Teaching Kindergarten Kids About 'Human Differences' and Homosexuality Isn't 'Easy' in Newton

It hasn't been easy teaching children about homosexuality in the Newton schools because many parents are not happy with the plan, a social worker told the attendees at one of the Fistgate sessions held this year at Tufts University.

"I work in the Newton public schools, and a lot of times it can be a very reactionary group, and it has not been easy at all," said Laura Perkins, who is a social worker in the schools.

Her session at Fistgate 2003 was about introducing six-year-olds to homosexual concepts. She shared books and sample lesson plans. The session was titled, "Developing Lessons that Help Young Students Understand Human Differences."

"What I do is to go into classrooms and teach kids about respect for human differences and to teach social skills lessons," she said, adding, "I have been asked to train new teachers in how to do some of these lessons. The new teachers are being trained to do this."

Several participants were from Brookline's public schools, including two first-grade co-teachers from the Devotion School and a 3rd-through-5th grade learning center teacher.

"It seems like the climate at the [Devotion] School is much more open than a lot of schools," commented Perkins, who then lamented the obstacles she faces in Newton.

She asked group members what teaching methods they currently use in their classrooms. One of the Devotion School teachers replied that she already does "a lot of stuff about similarities and differences . . . sort of getting [the children] to broaden their definition of what's smart or what's good or what's acceptable. And we talk a lot about teasing, and a lot about rules that people think there are, but that really aren't there. Like, people think there's a rule that boys can't like pink or wear pink or like to do certain things. That rule really doesn't exist, but people behave as if they do. So in this class, there isn't a rule, and we're not going to pretend that there's a rule."

Perkins said that children, who have language-based learning disabilities or who are mentally retarded, tend to think in such literal terms that they "really sometimes do have trouble grasping these ideas" that "a family can have two moms or two dads. So, sometimes it takes working with the parents as well to help them to talk to their children about it, so that they're hearing it in different places."

Perkins recommended educators take a pro-active lead in setting ground rules with parents during the first open house of the school year:

"It's good just to state it right at open house. Talk about the kind of climate that you're trying to create in the classroom. Let parents know that you're going to be intervening if there's any teasing or name-calling, and that occasionally kids do use terms like 'retarded' or 'gay' as insults, and you will intervene and have a discussion about that if that happens."

Should parents want to know what a teacher is going to say in that situation, Perkins advised, "I would at that point tell them that I would define those words for the kids, and they're going to want to know how you define it.

"So the definition that I give to parents of an elementary school person, and this is what I use for the kids, is I say to kids that someone who is gay is someone, is a man who would be in a loving or romantic relationship with another man rather than a woman, and a lesbian is a woman who would be in a loving or a romantic relationship [with another woman], which she isn't necessarily in a relationship, but that is who she'd be in a relationship with."

Perkins conceded that she does not use the term "sexual orientation" with kids because, "It's too charged for the parents. I think if it's charged for the kids, it's really charged for the parents."

She actually does explain the difference between friendship and romance to children: "And parents will say to me, 'They're little kids, how do they know about romantic? What does that mean?' And I'll say, 'Well, I actually do explain that to kids.' You know, I say, 'Does that mean that if you're friends with a boy who's friends with a boy, does that mean he's gay?' And they'll say 'No.' And I'll say, 'That's right, it's different, that's a friendship. I'm not talking about friendship. I'm talking about moms and dads who've fallen in love, and then they want to live together and raise a family.'"

One method Perkins uses to explain the difference between friendship and romance to small children is fairy tales: "Again, with learning disabilities, you're dealing with sometimes kids who think very literally, so I'll say things like, 'In Cinderella, the story of Cinderella, the relationship between the Prince and Cinderella. . . that's a romantic relationship, or Sleeping Beauty and the prince.' And they get [that]. That seems to help them grasp that idea that it's not a friendship; it's a different concept."

