# Two schools pull books after protest



## Big Don (Apr 3, 2008)

*Muslims' fury forces schools to shelve anti-homophobia storybooks for 5-year-olds*

 By LAURA CLARK  Last updated at 08:45am on 2nd April 2008    London Daily Mail
Excerpt:

 Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about same-sex relationships after objections from Muslim parents.  

Up to 90 gathered at the schools to complain about the books which are aimed at pupils as young as five.  

One story, titled King & King, is a fairytale about a prince who turns down three princesses before marrying one of their brothers.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When Christian parents protest they are belittled as small minded, homophobic, etc. I guess that is because they are so much less likely to EXPLODE...


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> When Christian parents protest they are belittled as small minded, homophobic, etc. I guess that is because they are so much less likely to EXPLODE...



I was thinking the same thing.  Wonder how the "tolerance police" will rule on this?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> When Christian parents protest they are belittled as small minded, homophobic, etc. I guess that is because they are so much less likely to EXPLODE...


 
Wow, that's the only distinction you can draw here? Let's look at the rest of the article...



> Members of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said parents were upset at the lack of consultation over the use of the materials.
> 
> Farooq Siddique, community development officer for the society and a governor at Bannerman Road, said there were also concerns about whether the stories were appropriate for young children.
> 
> ...


 
First off, they're not squawking about moral values or gay-agenda indoctrination, the complaints from the protesters are about the ages of the targetted kids and the one-sided nature of the decision. 

Second off, we're talking about a group of parents with reasoned complaints, I didn't see one mention in the entire article of any violence, threats of bombs, or anyone screaming "Praise be to Allah!" So lay off with the cheap shots like that exploding comment.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2008)

Let's not teach tolerance now. That would be a bad thing. 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I have an idea.

Let's all raise our kids to believe that the only people in the world are <insert your race here>, <insert your political leanings here> <insert your religion here> who don't smoke, drink, do drugs nor have sex, but want to do all of these things just enough to buy all sorts of products they don't need and which could be the ruination of their lives.

They only marry people of great professions who make lots of money and have just enough children, recycle, provide soccer, karatay and French lessons to their children. They have perfect bodies with perfect skin and hair, have weekly plastic surgery or laser hair treatment.  Eventually they will buy nice houses in the suburbs, own one Prius and one Hummer.

Someday they will divorce and remarry and live in more than one perfect house with more perfect people and only associate and/or work with others EXACTLY LIKE THEM.  

Which works out perfectly because that's all they need to know.

:shrug:

Bubble children. That's what some people try to have; children sheltered from the evils of the world and the knowledge that there are gays who are better people than some of their hetero counterparts.

*rolls up sleeves*

Let me at 'em ....   :soapbox:


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> *W*hen Christian parents protest they are belittled as small minded, homophobic, etc. I guess that is because they are so much less likely to EXPLODE...



Don't be disingenuous.  Books being banned from schools due to Christian parental complaints is a long standing tradition in this country, which you well know.  It's just as wrong when they do it.

Somehow though, I think your angle here isn't to have books promoting tolerance of homosexuality brought back for the five year olds to read.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> When Christian parents protest they are belittled as small minded, homophobic, etc. I guess that is because they are so much less likely to EXPLODE...


Interesting ... I missed this.  At first glance it appeared to be a sig and I usually ignore sigs.

I think ... as you can probably tell from my post ... that ALL people who want to raise ignorant, intolerant children are ignorant and intolerant ... and pointing to the segment of your post above, QED.

Do we *really* need to point to the horrors people have committed on the human race in the name of Christ? Do you really need to use such a petty angle as sour grapes to "strengthen" your argument?  How small-minded, racist and ... so very much like the people in your article.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 3, 2008)

Well Catcher In The Rye and Lord of the Flies were banned... why not those?


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 3, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well Catcher In The Rye and Lord of the Flies were banned... why not those?


Lord of the Flies? That book rocks 



> Let's not teach tolerance now. That would be a bad thing
> 
> Bubble children. That's what some people try to have; children sheltered from the evils of the world and the knowledge that there are gays who are better people than some of their hetero counterparts.



This is not about tolerance. This is absolutely not age appropriate. This is the same mess we ran into with Clinton and Lewinsky. Let parents discuss sexuality with their kids, but let them choose the time and manner to do so. Keep your governmental fingers off of my kids sexuality! Let parents teach FAMILY VALUES and let the schools teach how to read, write and do math. Thats their job. You don't need to learn about Billy and his two fathers at age 5/6. That has NOTHING to do with learning how to read, write or do math. At that age, they need to be learning colors, letters, words, numbers, not ANYTHING to do with sexuality.

We teach 18 year olds how to aim guns at people and kill them (the military), but we sure won't do that to a first grader. Is it wrong to kill people in war? That can be determined by parents and your own values, but we sure won't teach you how to kill in elementary school. Why? Not age appropriate! I'd be equally upset to find a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook laying around in an Elementary school. Is it right to eat meat? Let the parents make that decision. Same thing. Not a decision to be made by the government.

