Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:45:47 PM
Some letters in today's Los Angeles Times address the paper's editorial I discussed in this posting, about how a California school district is sexualizing children in the name of promoting "LGBT" causes. Tracy Jensen of Alameda, a member of the Alameda Unified School District Board of Education, takes the editorial board to task, then goes on to write:
You correctly point out that the curriculum will teach second-graders that same-gender parents exist.
Yes, but what make them different from mere friends?
Children will learn that those parents are part of loving families, along with single parents, adoptive parents and biracial parents.
Define "loving". And there's a difference between same-sex couples who obtain children and those other households (except for some single parents) – they are, by design, depriving the children of a mother or a father. "Biracial" parents can naturally make babies. No same-sex couple can do that.
Given that the lessons actually do not contain descriptive sexual information and do include attention to values, I am puzzled how you could support teaching students "not to belittle others" but call it inappropriate to teach respect for LGBT students, staff and parents.
Whose values? Jensen apparently misses that the problem that should be addressed is bullying, not personal distaste for homosexual behavior.
Sam Chaidez of Mission Hills got it:
Teaching students to respect one another without exception is sufficient to prevent bullying of any kind, be it based on race, religion, physical features, language or countless other reasons.
Exactly. I blog a lot about fighting the push towards marriage neutering, but I do not hate or personally disrespect people for their sexual orientation. In my personal and professional life, I treat people equally based on their behavior in interacting with me. That's the decent thing to do.