When asked by one participant if she has ever had negative reactions from parents, Perkins agreed she has, and illustrated the ostracism some children face when their parents refuse to let them be indoctrinated: "I've had parents who've been kind about it and great about it, and I've had parents who've asked that their child be removed from any lesson in which we're going to deal with that.

"In fact, there's one parent who's asked that his child not have anything to do with me, so that child has had to be removed. I do social skills lessons in grades one and three, and that child had to be removed every time I came to do that in the classroom. We found something else for her to do, like go to the library and water the plants. I felt so bad. She was one of the kids who loved the lessons the most."

Perkins added, "There are always parents whose religion actually says that it [homosexuality] is a sin. I don't want to disrespect anyone's religion, and I'll tell parents that, but we do want every child to feel safe and comfortable in the school.

"If kids are getting teased and harassed, they're not going to be able to work. They're not going to be able to concentrate on their learning. So this is actually for the protection of people's learning so that they're able to learn best. So it really does go along with the goals of education, that every child has the right to be comfortable."

Perkins passed out several children's books for class participants to examine. She called Families are Different a "wonderful book" for kindergarten and first graders. However, "It does not show gay and lesbian families, so what I'll do is, I'll read the kids the book, then ask them if there are any kinds of families that are not represented. I actually have kids who have lesbian parents who do not say that their family wasn't represented, which is troubling to me. I question, are they getting the idea that I'm asking, or are they ashamed or are they uncomfortable? So then I'll sit and talk about families with two moms and two dads."

Good books for introducing the concept of "allies" include Oliver Button is a Sissy for first graders and Teammates, a story about African American baseball player Jackie Robinson, for third graders.

"When a child is being laughed at," said Perkins, "it's important to stop the class and say, 'Is there anybody who's going to be this child's ally? Something is going on; someone needs help. Who is going to show their support by being an ally?'

"I've had a whole class practically dissolve in laughter in front of me because I used the word 'gay'. And when that happens you have a choice: Should you stop or should you just go on and ignore the issues or stop and discuss it? And I stop and discuss it and ask them why they're laughing. And they'll really try to avoid the subject, but then usually someone will spill the beans, and then I'll go into the definition, and why it's hurtful to laugh about it."

Another resource Perkins recommends for first graders is Zinnia and Dot, a "conflict resolution" story about two mother hens who fight over a single egg after a weasel steals the others in their nests. When the chick hatches, the hens realize that it does not matter who originally laid the egg. The story reads, "Never before was a baby chick so loved, growing up with not one, but two mother hens." When Perkins finishes reading the story, she asks children, "Does this look like a happy family?" When the kids answer "Yes," Perkins explains, "This story is about a hen family, but in some human families there are two moms or two dads."

Perkins admitted that My Two Uncles, the story of a girl who does not understand the conflict her grandfather has with his gay son (the girl's uncle) and his male sex partner, may be too sophisticated for first and second graders because of its explicit definitions of "gay" and "lesbian," but "I have great discussions in third grade with kids about it." She noted that one of her former principals asked her not to use the book because of parents' negative reactions.

Chicken Sunday, for grades 3 through 5, talks about the Holocaust and shows a drawing of a man with a concentration camp tattoo on his arm. Perkins said she uses the story to talk to children about groups of people who were persecuted in Germany during World War II, "and that one of the groups was gays and lesbians, and I'll define it for them, and [talk] about how it seems like all that persecution was about fear of differences and about not understanding people who are different, and that is one of the reasons we are emphasizing understanding differences."

Perkins, who identified herself as "straight" during the session, concluded, "I think it's more the parents who should go to a psychiatrist to become comfortable with who their child is."

Another gorgeous Spring day here in the Inland Empire. I just finished turning out the horses and the morning stable cleaning chores. So I'm in the proper frame of mind to address the Augean task of responding to your commentary.

Hey, pal - I did offer you the first move, and you've spent more time in evasion than you have in answering. So noted. So let's try these:

Considering how your offer of a "first move" was so predicated upon accepting your premise, it was not nearly as generous as you would have us believe. (I'm not a virgin. If you make your case without the propaganda and rhetoric, I'll give you serious consideration.)