And what is wrong with sheltering? I assume you have kids. When they were 6 months old, were you making them watch gruesome horror movies? Or in fact, anything other than education or cartoons? When did you start letting them watch something more sinister or questionable? As a parents, I'd be disturbed if some government moron decided my child should watch Rambo in my daycare at age 2, or if there was some porn distributed to my elementary schools. I am in FAVOR of sheltering my kids from those kind of things, and I'd be increasingly upset if these things were taking place!


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> Lord of the Flies? That book rocks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Family values.

Let me tell you about what my family values.  My kids value their auntie who votes republican (much to my behest), knits and crochets for them, performs genealogical research for our families and has had the same partner for 30+ years.  They value her heart, her spirit and her partner as another aunt.

Do they know all the details of what they do in bed? Of course not.

Your comparing sexual preference to porn and horror speaks for itself.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 3, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Family values.
> 
> Let me tell you about what my family values.  My kids value their auntie who votes republican (much to my behest), knits and crochets for them, performs genealogical research for our families and has had the same partner for 30+ years.  They value her heart, her spirit and her partner as another aunt.
> 
> Do they know all the details of what they do in bed? Of course not.


And they should not. As I stated, these things are best determined by the family. If kids are interacting with someone in that kind of relationship, then so be it. Let the parents discuss it. In the same vein, some kids have parents that die or are sick and going to die. These children should have their families discuss this. Don't give a lecture to every kid at school about parents dying and scare everyone. Same vein. If there is a death at a school, let the families help deal with their own children's issues, not some teacher/educator.



> Your comparing sexual preference to porn and horror speaks for itself.


Irrelevant. A discussion of AGE APPROPRIATE, not morality. You also forgot to mention my discussing the eating of meat or murder during times of war, but emphasized what you thought was extreme.

The whole point, which you did not discuss, was that kids this age need to be learning the basics. Reading, writing, math, running around, just worrying about being kids! Let their biggest concern be if Jane checked the "Will you be my girlfriend" box. They have plenty of years to worry about sexuality. Let them grow up first! And let their families discuss that.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 3, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go with mrhnau's assessement about it not being age appropriate. Kids are going to learn about sexuality anyway, but 5 years old isn't the time to teach them about that. 6 years old, isn't 7 years old isn't and 8-10 years old isn't. 
As he said there's plenty of time to learn about what two people do with each other, regardless of their preference. I'd be right along side those Muslim people if I found out my 5 year old (if I had one) was reading a book of that nature. 
No of course they books didn't go into details about the goings on behind bedroom doors, didn't have to read the books to know that much but books about martial/co-habitational relationships are not age appropriate.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2008)

ummm

Am I missing something here???

The kids were *5*!!! We are talking Kindergarten 

You want to debate tolerance you want to teach it that is all well and good but a book about an overt homosexual relationships or a book that is about an overt heterosexual relationship *DOES NOT BELONG IN A KINDERGARTEN CLASS*.

They have enough to learn already you want to get into it with them later fine but at *5* I doubt any of the lesson they are trying to get across will.

NYS tried to require sex ed at one point at a very early age I believe it was 6 they used a banana and a condom and the *ENIVITABLE* question put forth by a *6 YEAR OLD *was "what do you do with the banana after sex" They have *NO* idea what the HELL adults are talking about at that age when it comes to sex or relationships based on sex. 

*FOR CRYING OUT LOUD *let kids be kids while they can be.

You start talking to my kids about such thing be it gay, lesbian or straight... and I know about it.... you got serious problems


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I'd be right along side those Muslim people if I found out my 5 year old (if I had one) was reading a book of that nature.


I also have no children, but understand that parents get VERY CONCERNED about what their children learn about at a young age.

Now, interestingly, the Muslim community is "taking care of business" when the Christian community is just summarily dismissed.  For that, the Christian community can be thankful, at least for this end result, no?

Now, if the school later says, "Oh, because you claim to be a Muslim student, you will not have to read this book, but all of the other students, the Christians included, must read this book."  Then, there is big trouble.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 3, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> At that age, they need to be learning colors, letters, words, numbers, not ANYTHING to do with sexuality.





MA-Caver said:


> No of course they books didn't go into details about the goings on behind bedroom doors, didn't have to read the books to know that much but books about martial/co-habitational relationships are not age appropriate.



I'm afraid that from the soonest age they can reason and form associations, children are bombarded with a sexual education, starting with the relationship between Mommy and Daddy.  From the youngest age they learn about relationships, marriage and children.  They do this with or without books.  Many common children's books and common fairy tales also provide a sexual education, in that the Prince and the Princess generally get married at the end of the story.

So what's the difference?  The education they are being bombarded with is a heterosexual one.  Most of us tend not to notice because it is a "natural", taken-for-granted context.  Of course learning about Mommies and Daddies is natural.  Does a fish notice the water it is swimming in?

Nonetheless, that heteronormative sexual education is there.  If the Prince marries another Prince at the end of the tale, it provides no more of a sexual education to the child then they have already received when the Prince marries the Princess.



