How Should Public School Teachers Handle Gay Kids?
Sometimes the best questions our readers ask are the most basic ones. In response to my post calling “abstinence only” sex education anachronistic, DRH asked, “Now for a real tough question. How should sex ed. handle gay & lesbian students?“
It is a great question. And the answer is not as simple as partisans on either side of the debate would like. It’s why I’m willing to cut Kevin Jennings a little slack on the Brewster incident. If he had shown some remorse in the years since the incident (before his appointment to the Department of Education), we would know he appreciated the complexity of the situation.
That leads to the question, how should a teacher handle a gay student, particularly when said student is a minor who approaches him (the teacher) in confidence, fearful his parents will find out?
Should he teach him about safe sex? Tell him that his feelings don’t render him a pariah or deviant, but instead are, while perhaps an aberration or anomaly, in the great scheme of things, natural? Should he discourage that boy from having sex until he finds someone with whom he can share something more than just physical stimulation and release? Or at least teach him about the emptiness and remorse that often follow casual sex and the potential that our sexuality offers for emotional intimacy?
As to the first two questions above, the answer is clearly, “yes.” As to the second two, the answer is not so clear. That education seems to better belong with the child’s family and place of worship. But, what if that place of worship teaches them that homosexuality is not just an aberration, but an abomination? Should it be the public school’s job to contradict that teaching?
Given what the hard sciences have taught us about sexuality, with the authors of Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men & Women, while debunking the “social construction” theory of gender difference (which should please social conservatives), affirm the biological origins of sexual orientation (which should displease them). In short, the physical sciences teach us that a homosexual orientation is perfectly natural. It should thus be taught in high school courses on sexuality.
Let churches that don’t like that finding contradict it on their own time.
And while some parts of the question* that DRH asked are, to borrow his adjective, less “tough” than others, it remains a complicated issue. I am certain that some schools have found responsible ways to address it, that while not pleasing to all, at least acknowledges the conflicting views.
Finally, given everything I’ve read about and by Kevin Jennings, he is quite possibly the last person I’d consult when considering these questions. It shouldn’t have taken him twenty years to figure out that he should have handled the Brewster situation differently.
—–
*if we break it down as I have.
68 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
As the parent of a son who came out to us while in High School. All I can say is thank God he felt comfortable coming to us and not some high school counsler.
He got the same message from us that his older brothers did.
Sex isn’t for children. You aren’t mature enough emotionally to handle it. If there is someone who is special to you, than I’m sure things will happen, but there is no need to go ‘all the way’. Here’s the crazy thing, kids really want to be given boundaries. Were my boys virgins when they graduated high school. I don’t know for sure, but I do know they weren’t messing around with every girl (or boy).
Comment by Leah — December 17, 2009 @ 8:42 pm - December 17, 2009
oops, got truncated.
Anyway, when they went off to college, I offered to buy them condoms or suggested they get them themselves.
On the other hand, we had many discussions about emotions, about treating your partner with respect. Our culture has decided that sex is all there is in life – completely neglecting the emotional side of things.
Sure it’s much easier to hand out a condom and feel that you have done your job.
There is a woman who works at UCLA who councils kids there, she said it is devastating to see these kids who have no respect for their bodies or their souls, who have bought that bill of goods that all that matters is to have as much sex with as many people as possible.
btw, I’m sure there still are parents out there who will abandon a gay child, but there are less and less of them. Meanwhile, schools are on a vandetta to remove parents from the equation. This has been going on since the 60s, unfortunately they have gotten that message through to too many kids. So instead of approaching parents with a difficult issue, school now teach kids that they are a much better resource. Which of course they aren’t.
Comment by Leah — December 17, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - December 17, 2009
It is a complicated issue, which you address thoughtfully as usual. But I must disagree with your first assumption.
Unless there is a legitimate reason to fear a child would be harmed, it is NEVER appropriate for a teacher to assume a role of confidant keeping secrets from parents. Nor is it EVER appropriate, unless there is credible evidence of immediate danger, for teachers to contradict the moral teachings of a child’s parents.
Conceding that these are proper roles of government is how we end up with teachers telling 14 year olds about fisting in the first place. For crying out loud, I didnt know what fisting was until well into my 20’s, and it is knowledge that not only have I never needed, but wish I could give back!