More arm waving from you, but I'll let that pass for now. I did offer you the opportunity to answer with a subject and in a manner of your choosing; instead, you elected to sneer and condescend as your content-free response clearly shows. Accept my premises or not - you are free to refute them with whatever facts, reason and logic that you can muster. Nothing prevented you from taking the dialog forward from there - unless, perhaps, you've really nothing to offer - or have a great deal to conceal - such as the logical, epistemological and moral difficulty in which you've found yourself.

1. Do you approve of 'normalizing' homosexual behavior to grade-schoolers? If so, why?

"Normal" is relative. You are asking me to accept your own definition of "is." The following statement is true: "Homosexuality (and bisexuality) is a scientifically recognized 'normal" variant of human sexuality."

The following clinical statement is NOT true: "Homosexuality (and bisexuality) is (statistically) 'normal.'"

The following statement is true: "Homosexuality is 'normal' for me."

You've sidestepped the question, perhaps because it calls for you to make a moral judgment. Speculation on my part, but I strongly suspect that this is true. Nevertheless, your response is disingenuous because there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is indeed a 'variant,' of human behavior. If we are to remain epistemologically and logically consistent, the fact that such behavior is by definition not statistically normal sends your premise careening off the road of reason and towards the guardrails of fallacy. Finally, you stand the entire enterprise on it's head by stating, "Homosexuality is 'normal' for me, " thus substituting solipsism for science. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. There is a danger in the malignant narcissism implicit in your statement that you in particular should be able to recognize, as you have the most to lose by it. By reducing the concept of normality to whatever you deem it to be for yourself, you therefore legitimize the behavior of those who feel that, oh, say, tarring and feathering you or hanging you by the neck until dead because of your 'orientation' is merely another opinion - and one just as valid as yours. And if you really want to hew to this particular line of reasoning, then you must also have nothing to say regarding the opinions of others like Dr. Laura. As I said, you can't have it both ways - unless of course, you resort to the Left's historical means of dealing with disagreement - namely, the gulag and the gun.

Worse, the logic implicit in your statement denies the existence of good and evil, right and wrong or any sort of moral/ethical standards. Anne Hendershott, writing in The Politics of Deviance, says that the sociologist's objective in studying deviance is not to classify a specific behavior as either deviant or conforming, but rather to position a given behavior or class of related behaviors on a continuum ranging from negligible to serious in terms of the reaction it evokes in the community. If a behavior is considered by the majority of of the members of a community to be unacceptable, dangerous or morally wrong, then that behavior is regarded as deviant. To quote Hendershott, "When a behavior warrants and receives condemnatory or punitive reactions, sociologists assert that it has seriously violated prevailing behavioral standards." Prevailing behavioral standards. Discussion of the derivation of those standards - and the current cultural war against standards of any sort deserves a separate discussion, but we can address elements of it here. (BTW, I corrected your misspelling of 'variant' and 'statistically'.)

Just how finely do you want to split semantic hairs?

Begging the question again. Looks more like a case of projection to me, but I'll leave that as an exercise for our readers.

Of course, nobody is trying to "normalize" ANY kind of sexual "behavior" to grade-schoolers, so your entire premise is garbage.

Are you sure you want to make that statement? That is simply not the case, and you are therefore either woefully ignorant of this situation or you are lying about it. My opinion is that you've chosen the latter alternative. I find it interesting that you attempt to distance yourself from the assertion by resorting to the use of the word 'nobody' in order to diffuse and redirect attention from it. But that's your personal issue - the issue at hand is that you claim - indirectly or otherwise that there is no attempt being made to in our public schools to 'normalize' ANY sort of sexual behavior. The evidence to the contrary - that homosexual behavior is indeed presented as simply another mode of sexuality and that this presentation has been institutionalized and is routinely made to those in the sixth grade or even earlier is too well documented to warrant serious consideration of your statement.