MA-Caver said:


> 6 years old, isn't 7 years old isn't and 8-10 years old isn't.



Not sure how things are now, but I started actual sex-ed (the penis and vagina routine) in 5th grade - 10 years old.  Of course, we were talking about it with each other long before then.  How long would you wait?  The average age of first menstruation in girls in many communities is in the 8-9 range.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> You want to debate tolerance you want to teach it that is all well and good but a book about an overt homosexual relationships or a book that is about an overt heterosexual relationship *DOES NOT BELONG IN A KINDERGARTEN CLASS*.



That is pretty funny.  We'll have to do away with "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves", "Cinderella", "King Arthur", "A Thousand and One Nights", and a whole host of other stories and movies currently being enjoyed by kindergardeners everywhere.

Certainly kindergardeners shouldn't be exposed to violence either, right?  Well, there goes all those stories again.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2008)

They are not kindergarten children, over here children start mainstream school at four and a half. At about two years of age until they start school they are either at nursery or playschool depending if the parents want to send them but compulsory education starts at four and a half.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 3, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> They are not kindergarten children, over here children start mainstream school at four and a half. At about two years of age until they start school they are either at nursery or playschool depending if the parents want to send them but compulsory education starts at four and a half.


 
Over here, "kindergarten" is "mainstream school." In any case, four and a half makes them "kindergarten age," or younger, and "pupils as young as five" equates with "kindergarten" over here, for most people.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Over here, "kindergarten" is "mainstream school." In any case, four and a half makes them "kindergarten age," or younger, and "pupils as young as five" equates with "kindergarten" over here, for most people.


 

We have some kindergartens here but they are usually private enterprise nurseries and are optional.
What age does compulsory education start in the States, I assume it's compulsory even if you home school? Here it's a criminal offence not to either send your children to school or have them properly educated.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 3, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> We have some kindergartens here but they are usually private enterprise nurseries and are optional.
> What age does compulsory education start in the States, I assume it's compulsory even if you home school? Here it's a criminal offence not to either send your children to school or have them properly educated.


 
Don't know exactly how it works-it's usually "around five," though some will turn six in kindergarten, depending upon when they were born, and, likewise (though less often than when I was a kid) some will turn five. It is "compulsory," though....

In any case, I'd be pretty irritated by my kindergartener being fed "King and King," and I'm neither Christian or Moslem. Not that I've got anything against the idea of teaching kids about such things, even kids that young (depending on the kid). It's just that I believe it should be the parents' job, not the school system's.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Don't be disingenuous.  Books being banned from schools due to Christian parental complaints is a long standing tradition in this country, which you well know.  It's just as wrong when they do it.


The word you lack is "HAD", as in: Books being banned from schools due to Christian parental complaints HAD a long standing tradition...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2008)

Quite frankly we'd be just pleased if the schools taught them to read and write anything at all. The governments messed up the education system so thoroughly parents would be pleased if their children managed to learn anything at all. Oh and it started with the Tory government before people say it was the socialists! Maggie Thatcher ruined a great many things here.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2008)

Has anyone even looked at the books?

I see a LOT of assumptions that these are sex-ed books.  

Why is it that everyone assumes that if it has two men or two women it automatically means it's a diagram of mudsliding and rug-munching?  It's the acceptance of a relationship between people.

Would any of you who posted that it's inappropriate complain about the handsome prince rescuing the princess? Or the See Spot book where Neighbor Joe's Mother is white and father black?

Tell ya what, I'm going to refrain from posting further until I can see the books for myself.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The word you lack is "HAD", as in: Books being banned from schools due to Christian parental complaints HAD a long standing tradition...



If you say so...
http://atheism.about.com/od/harrypotter/a/censorship.htm
http://www.wsu.edu/~accessnw/resources/banned02-04.htm
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sec...anagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=151926


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2008)

Ah, but I will post this from Wikipedia:



> _*And Tango Makes Three*_ is a 2005 children's book written by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson and illustrated by Henry Cole. The book is based on the true story of Roy and Silo, two male Chinstrap Penguins in New York's Central Park Zoo who for a time formed a couple. The book follows part of this time in the penguins' lives. This book teaches children that it's okay to be in, or know, someone who has a "non-traditional" family.
> The pair were observed trying to hatch a rock that resembled an egg. When zookeepers realized that Roy and Silo were both male, it occurred to them to give them the second egg of a mixed-sex penguin couple, a couple which had previously been unable to successfully hatch two eggs at once. Roy and Silo hatched and raised the healthy young chick, a female named "Tango" by keepers, together as a family.



And this also from Wiki:


> "On the tallest mountain above (a) town," a young prince still has not married, as is the custom in his kingdom. His mother, a grouchy Queen insists he must find a princess to marry. The prince tells his mom "_Very well, Mother.... I must say, though, I've never cared much for princesses._" His mother marches princess after princess through the castle, but they fail to interest the prince. After a while along comes princess Madaleine escorted by her brother Prince Lee, who causes the prince to exclaim, "What a wonderful prince!" The prince immediately falls in love with the other prince, and they begin marriage preparations at once. The story ends with a kiss between the two kings.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That is pretty funny. We'll have to do away with "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves", "Cinderella", "King Arthur", "A Thousand and One Nights", and a whole host of other stories and movies currently being enjoyed by kindergardeners everywhere.
> 
> Certainly kindergardeners shouldn't be exposed to violence either, right? Well, there goes all those stories again.