People who want to impart their values to children should have their own children. It is not the place of schools to indoctrinate children into one set of social values over another. And conservatives should be very wary of ever accepting that false premise.
Comment by American Elephant — December 17, 2009 @ 8:59 pm - December 17, 2009
Would not places of worship also say hetero sex by unmarrieds is sinful and against god’s laws?
Comment by Ousslander — December 17, 2009 @ 9:07 pm - December 17, 2009
Amen to that!!!
But ……….. all manner of stuff is dumped on the school in the name of education. I have known a very few remarkably capable guidance people and a lot of jokers who were at their professional best when they were off somewhere at a meeting and leaving the kids alone.
How should
a teacherany adult handle a gay student, particularly when said student is a minor who approaches him (the teacherthe adult) in confidence, fearful his parents will find out? The adult could be an employer or supervisor of the part time student worker or a minister or a probation officer or a neighbor.For many of my 67 years, I have been aware of the psychological problems some gays have. I have no idea where one should go to be trained to handle this situation and then, I would have no confidence that such training would have any effective impact on most of the trainees. I can imagine that Judge Judy, Dr. Phil, Whoopie Goldberg, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, and Big Bird would all have distinct approaches.
Comment by heliotrope — December 17, 2009 @ 9:13 pm - December 17, 2009
The LAST thing you want to hear from your mom when you go off to school. “Put it on before you put it in, sweetie!“.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 17, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - December 17, 2009
abstaining and/or postponing sexual activity until a mutually monogamous relationship has been established. as in marriage.
here is a boundary, very clear without having to be overly descriptive.
doesn’t mean that young folk will not be creative in redifing sexual activity. as a more protective definition: keeping your body fluids to yourself and keeping their body fluids to themselves.
when using the ‘postponing sexual activity’ message without ‘marriage’ as a condition, for gay yout’ they actually can apply the message for many of them say ‘I can’t get married’ but it is also important to remind young folk both gay and straight to truly adhere, for many young people don’t see marriage in their future, particularly those on a path of post secondary education.
and it was once said by an educator, ‘that I teach my boys to look both ways at very early age and hold their hands as we cross the street, for I know that there will be the day that my boys will cross the street on their own’ sex education should start early and then parents wouldn’t have to worry about what is being taught in schools
unlike the trophy for the tennis match or the track event, or the video archive of the piano solo or even the heartache of not being asked by the ‘love of their life’
most parents are not going to be an observer or even given 1st hand stories of a yout’s sexual adventures.
but then again, some parents have been lucky enough to have the trust of the children and live in a family where sharing is everything.
Comment by rusty — December 17, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - December 17, 2009
You tell them to ask their parents. Full stop.
Comment by Ashpenaz — December 17, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - December 17, 2009
Dan, your entire post, while very thoughtful, is based on the premise (fostered for the past 100 years by government schools) that parents cannot be trusted to raise their own children. That teachers have the right to usurp the parents’ authority over their own children.
I categorically reject this premise.
It is your opinion that homosexuality is normal and genetic, and your advice flows from that. But that may NOT be the opinion of your hypothetical student’s parents. Even if the parents think it’s genetic, or at least not something that the child can change, they may still completely disagree that it is normal.
You think you are being so reasonable, but so does Kevin Jennings and his cohorts. They truly feel, like you do, that their opinions on how gay students should be taught are the ones that will bring the best results to these children.
I am not picking on the gay community. I believe the same things about sex ed in general. These educators who teach that sex is inevitable for teens and here are the steps you need to protect yourself also feel they are being completely reasonable and are providing students with information for their own good. Well, news flash, lots of parents don’t believe that and don’t want that information indoctrinated into their children.
Comment by Amy K. — December 17, 2009 @ 11:28 pm - December 17, 2009
I know I sound like a troglodyte here, but I don’t think schools should be teaching kids much of anything about sex except “You’re too young to have it.” Teaching them the “proper” way to have sex clearly implies that they OUGHT to be having it.
I am also concerned about the problem of bullying. Conservatives who downplay the problem are forgetting that back in the good old days they like to invoke, violence between students was NOT tolerated. Period. Anything worse than dipping little Suzie’s pigtails in the inkwell was punished by a sound thrashing with a switch. A truly conservative approach would return to a zero-tolerance policy on bullying anybody — gay or straight.