But why not take it from those who speak directly to the issue of the normalization of homosexuality - those who would seem to be cheering from the same set of bleachers you inhabit. Let us now refer to After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Among other things, they say AIDS as an exploitable issue, one that could be used to, "establish ourselves as a victimized minority - legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care." Their words - not mine. This is relevant to our discussion because Kirk and Madsen saw an opportunity to recast the deviants of the past into the victims of the present - a point of view and a methodology that meshed perfectly with the zeitgeist of he victimist politics promulgated by the Left.

Kirk and Madsen called specifically for a "conversion of the average American's emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack." Again - their own words, not mine. Kirk and Madsen outlined and described three specific approaches to this attack on American sensibilities: desensitization, jamming and conversion. Examples of desensitization aren't hard to come by. Many colleges, high schools and elementary schools celebrate the the accomplishments of allegedly homosexual historical figures - convenient since the dead are no position to sure for libel or slander. The preposterous and untrue 'outing' of Abraham Lincoln is one such example. In another example a little closer to home, the Oak Hill Middle school in Newton, Massachusetts posted the photos of "major gay figures of he modern world." this - for the edificationn of 10 to 13 year-olds.

We shouldn't be too terriblyy surprised at any of this, given the complicity of the teaching profession in this sort of 'desensitization'. Reading from a course description at a West Coast university, we find that it offers to "use adolescent and children's literature, poetry, film and music to investigate what it means to be gay, lesbian or bisexual." The course: Finding Common Ground: Using Children's Literature to Explore Issues Related to Gay, Lesbian and Straight Identities." was offered for those enrolled in the university's School of Education. At the very least, the lionizing of historical and literaryy figures' alleged sexual orientation is a criminal trivialization of their real accomplishments and contributions to the arts and sciences. As Camille Paglia has said, "Wouldn't students be better off if their teachers fed them facts rather than propaganda? Proclaiming Eleanor Roosevelt gay is not only goofy but malicious. It reduces a bold, dynamic woman to whose entire achievement was in the public realm to gossip and and speculation about her most guarded private life."

Jamming is often combined with desensitization. Kirk and Madsen wrote that "propagandistic advertisement can depict homo-hating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes - people who say not only 'faggot,' but nigger, kike and other shameful epithets. " in other words, they attempt to conflate disagreement or disapproval of homosexual practices with true bigotry. For example, under the aegis of many universities' compulsory "diversity" training programs, first year students are subjected to propaganda whose principle focus is on homosexuality. In one such program at Williams College, representatives of eh Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Union led 'Feel What It's Like to be Gay' tours through freshman dorms and required students to state their names and declare themselves to be gay. even though they were not.

Kirk and Madsen advocate conversion, that is, "subverting the mechanism of prejudice through the use of associative conditioning. It isn't enough that anti-gay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us." Interesting choice of words, here, is it not?

All of the three methods outlined above are in use in our public schools and universities. For example, one of the major goals of GLSEN and similar groups is to reform public school curricula and teaching so that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender themes are always central and always presented in the approved light - they're quite open about. it.

So - nobody is engaged in normalizing homosexual practices and lifestyle in our public schools? You're not only on the wrong side of this particular issue, you don't even have the price of admission to a reasoned discussion - the willingness to tell and recognize the truth.

2. Do you, as was recorded in one of the conferences (I've got a copy of the tape, BTW) think that either gradeschoolers or high school students need to be taught the mechanics of fisting? If so, why?

I think that adolescents deserve forthright answers to forthright questions. You got a problem with that? Is ignorance preferable?

While no one would disagree with the first statement, the context of the latter two statements are where you attempt to mislead and obfuscate and thus evade a moral judgment. So my answer to the second question is that yes indeed, I do have a problem with that. Depending upon the age and maturity of the child, I would supply an answer, but with a strong moral context. Can you guess what that is?