 
Did you miss the word "Overt" or just choose not to read it


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Did you miss the word "Overt" or just choose not to read it



No, I didn't miss it.  Most of those books have big fairy tale weddings at some point.  "Snow White" has a big ol' kiss as a main plot point.  How much more "overt" can you get?  Or is it only homosexual relationships, no matter how gently put, that are "overt"?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> No, I didn't miss it.  Most of those books have big fairy tale weddings at some point.  "Snow White" has a big ol' kiss as a main plot point.  How much more "overt" can you get?  Or is it only homosexual relationships, no matter how gently put, that are "overt"?


Big juicy hetero smoochies and handsome men rescuing frail women ... nothing overt about that.  :whip1:


----------



## elder999 (Apr 3, 2008)

Pretty sure we didn't do any fairy tales when I was in kindergarten-know for a fact that my son and daughter didn't.......plenty of kids books, sure, but no _Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Rumplestilskin, Rose Red, Little Red Riding Hood,_ or any such like-no smoochies for any of us in kindergarten, hetero or otherwise, except for the one I stole from Ann Paris, about a million years ago it seems.......

Of course, that didn't keep me from being exposed to them by my _parents_, and it didn't keep my kids from being exposed to them outside of school either....I don't think that any of thse books belongs in a classroom environment for kids that age. 

Part of diversity is respecting differences, not force feeding conformity.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> No, I didn't miss it. Most of those books have big fairy tale weddings at some point. "Snow White" has a big ol' kiss as a main plot point. How much more "overt" can you get? Or is it only homosexual relationships, no matter how gently put, that are "overt"?


 
Aaaah now I see, the veiled accusations begin because you decide to take a small part of my post and use it to make a point that does not exist.

You apparently did miss the gay, lesbian or straight part of the post.

I have not read the book in question so maybe it is harmless if it is much like snow white but I doubt that it is. I would not want then to read the sun also raises either

And since you seem bent on taking this to extremes I will say I would HIGHLY object to the showing of the last tango in Paris in a class full of 5 year olds but a film about Paris of the tango would be fine.

I suggest that you reread my original post and get back to me before you start this type of stuff

What I find interesting in all this is that I did not wee where "Muslim" had anything to do with the complaint other than that is what the parents happen to be but it appears to be ok to practice religious intolerance and point out their religion and try and use it to make a point but their Muslims so that's ok I guess

Let me ask, you have kids?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Part of diversity is respecting differences, not force feeding conformity.


QFT :asian:


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Aaaah now I see, the veiled accusations begin because you decide to take a small part of my post and use it to make a point that does not exist.
> 
> You apparently did miss the gay, lesbian or straight part of the post.



Uh, no, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.  Nor did I miss your evenhanded inclusion of all sexual orientations.  That was sort of my point.  Those stories all have overt heterosexuality in them.  You apparently didn't see it that way in your initial response, which is something I'm trying to point out.  Fish noticing the water, and all.



Xue Sheng said:


> I have not read the book in question so maybe it is harmless if it is much like snow white but I doubt that it is.



All we know about it is that the prince falls in love with and marries another prince instead of a princess.  That is comparable in "overtness" to all the fairy tale love matches I was read when I was that age.



Xue Sheng said:


> What I find interesting in all this is that I did not wee where "Muslim" had anything to do with the complaint other than that is what the parents happen to be but it appears to be ok to practice religious intolerance and point out their religion and try and use it to make a point but their Muslims so that's ok I guess



Your problem is with Big Don then, not me.  I was trying to poke holes in his bigotry, not add to it.



Xue Sheng said:


> Let me ask, you have kids?



No.  Let me guess, once I have kids, I'll want to start banning books and suddenly agree that homosexual marriage is "overt" while heterosexual marriage isn't?  Don't count on it, I'm going to share my values with my children, not be hypocritical on their behalf.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

do 5 year olds need to know about homosexual marraige?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> do 5 year olds need to know about homosexual marraige?


 
Whether they need to or not, they're going to, by virtue of being invited to the homes of children or at least seeing children, or talking, interacting and playing with children that have same sex parents.

Of course, their own parents should explain it to them, not the schools.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

exactly, maybe that is a job best left to the parents


----------



## Kacey (Apr 3, 2008)

It's easy to say that teaching acceptance, morality, ethics, sexuality, and so on are the parents' job - because it is.  Nonetheless, as a teacher, I can state clearly that many students are not receiving this education at home.  

I had a student (7th grade - 12 years old) refuse to work with another student in my class because "I don't work with no slant-eyed chinee". 