And I’m not talking, here, about cracking down on a kid who makes a gun out of his finger and pretends to shoot somebody, or one who brings a little knife to pare an apple at lunch. Surely there are at least a few teachers, still, who can differentiate between one kid beating the stuffing out of another on the playground — for whatever excuse — and another bringing a nail-clipper to school.
Comment by Lori Heine — December 18, 2009 @ 12:06 am - December 18, 2009
Oh for cryin out loud…how did the cavemen and women ever figure it all out… does anyone really think that there needs to be “instructions” on this stuff..seriously… the only reason boys and girls weren’t supposed to do it together was because someone might get pregnant… what about the animals..do they have sex ed classes that maybe we aren’t aware of? Just sayin…. They’ll figure it out..it’s part of that right of passage… I didn’t need an adult to explain to me what to do..how about you guys… and kids friends all seem to know who’s what and who’s not … if a straight male councils a young female wouldn’t they also be opening themselves up to possible mis-characterizations…how do they handle things?
If it’s a kid trying to figure out if they’re gay or not that’s one thing..if they’re trying to figure out how to have sex…they’ll figure it all out…. teachers probably need to stay out of it unless someone’s in danger…
Maybe parents need to take periodic parenting classes for the various age groups so THEY will know just how to deal with this stuff…maybe then that would take the teachers out of the equation…again..just sayin….
Comment by left leaning lesbian — December 18, 2009 @ 12:47 am - December 18, 2009
Excellent post, Dan. I know, with the reputation I seem to be acquiring from certain commentators here, this is probably a dubious stamp of approval.
Comment by Jim Michaud — December 18, 2009 @ 12:55 am - December 18, 2009
The notion that the answer is “parents rule” is simplistic in the extreme because the sad fact is that a lot of gay and lesbian kids cannot trust their parents on this issue. Closing off anywhere else for them to go is a great way to increase the risk of suicide, for example.
Comment by Lorenzo from Oz — December 18, 2009 @ 2:43 am - December 18, 2009
because the sad fact is that a lot of gay and lesbian kids cannot trust their parents on this issue. Closing off anywhere else for them to go is a great way to increase the risk of suicide, for example.
And yet, suicide could also be the outcome from getting bad advice from “anywhere.” Gay children deal with confusion about their sexual identity and that could cause suicidal ideation. So could getting bad advice from a well-meaning teacher which leads the child to sexual experiences that the child is not ready for.
A teacher can help facilitate a female student’s abortion without getting the parents’ permission. A parent is then in the dark and unable to help his daughter’s depression and suicidal tendencies that may result from her abortion. If a parent is left in the dark about his child’s homosexuality, he is incapable of getting help for any suicidal tendencies that may result from either dealing with his gayness or a bad sexual experience resulting from a well-meaning teacher’s advice.
Parents need to know what is going on with their children.
Comment by Amy K. — December 18, 2009 @ 3:04 am - December 18, 2009
So teachers should be switches? Yeah. That’ll build trust. Teachers need to teach..parents need to pay attention. Wow..suicide discussions again.we’ve come so far.
Comment by left leaning lesbian — December 18, 2009 @ 3:52 am - December 18, 2009
Triple “L”, while I don’t always agree with you, I do appreciate your candor. Keep speaking your mind, it’s what makes you such a swell gal!
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 18, 2009 @ 3:57 am - December 18, 2009
Had a longer. Post on. Love but. Phone is. Very slow tonight..really sucks and is pissing me off big time. Will try to repost it. Tomorrow.
Comment by left leaning lesbian — December 18, 2009 @ 4:04 am - December 18, 2009
I agree the last thing any teacher, or any adult, for that matter, is to encourage any child to have sex. Dan, I do agree that Abstinence Only education is more harmful than good, and children need to know how to protect themselves (in case they don’t heed good advice), and because we realize they aren’t children forever. In the same way we discourage children to drink, but still tell children not to drink and drive. We also need to protect other children and adults.
It’s not so much the sex that worries me much about gay teens. It’s more their emotions and how to deal with their parents, peers, church, etc., who are hostile to the teen’s homosexuality.
