how being gay is harmful to children and they shouldn't know about it because being a christian is better? That's how I interpreted that statement. Is it not a christian trying to stop the tolerance in this article? Just from the womans statement it's obvious that she's christian. Now who's trolling.... :eek:

The problem here is the vast number of "Christians" who really know nothing about their own religion. Christianity has, by and large, become a matter of mimicking others and lost its value as a personal belief systems. This means that for a great many people, they have never thought much about they believe, they simply accepted what was told to them. So, when their beliefs about what is natural and right are challenged, they have no recourse. They experience the full brunt of cognitive dissonance, and they don't like it, so they lash out.

As one would say judge not a book by its cover, so I say judge not the religion by its followers. The tenents of Christianity are sound, but the modern interpretations of them are not. This is why I call myself a Christian Gnostic and not simply a Christian.

Christians don't stop tolerance. People stop tolerance.

The school district was right.

This is not an issue about homosexuality, it is an issue about what is appropriate to talk about in 2nd grade.

If parents want to discribe in detail what mommy and daddy (or mommy and mommy) do at night to their seven year old, that's their right, only don't be surprised if your kid gets in trouble for telling his classmates.

Where does it say that the kid described in detail? What IS appropriate to talka bout in second grade? Ponies and G.I Joes? Maybe we should have special classes for the girls so they learn to vacuum and iron clothes.. start at an early age, get better results. :P I mean, we can't have anything that differs from the norm...

Saying "my mom is gay" and maybe explaining "my mommy likes girls" is nothing horrible.

No talk about religion, race, sexuality (gay/bi/hetero) ANYTHING other than school subjects should ever be mentioned in that case.

Sexuality isn't about graphic sexual details. You're basically saying that all there is to being gay is having gay sex. This is exactly why people should talk about sexuality more openly, so we get away from this abstract model of what a gay person is to finding out that they're all just real people.

if it's wrong to say that one's parent is gay, it is in a way implying that it is wrong to be gay also.

there are kids being raised with same sex-parents and what are the kids supposed to say? I have two daddys/mommys? i dont get it at all.

Okay. Some Christians are also conservatives. I think it's a pretty ugly combination...but they do not, repeat, DO NOT define the whole of Christian thought. If a few athiests were jackasses for instance, it would be a complete failure of logic to assume all athiests acted in such a manner.

Personally, i've written quite a bit on full inclusion of GBLT communities with in the Church, including ordination. I have preached on that topic several times. I do so from, not in opposition, to my tradition. Does any of this register? Christian does not mean anti-Queer.

If you want to indict conservative Christians for the calumny they have issued against the queer community, you will be joining my voice...but as long as you blame the whole of christianity for the actions of a portion, i'll keep calling you on it.

Point taken, and I'll keep calling everyone on the inconsistencies with the religion as a whole. Fair enough? ;)

What a complete load of bullshit.

First of all, No indiction that "what mommy and mommy do at night, [you forgot to add] in their bedroom" was in anyway shape or form mentioned in the article presented.

Even given that this ~did~ occur, the appropriateness of the parenting is questionable, not the actions of the child.

Describing his or her parental units and explaining what it means is actionable by the school? Are you out of your mind?

What is appropriate to talk about in second grade? Do you believe restrictions need to be enacted so 'appropriateness' can be maintained, and 2nd graders natural iquisitiveness can be repressed?

Just because the pathetic excuse for educators and administrators that surface in our public school system, can't handle a situation with a nurturing and or educational slant, doesn't make it a disruption. Failures of educators are just that FAILURES...not student disruptions.

"Disruption" charges levied against a child are a cop out. A pure and simple cop out for a failing public educational system. Since it requires nothing more then an educator saying it...it is also probably fraudulent.

I am with the ACLU and the family/child on this one.

Fuck that pathetic, covering up, self serving school.

-bear

Goodness, I've seem to have struck a cord.

So many assumptions.

Anyway, no one here knows what exactly was said, so I'll restate my position in a way that hopefully is clearer.

If the child simply told his classmates that his mommy was gay and that meant she lived with another woman, then I agree that the school board was out of bounds.

If the child was telling his classmates in detail what gay sex entails then the child was wrong.

There are times and places to talk about everything.

Do you three also get po'd when you get in trouble for talking to your buddy in front of customers while discribing how you and the hot chick from the mail room went out last night and you blasted her in the ass?



Mehoni,

All your self serving sarcasm aside, Ponies and G.I. Joes would be a fine topic...during recess or play time. The same with telling your classmates that mommy is gay.

So it seems you and I agree that class time is meant for school subjects.



wilbjammin,

I'm sorry you choose to construe what I said as meaning that being gay was about sex, but you said it, not me.

If you knew how many friends I have who are gay, you would know how silly the accusation is.



j8ear,

As I've said above, it is unfortunate that we don't know more about what was said, but of course there are appropriate topics for 2nd graders to talk about, whether you like it or not.

I do agree with you that the parenting may be called into question, but yes, children WILL get into trouble for repeating some things at school. And while guidance and teaching are always prefered, if a student persists, then yes, they should get a reprimand.

And whether you like it or not, that isn't bullshit, that is the fact that operates at schools everywhere.

So are we really in disagreement or is it simply true that we need more information for an informed opinion in this case?

I think that 'appropriateness' is a laudable educational goal for children of all ages, but punishment, or worse, disruption labels, is inappropriate in itself, without a clear and documented history of lessons and corrections (persists and repeated were the words you used). Until a seven year old is 'taught' that something is inappropriate, and has that lesson reinforced, it is not inappropriate, EVER. Anything short of that is evidence to me of a failure on the part of an educator. In that very article, the original punishment notification was something other then 'disruption' but when called to task the school declared the child disruptive. Aaaah, the old I declare it so, and my declaration is unappealable.

The school itself was extremely 'disruptive' with its actions. Who is more liable? Realistically the school, imho. Practically, the school is without fault and the child is scapegoated. (Do I have the practical/realistic backwards?)

I do agree that we definitely need more information. Until such time as it is forthcoming, I believe the school to be full of shit. They are, in my mind, guilty until proven otherwise.

Oh and:

Might be a little over the top itself...bordering on inappropriate. You’re not a seven year old though, and neither am I.

No matter what:

It never happened; I was out of town and wearing gloves at the time. You can't prove a thing :)

-bear

You reduced the issue down to sex, at least that's what I gathered from the first quote. I didn't read anywhere in the article anything about the child graphically talking about sex. I have a feeling that if they child did, then it would be part of the article. Well, fair enough, in any event... I would suggest being careful with posts so that you don't accidentally imply something that you didn't mean to. I think it was easy to believe you were saying something that you didn't mean to in this case.

Edit:

I would never do that. A) I don't objectify women, B) I don't glorify my sex life for others' enjoyment, C) that's simply poor taste

a) I cannot blast anyone in the ass without wearing a strap on. (or using a gun :P)
b) I don't like girls.
c) I would never talk like that, because I'm not interested in hearing about other peoples sexlife and I assume nobody is interested in hearing about mine.
d) I view people that do talk like that like idiots.

Okay, come on now. Anyone who goes to public school in America learns all about sex, and its variations, in grade school. It just happens. Since when is this a huge deal? I don't think the kid should be punished.