Some years ago, I had another student (3rd grade - 8 years old) tell me, at a school where I was a substitute, that "I don't have to listen to you.  My dad doesn't listen to women, my granddad doesn't listen to women, and I don't listen to women"... apparently, this attitude was not news to the (female) principal of his elementary school, who apologized to me for his attitude and behavior.

Another student at my school discovered that he was gay in 7th grade.  He was ostracized - especially when changing clothes for gym - beaten up regularly by a variety of other boys, and was the target of a parent who wanted "that unnatural creature" removed from all of her son's classes - and told him so, every time he was unfortunate enough to cross her path, on or off the school grounds; his parents finally had to file a restraining order.

There are currently 4 pregnant 8th grader girls (13 or 14 years old) in my school - and none of them had gone through 8th grade Health class (where sex ed is taught) prior to becoming pregnant - and every single parent claimed "but... she must have been _raped_... no _way_ would my child be having sex at this age" - never mind that 2 of the girls' mothers were themselves under 28.  

Should the schools be teaching morality?  Only to the extent that teachers should be demonstrating it, as appropriate, in their classrooms - by not allowing any behaviors that negatively target or stereotype a person or group - but it's being taught in the schools because, like so many other things, it's _not_ being taught at home in far too many cases.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That is pretty funny.  We'll have to do away with "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves", "Cinderella", "King Arthur", "A Thousand and One Nights", and a whole host of other stories and movies currently being enjoyed by kindergardeners everywhere.
> 
> Certainly kindergardeners shouldn't be exposed to violence either, right?  Well, there goes all those stories again.


OK, so we should have "Billy has two mothers". I suggest we include a few other popular titles, including "Billy has one father and 5 mothers". Don't want to exclude polygamist. Also, "Billy has a father that beats him mother". Can't shelter kids these days. "Billy's mother is a drug addict" is another popular title. How about the classic "Billy's mother used to be his father, and now he has two mothers and one of them is upset about it!".

Let kids learn basic things. They can learn about complicated things later. No need to educate a 5 year old about polygamy, sex changes, violence. He has a lifetime to do that. Lets teach basic skills please! And we wonder why our education system is lagging here in the US.

Now, as to those classics, books have been banned from time to time, as MACaver mentioned. I'd not show my 8 month old certain cartoon movies, and for now, I'm keeping him away from what might be termed frightening images (explosions, graphic violence, etc). Certain classics I'll probably keep away until he is older. Even some Disney movies are a bit frightening for a 5 year old. 

Now, specifics. Certain groups of people have different moral values. As adults, you are allowed to make them. Certain cultures have different morals. Thats fine. I don't let different cultures determine my morals, preferences or tastes. For instance, I choose not to eat dog, though many in Viet Nam might choose to do so. I also choose not to eat horse, though some in Japan might choose to do so. I would also prefer not to have literature presented to my 5 year old son describing how Billy's favorite holiday meal is fresh dog. These types of values are cultural, and in some cases, personal. Culturally, we accept stories such as Snow White, Cinderella, King Author. These stories might not be acceptable in some cultures that are matriarchal. For us, these stories have been around for generations, often times highlighting good aspects of humanity, as well as sometimes the bad. As a parent, I reserve the right to "censor", if you will, what comes into my house. I won't let my child have access to certain books until I believe he has the emotional and intellectual stability to handle them properly. If I choose to let a book in that describes normal heterosexual relationships, then I have that right. I also have the right to refuse certain books to come into my house. I realize that sending a kid off to school, you can't please everyone, but you try to take hopefully the least objectional books. Stick some classics in their hands. I prefer not to have my child indoctrinated with anything other than the basics of education. I think reading should be fostered, but at that age, keep the books educational, not questionable. Then again, I'm of the notion that computers should not be introduced for quite a while (5th grade or so), and children not dependent on calculators for math. Somehow, I doubt that will change... I've seen some schools with kids on computers in 1st grade!

(sorry if this is dated, I had a 5 hour break )


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Well, I am not so sure what the mind of a 5 year old is like.  I cannot remember being that age.  And, I would have to read the books, of course.  But, I cannot see how that "Penquin book" can do much harm.  It just said that two male penquins somehow managed to get an egg to hatch and so forth.  What could be the harm in that?  Of course, that might start the children thinking, "What is the mechanics behind the egg coming to be to begin with?  Does it just majically appear out of thin air?"  That would be problematic.

Also, there is a big difference between some book of a prince marrying some other prince instead of a princess on the one hand, and then some book describing the sex act, that's for sure.  

But, yes, kids are just kids.  They should not be bothered with any adult ideas.  They should just learn easy things -- names of colors, easy games to play, and so forth, very basic things, and by all means they should not be troubled with any thoughts that could give them unease.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 4, 2008)

Shesulsa thanks for the info on the books. I like the idea of the Penguins trying to hatch a rock.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 4, 2008)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Shesulsa thanks for the info on the books. I like the idea of the Penguins trying to hatch a rock.