It is your opinion that homosexuality is normal and genetic, and your advice flows from that. But that may NOT be the opinion of your hypothetical student’s parents. Even if the parents think it’s genetic, or at least not something that the child can change, they may still completely disagree that it is normal.
Amy K, what should be done with such a child? Do we tell such hostile parents this information? To me, it’s almost like sending a child back to parents who think it’s normal to physically and/or emotionally abuse their children. These parents are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality. And thinking these parents are best able to deal with their child’s possible suicidal thoughts is like saying a wolf is best able to protect a flock of sheep.
Comment by Pat — December 18, 2009 @ 7:24 am - December 18, 2009
Homosexual orientation is like left-handedness in the following respects: statistically abnormal, yet entirely natural; present in a minority of people in all cultures, places and times, and in many kinds of animal; morally neutral (what matters is what you do with it – how you live it out); amenable to suppression (unhealthy) and the exercise of self-control (healthy), but not to replacement; attempts at replacement usually entail, and/or end in, unhealthy self-alienation.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2009 @ 7:57 am - December 18, 2009
(continued) The above is supported by science and should be taught to high school and college students accordingly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2009 @ 7:58 am - December 18, 2009
hmm, interesting arguement. I’d also point out that there are physical/neurological signs of left handedness, and the current popular theory is that it is brought about by some trauma in the womb.
And yes ‘breaking’ left handedness is bad. If a person decides to do it though, they can train themselves.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 18, 2009 @ 8:53 am - December 18, 2009
The following presidents were all southpaws:
20th James A. Garfield
31st Herbert Hoover
33rd Harry S. Truman
38th Gerald Ford
40th Ronald Reagan
41st George H.W. Bush
and Barack Obama
but more fun on Southpaws. . .Left handed people who have higher I.Q.s tend to have an I.Q. of over 140.
but then again other items on Southpaws include the following:
Christians believe that when judgement day arrives according to custom God blesses the saved with his right hand and casts out all the sinners out of Heaven with his left hand.
Comment by rusty — December 18, 2009 @ 10:49 am - December 18, 2009
Kids should be presumed to be too immature to make decisions on their sexuality regardless of orientation. Therefore anyone of influence (parents, teachers, etc) should tell them to refrain from such conduct until they are “of age” as legal adults to make a decision.
This whole safe sex stuff is fine as education but it should NOT be taken as license that sex between kids is appropriate. There is no such thing as “safe sex”. It’s such a foolish premise.
Another thing, what’s so safe about gay sex? Gay sex is potentially more dangerous physically and psychologically than heterosexual sex. No one in a school environment will be remotely qualified to discuss this. Kids will be left to their own devices if not directed to their parents for moral counseling where it should remain.
Comment by anon2273892 — December 18, 2009 @ 11:48 am - December 18, 2009
Leah, I appreciate your post and your approach in this subject. For parents, deciding how to talk to our children about sex is nearly always a difficult thing to do. Talking about gay sex creates an added dimension. My former wife had strong hangups about sex in general, especially about gay sex, so it fell to me to talk to them. Because I was late coming out, I was aware one or more of my several children could possibly be gay. The delimma for me was how to give positive guidance? Fortunately, it seems it all worked out in my family. They seem to be well grounded in matters sexual.
And they have accepted that their dad is gay and has a partner.
Comment by Man — December 18, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - December 18, 2009
Replying to American Elephant: I don’t believe that imparting information about how to protect oneself from STDs or helping to relieve an adolescent’s anxiety about his or her immutable sexuality is “imparting values” or “indoctrinating.” It’s closer to teaching science. Indoctrination would be to encourage adolsecents who approach them who are heterosexual or questioning to “choose” a homosexual lifestyle and/or to engage in any type of sexual advocacy.
HIV/AIDS is a too big a price to for kids to pay to say teachers approached in confidence should not addressthe matter in a calm and factual manner. In fact, I would go as far as to say it’s an abdication of any adult’s moral obligation, teacher or not, to answer a teeager’s questions about healthy sexual practices with clarity and honesty. Failing to do so, in my humble opinion, is the act that makes the moral judgment.
No one can condone what Kevin Jennings did; *that* was advocacy and indoctrination. The dispassionate answering of a question an adolescent poses is simply being a responsible adult.