You can continue to carp about the tape all you want. The fact is, the homosexual community was caught with their "pants down." And that is what enrages you folks. It's apparent from the statement made by The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in their SLAP suit:

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders - GLAD Cases

(scroll down to near bottom of the page)

"Netherland et al. v. Whiteman et al. (Massachusetts)
CASE PENDING
GLAD is putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people... In violation of Massachusetts wiretapping and privacy laws, Scott Whiteman, Brian Camenker, and the right-wing organization Parents Rights Coalition publicly distributed a tape recording of a sexuality and HIV/AIDS prevention education workshop conducted in March, 2000 at a conference sponsored by GLSEN...

Obviously the homosexual community adamantly believes that "vitally important" sex education information must include a description of how to shape a fist for insertion into an anus, as we heard on the tape. Oh, and you'll remember that the claim of that particular workshop being "sexuality and HIV/AIDS prevention education" is nonsense. Education Commissioner Dricoll clearly stated that the material being described and depicted to MINORS by the workshop presenters was (1) sexually explicit; (2) of prurient nature; (3) not educational; and (4) wrong. Specifically, he said:

"The participation of our staff in conversations with students about explicit issues of sexuality outside the realm of AIDS/HIV prevention was wrong. The workshops were of prurient nature, and not educational, and what we heard suggests that the discussion contributed absolutely nothing to the students' understanding of how to avoid AIDS and HIV."

( also documented here ).

The documentation on the Fistgate Tape proves that the workshop presenters had discussions with minor children that described and depicted material that was of a prurient nature and non-educational, as defined in Chapter 272 of the General Laws of Massachusetts. The workshop presenters were in violation of those laws as documented here, here and here.

If you're having audio problems with your copy of the workshop tape, let me suggest that you listen to it on line here. The audio clips on that web site are quite clear. I'll even transcribe the part of the tape where the speaker from the homosexual organization SpeakOut indentifies himself as a member of SpeakOut, and I'll give you the time indices so that you can find those sections of the tape easily:

Excerpts between time index 5:39 and 7:41 on audio clip 8. Scott Whiteman: As With Vegetables, Children Shouldn't Knock Homosexuality Until They Have Tried It (Length 8:02):

(6:05): I'm that speaker who was at the middle school...
(6:25): Our policy at SpeakOut is that you can ask us anything...
(6:46): I don't know what the school policy is about sex ed and what you tell the kids...
(7:28): ...Kids are exposed to this and they need to talk about it, and they can't talk to their parents, they can't talk to their teachers - sometimes -, and they can't talk to their churches - or synagogues -, so who do they talk to? They talk to SpeakOut...

From SpeakOut Programs and Services:

"SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
Every year, our volunteers conduct informal, interactive speaking engagements in hundreds of settings, including high schools, colleges, businesses, government agencies, churches, synagogues, youth groups, and community service organizations of all kinds...
In keeping with our motto of "Ask Us Anything," we encourage audience questions. Our speakers are trained to solicit questions and respond to comments. We listen for underlying myths and help audiences feel at ease raising difficult issues. Sometimes we will offer simple workshop exercises to increase understanding.

Did you get that? SpeakOut's speakers are "trained to solicit questions. Evidently they have creative ways to entice the kids to participate in these in-school question and answer sessions.

And just so we're clear on the definition of solicit:

From Dictionary.com

so·lic·it
v. so·lic·it·ed, so·lic·it·ing, so·lic·its
v. tr.

"1. To seek to obtain by persuasion, entreaty, or formal application.
2. To petition persistently; importune
3. To entice or incite to evil or illegal action.
4. To approach or accost (a person) with an offer of sexual services.

Yeah, solicit is a good word to describe the way the homosexual community attempts to secure the cooperation of public school children. Homosexual organizations are invited into the public schools under the guise of "guest speakers," and evidently, with some, any homosexual topic is open for discussion. It's a shame that kids, especially our precious and innocent elementary school-aged kids, aren't safe in their own classrooms anymore. But then it seems that innocence is a foreign concept to many in the homosexual community.

( Reference )

(back with more later...)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.