That book is based on a true story, btw.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Uh, no, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything. Nor did I miss your evenhanded inclusion of all sexual orientations. That was sort of my point. Those stories all have overt heterosexuality in them. You apparently didn't see it that way in your initial response, which is something I'm trying to point out. Fish noticing the water, and all.
> 
> All we know about it is that the prince falls in love with and marries another prince instead of a princess. That is comparable in "overtness" to all the fairy tale love matches I was read when I was that age.
> 
> ...


 
You are adding things to this I am not saying; now I apparently advocate the banning of books because I do not approve of certain books being read to or read by 5 year olds. I wouldn't let them watch many of the cartoons or TV shows out today either so apparently I am also against TV in your opinion.   

I have not read the book; if it is about 2 guys that are married and have a life frankly I do not care about it. If it is discussing sex it has no place in a class of 5 year olds. Discussions about sex is what I am referring to as overt not a fall in love get married and live happily ever after. You again appear to have glazed over another reference about not wanting to have "the sun also rises" in a class of 5 year olds. And here&#8217;s a great point to omit in your next response, just because I do not feel that the book "the sun also rises" should not be read in to a class of 5 year olds does not mean I want the book banned or to have any book banned for that matter. It means it is not &#8220;AGE APPROPRAITE&#8221; kid of like you have to know your audience if you are a public speaker, you have to know what books are appropriate for what age. 

Kids do not get this stuff like adults do and TOO many adults want to force ADULT views on children, particularly adults without children, and then wonder why children don't get it and then better yet get upset with the  kids when they don&#8217;t get it. Here is another point you have missed before and will likely miss again. My view is let kids be kids while they have the chance because they will not get that chance again. I will also add that the world is a scary place and the things my kids HAVE to know today I had no clue of when I was their age but when it concerns their safety I am all for it they have to know it. 

Should they know that there are couples that are not like mommy and daddy? Sure they should that&#8217;s life and my kids do and it was learned at home by seeing some of the friends my wife and I have, heck mommy and daddy are not like their friends mommy and daddy because mommy and daddy come from different countries in my home. But they have NO IDEA what goes on behind close doors of ANY of these couples including my wife and I. They are simply too young to understand, eventually they will need to know, and although approaching the subject with them, when they are older, scares the hell out of me, it will be discussed and it will be discussed at home, not in a book at school. It is not the responsibility of the teacher or the school to teach this to children in my opinion it is the responsibility of the parents.

As to reading a book about same sex marriage to 5 years old; if it is treated like snow white (We are getting into semantics here over overt by the way) then fine let it fly, I do not consider snow white a book that is overt about "SEXUALITY". And likely kids will not see the issue either, their parents might, but the kids won&#8217;t, they are 5. 

As to the religious point I made that was a general comment to all not just to you but I admit I did not make that clear, sorry about that.

As to kids, you have no IDEA how that will change your views, I sure as heck didn't. As to what it makes you want to do that all depends on your style of parenting I guess. But I will say I would not have cared one bit about this issue if I were in my 20s or early 30s. It amazes me the things that I am concerned about now that I have kids, some of which I made fun of years ago.  

Now feel free to call me a book banner or insinuate in some veiled comment something about homophobia or whatever you wish but I have had enough of this.

Have at me.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> exactly, maybe that is a job best left to the parents


 
*BINGO!!!*


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 4, 2008)

Just as a question (and then I'm on my way to purchase these books for myself) ...

Exactly how much thought do you put into the fact that your children see a male and female couple every day? They don't think twice about it - it's normal for them.  You don't school a kindy in the specifics of your relationship but you tell them fairy tales of princes and princesses.

If the only things in the world you saw were happiness and wealth, what would your perspective on the world be?

Hm.  Okay, how about this:

My youngest son was born here in the PNW and for a time we lived in a predominately white neighborhood (rare for me).  He was almost 1 year old before he saw his first African-American person.  We were in the check line at a store, he in the cart seat while I loaded the goodies on the conveyor. This gentleman was particularly dark-skinned.  I don't think I've seen my son's eyes bigger. He stared and stared and stared at that man. 

The man appeared a bit annoyed at the situation but said nothing.  I felt quite conflicted, didn't know what to do, so I just looked at my boy, looked at the man and smiled.  He smiled back. My son looked at the two of us smiling at each other and smiled too.

It was a moment of surprise, challenge and acceptance.  

Later in school he would come home telling me of the "darker skinned" people in his class. I thought it so interesting how he would describe the color of other people's skin and started to wonder if he was the minority in his class (SO many people had darker skin than he). Upon visiting I found a diverse group of children of all persuasions and he told me one day that his class was a rainbow of people - a reference I'm sure he got from a book in Kindergarten.

So ... my youngest, from exposure and a book celebrating diversity, learned the acceptance of diversity.  He did not require the information about MLK Jr's assassination, pictures of hangings in Mississippi, the history of the Ku Klux Klan.

All he required was verification of the acceptance of diversity in more than one social norm.