Comment by Scott V — December 18, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - December 18, 2009
#18: “Amy K, what should be done with such a child? Do we tell such hostile parents this information? To me, it’s almost like sending a child back to parents who think it’s normal to physically and/or emotionally abuse their children. These parents are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality. And thinking these parents are best able to deal with their child’s possible suicidal thoughts is like saying a wolf is best able to protect a flock of sheep.”
Pat, I honesty can’t believe what I’m reading. I’ve don’t think I’ve ever encountered a more perfect example of why parents, particularly Christian parents, regard public school bureaucrats as their sworn enemies when it comes to raising their own children. The paragraph above is a repugnant, wholesale rejection of parental rights and it more than justifies the outrage of parents when arrogant do-gooders like you and the narcissists at the GLSEN indignantly take it upon yourselves to decide that you know what’s best for a child. If I were the parent of a child in public school and found out that his or her teacher shared your perspective, I would be at the schoolhouse door, pitchfork in hand, to clarify your job description for you. “What should be done with such a child”? “These parents are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality”? The parents are the metaphorical “wolves” to the child’s “sheep” in this situation? Do you hear yourself, Pat? Who the hell do you think you are?
Comment by Sean A — December 18, 2009 @ 1:17 pm - December 18, 2009
i want some educators to weigh in on this issue, because i think teachers are getting attacked in a way that isn’t really fair. we shouldn’t assume that the advice that teachers would give in a situation like this would be wrong, or contrary to the wishes of the kid’s parents. i know, first hand, that teachers do not undertake these situations light-heartedly, nor would they ever impart advice that would harm the kid in any way. we should encourage teenagers to find trustful and responsible adults in their lives to ask these kinds of tough questions, and recognize that those adults may not be the kid’s parents.
Comment by Chad — December 18, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - December 18, 2009
“So teachers should be switches? Yeah. That’ll build trust. Teachers need to teach..parents need to pay attention. Wow..suicide discussions again.we’ve come so far.”
What, LLL, there isn’t enough on liberal blogs for you to get hysterical about so you have to come over here for more?
There should, perhaps, be a fourth “L” to your initials, standing for “literalist.”
My comment about teachers using switches was an attempt to hoist on their own petard those who turn an indulgent eye toward violence in schools against gay kids, while claiming they’re doing so because they’re such courageous culture-warriors against “homosexuality.” I was pointing out that if they believe bedlam should reign in schools — as long as it’s directed against gay kids — they are being hypocritical.
Uhhhh…got it now?
If you’re going to get all ramped up about something, you might want to make sure that at the very least, you understand what it is.
Comment by Lori Heine — December 18, 2009 @ 1:57 pm - December 18, 2009
Do you hear yourself, Pat? Who the hell do you think you are?
Sean, I read what I wrote. Apparently you don’t agree. As to who I think I am? Just expressing an opinion. Again, you disagree.
I think we can agree that parents should be afforded the usual rights when it comes to their children. I would also think that we agree that there are limits when it comes to parental rights. If we don’t agree to this, there isn’t anything further to say. So the question is, what should these limits be? I don’t believe parents have the right to emotionally abuse their children. Frankly, I believe that a parent excoriating their child for being gay, not matter what they use an excuse, is emotional abuse. I think we should be careful about such children who are potentially subject to such abuse from their parents. I find your apparent opinion that these parents should be allowed to emotionally abuse their children repugnant.
Of course, there is some middle ground. You may have parents who believe their children are going to, and deserve to, go to hell, but will do “love the sinner, hate the sin” thing and try to keep their bile to a minimum. You may have parents who don’t abuse their children, but still constantly remind them how awful they will be if they do, in fact, end up gay, but still otherwise raise them in a satisfactory manner. I’m sure we can think of other middle ground situations. But I’m not sure what the best answer is to deal with it.
Comment by Pat — December 18, 2009 @ 3:23 pm - December 18, 2009
Pat, Sean,
I think the ‘best answer’ is impossible to determine. to speak in generalities, it is a case where the parents should be left to handle the education/acclimation/socialization, but there needs to be a safety net for those kids who don’t have parents up to it. At the same time, the safety net needs to be small, so that it doesn’t become a smothering safety blanket that keeps those good parents hampered.