You might say, "well that's a race issue, not a sexuality issue and that's different." But in a child's eyes, it really isn't.  What a child - who has no knowledge of sex, sexual behavior nor the moralities engaged therein - sees is *people* in pairs (or not) raising children.  Breeding tolerance means if they see three fairy tales ... one where the couple is male and female, one where the couple is male and male, and another where the couple is female and female, they will put together a norm of social acceptance.

When they're old enough to learn about sex and homosexuality, THEN those lessons can begin. Until then ... why slaughter their innocence and desire for acceptance by pointing to a book and telling them the princes are naughty and they are too young to know about that evil yet?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 4, 2008)

> That book is based on a true story, btw.


 
Shesulsa how does that saying go "Truth is stranger than fiction"
:highfive:


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 4, 2008)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Shesulsa how does that saying go "Truth is stranger than fiction"
> :highfive:


LOL! How about Truth is Queerer than fiction?


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 4, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> You might say, "well that's a race issue, not a sexuality issue and that's different." But in a child's eyes, it really isn't.  What a child - who has no knowledge of sex, sexual behavior nor the moralities engaged therein - sees is *people* in pairs (or not) raising children.  Breeding tolerance means if they see three fairy tales ... one where the couple is male and female, one where the couple is male and male, and another where the couple is female and female, they will put together a norm of social acceptance.


Race is something a person is born with. You see it with your eyes. Someones sexual orientation is not. I roomed with guys exclusively for about 10 years. There is something different between that and living with a gay partner. To the eyes of a child, there is probably no difference. However, when giving the label "parents", you ascribe something different. Its a subtle form of social programming. You call it social acceptance. I call it programming. These types of moral judgments are best left to the HOME. Not a social institution like school.



> When they're old enough to learn about sex and homosexuality, THEN those lessons can begin. Until then ... why slaughter their innocence and desire for acceptance by pointing to a book and telling them the princes are naughty and they are too young to know about that evil yet?



In the same vein, why start your social programming so early? Why should we point to a book and the princes and tell our children that is OK to go around kissing other guys? With something that might be objectionable (like those silly book titles in my previous posts), let the families be the judges as to right/wrong and when to introduce.

I think most people objecting here are in the same vein. LEAVE THIS FOR THE HOME.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2008)

Of course you realise that small boys in particular really don't like small girls and asking boys to even hold hands with a girl so you can walk along a road on a school trip is to invite outrage from said small boys? The thought of two men marrying probably seems quite attractive to small boys! Imagine having to kiss a girl, oh yuck! 
Remember children of this age won't imagine marriage as it really is, they would imagine two men being married would be great fun where you can play with cars all days, not wash and not eat vegtables.
I rather imagine small girls aren't much taken with the idea of marrying a boy either.
Remember that joke where little Tommy asks his mother where he comes from and his mother launches into a description of the sexual act, telling him how the eggs are fertilised etc. Little Tommy looks at her very bored and says no mummy, Johnnie says he comes from London, where do I come from?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 4, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> Race is something a person is born with... Someones sexual orientation is not.


That's to be debated but probably not here.


> I roomed with guys exclusively for about 10 years. There is something different between that and living with a gay partner.


It's only different if you both are gay.


> To the eyes of a child, there is probably no difference. However, when giving the label "parents", you ascribe something different. Its a subtle form of social programming. You call it social acceptance. I call it programming.


All learning is programming. You teach your children to wash their hands before eating, don't you? That's programming. You train them to use the toilet - that's programming. You teach them to say Please and Thank you - that's programming. Whatever you teach a child outside of 1+1=2 and the color blue is called "blue" and that "b" comes after "a" ... is programming.


> These types of moral judgments are best left to the HOME. Not a social institution like school.


Again - morals are always taught at home. You may disapprove of homosexuality but, nevertheless, there are gays everywhere you go. Your dentist might be gay.  A coworker might be gay.  It's all around you whether you like it or not. The point here is ... no matter what you feel about homosexuality, there will be gay people wherever you go and you can either ruin your life by programming yourself to be nauseated at the thought of what gay people do in private when you pass them in the store or drop that folder off in their inbox ... or you can accept they are here, get used to it, and take responsibility for your own feelings on the matter.


> In the same vein, why start your social programming so early?


See above.


> Why should we point to a book and the princes and tell our children that is OK to go around kissing other guys?


Why should we point to a book with princes and princesses and tell our children that is OK to go around kissing at all?


> With something that might be objectionable (like those silly book titles in my previous posts), let the families be the judges as to right/wrong and when to introduce.
> 
> I think most people objecting here are in the same vein. LEAVE THIS FOR THE HOME.


Well goodness, then we need to rid the schools of ALL diversity acceptance materials then. Let's denounce MLK day, presidents' day, Valentines Day (it is, after all, about love and sweethearts - too controversial), Christmas should be gone unless we give breaks for Ramadan, Kwanzaa, Yom Kippur, etc, etc.  OH! and EASTER! Yes! We need to get rid of spring break because Easter is a Christian holiday and is religion-based.

Prayer in school - stay gone. God in the pledge - get it outta there. Girls in skirts and dresses - all kids should wear the same thing - polo shirts and pants for everyone.

Let's shave everyone's heads so that bald people can talk to their children at home about the follicularly challenged population and the moral implications.

When we're talking about children that young, you simply have to be able to moderate the adult knowledge in the child's realm.  Balance, folks.  Of course you have to be a parent ... but if you are telling your child that being gay is wrong and evil and they go to school and see kids naturally exploring their curiosity they are programmed (wink) to think that any urge along those same lines in themseles is wrong and evil. And if that ain't an unhealthy mind-****, I don't know what is.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Of course you realise that small boys in particular really don't like small girls and asking boys to even hold hands with a girl so you can walk along a road on a school trip is to invite outrage from said small boys? The thought of two men marrying probably seems quite attractive to small boys! Imagine having to kiss a girl, oh yuck!
> Remember children of this age won't imagine marriage as it really is, they would imagine two men being married would be great fun where you can play with cars all days, not wash and not eat vegtables.
> I rather imagine small girls aren't much taken with the idea of marrying a boy either.
> Remember that joke where little Tommy asks his mother where he comes from and his mother launches into a description of the sexual act, telling him how the eggs are fertilised etc. Little Tommy looks at her very bored and says no mummy, Johnnie says he comes from London, where do I come from?


 
theres' my point.

The lesson that they are trying to get across will be lost on them.

Much like the "what do you do with the banana after sex" question that was put forth by I believe a 6 year old in a sex education class NYS was trying to make a requirement in 1st grade. It was an example of safe sex and they were putting a condom on a banana and beyond it being a banana with a rubber thing on it they had NO idea what the teacher was talking about. They kind of gave up on the idea after that.

Now you want to teach that in Junior high you might be on to something but in first grade...


----------



## morph4me (Apr 4, 2008)

I haven't read the book, but it seems to me to be a fairy tale not  not about sex education, but about accepting and respecting differences, I have to ask at what age is it appropriate to teach that?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 4, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> theres' my point.
> 
> The lesson that they are trying to get across will be lost on them.
> 
> ...


But again - you're putting your knowledge of the homosexual act on the table.

When you were five years old and crawled into bed with Mom and Dad, did you ask Mom if she wore the spurs that night? Did you notice the empty condom wrapper on the floor and immediately know your parents had bumped uglies the night before? Did you know what the wet spot was?

You didn't know any of these things - but you sought out your parent's bed because they were two people who loved each other and who loved you. That's all you knew.  And if they were the same gender and you were home-schooled you likely wouldn't have known the difference.

So the idea that showing two princes together next to a prince and princess together is really any different than showing a black child and her puppy as opposed to a white boy and his puppy ... really makes no sense in the mind of a child.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 4, 2008)

Big Don said:


> *Muslims' fury forces schools to shelve anti-homophobia storybooks for 5-year-olds*
> 
> By LAURA CLARK Last updated at 08:45am on 2nd April 2008 London Daily Mail
> Excerpt:
> ...


 



Uh.....


Yeah, um.....


....yeah.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> But again - you're putting your knowledge of the homosexual act on the table.
> 
> When you were five years old and crawled into bed with Mom and Dad, did you ask Mom if she wore the spurs that night? Did you notice the empty condom wrapper on the floor and immediately know your parents had bumped uglies the night before? Did you know what the wet spot was?
> 
> ...



Actually no I am not putting your knowledge of the homosexual act on the table I am putting an absolute lack of knowledge of a homosesxual act or any other sexual act for that matter.. (on the table or anyplace else :EG

You are making my point as well.

I have not read the book in question but depending on how it presents itself it may be as I said be for not age appropriate for a 5 year old and that can be based on content meaning to explicit or based on content meaning it would make as much sense to walk in to a class of 5 year olds and start teaching Differential Equations.

Now if you really want to walk in and teach Differential equations to a 5 year old go for it, just don&#8217;t get mad at them when they don&#8217;t understand it. And don&#8217;t be surprised if they are not ready for 1st grade math because someone spent to much time trying to teach them Diffy Q.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2008)

Ok I'll ask, I don't care...what's differential equations then?

Oh and what does one do with the banana afterwards?


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 4, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Ok I'll ask, I don't care...what's differential equations then?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equations


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 4, 2008)

Have a wander over here:  http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~physedu/mapletutorial/tutorials/diff_eqs/intro.html

I got more than my fair share of both differential equations and integration during my economics degree .


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2008)

Cheers! I have a sort of dyslexia where numbers are concerned, I have O and A levels and a degree but absolutely nothing in even basic arithmetic! the teachers tried bless them but nothing stuck!
At least though I can say the teachers did their best and the education my generation received was a good one. the government is so set on targets that the teachers have little time now to actually teach any subject! They spend most of their time on admin.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Ok I'll ask, I don't care...what's differential equations then?


 
I see you have already been pointed in the right direction for a good answer; I likely would have just said its one of the quickest ways possible to get a migraine



Tez3 said:


> Oh and what does one do with the banana afterwards?


 

You know... I don't know  "Auuuuuuuugh" [as Xue gets cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril]


----------