Now specifically, how do we do this? I honestly don’t know. The current system is an epic fail waiting to happen, especially with Kevin Jennings types. I think ILC’s educational approach works, in pointing out in a sex ed class that it is a minority ‘condition’ like being a southpaw.
The southpaw example might upset some folks, as we’ve adapted quite well without a left handed civil rights (ha!) movement.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 18, 2009 @ 3:41 pm - December 18, 2009
“I’m sure we can think of other middle ground situations.”
The middle ground should always be… let the parents raise them as they see fit, and then the kids should move out and do as they wish.
Comment by anon2273892 — December 18, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - December 18, 2009
“The middle ground should always be… let the parents raise them as they see fit, and then the kids should move out and do as they wish.”
In the meantime, let’s give them the information they need to protect themselves. I work in the HIV/AIDS field, and the largest increase in HIV infection among gay men is occurring in … teenagers.
Comment by Scott V — December 18, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - December 18, 2009
Talking about how STDs get transmitted is not imparting values, its biology. I never suggested otherwise.
But the idea that “anxious” adolescents should be comforted about their “immutable” sexuality shows precisely that your interest is indoctrination. Sexuality is not always immutable and the people most likely to have confusion about it are precisely those “anxious” kids. I have a good friend who thought he was gay as an adolescent who is now married with children and realizes he was never gay, but just confused. My brother in law’s brother got divorced because his wife decided she was a lesbian. She tried it for a while and decided she was not. Not gay, not bisexual, but straight and confused — a 30-some-odd-year adult woman.
What are their “immutable sexualities”? What were their “immutable sexualities” when they thought they were gay?
Values are inextricably intertwined with sexuality. (Notice I am talking about sexuality, not sex) Advocates and activists, much like global warming, want to claim that science proves this or science proves that. They are full of shit. The fact remains that we dont know what causes sexuality yet, and until we do, and can prove it, we are teaching values, not facts. the schools should either stay completely out of it, or else teach all the many moral beliefs about sexuality.
I think if the schools must teach sex-ed, fine, keep it clinical, but schools have no business teaching values about sexuality unless they teach all values equally.
I dont want anyone teaching my children values that I disagree with, so I recognize that it is my responsibility to not teach other’s children values that they disagree with.
At least that’s the way things used to operate, back when this was a free country.
Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - December 18, 2009
And my preference would be for schools to not even bother with sex ed to begin with. I dont think its their place. I am skeptical of claims that it does any good to begin with. Increasing rates of transmission of STDs refutes that idea outright.
I think the number one reason our schools are failing so miserably is because they are increasingly taking upon themselves the role of social workers and political activism. And their proper role — teaching — has suffered as a result.
Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2009 @ 5:57 pm - December 18, 2009
American Elephant: Again, as I stated:
“I don’t believe that imparting information about how to protect oneself from STDs or helping to relieve an adolescent’s anxiety about his or her immutable sexuality is “imparting values” or “indoctrinating.” It’s closer to teaching science. Indoctrination would be to encourage adolsecents who approach them who are heterosexual or questioning to “choose” a homosexual lifestyle and/or to engage in any type of sexual advocacy.”
Where we disagree is in whether or not sexuality is hard wired. I believe, based on my personal experience, that it is. You may believe otherwise, and we can agree to disagree.
There is, however, an enormous difference between sexual expression and one’s sexuality. But even if there weren’t — kids have a right to know that they are OK how ever they turn out. This is why I said keep it clinical. When a child who has no one else to talk to reaches out to you, and says, “I am gay,” “I think I might be gay,” etc., telling that indiviual they need not worry about it regardless is not advocacy.
In a perfect world, you could leave it to the parents. It’s not a perfect world, and I’m tired of watching young men in their teens and early 20s finding out they are HIV-positive.
In general, by the way, at least in the South where I live, sex ed is not being taught in schools. The South also has a hugely disproportionate rate of HIV infection. Education is a good thing; if parents won’t do it, even a conservative like me will accept vital health information being shared wither in a formal classroom setting, or one-to-one when a student asks.
Comment by Scott V — December 18, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - December 18, 2009
In a perfect world, you could leave it to the parents. It’s not a perfect world, and I’m tired of watching young men in their teens and early 20s finding out they are HIV-positive.
How is teaching them that sexuality is immutable going to stop the transmission of HIV? I admit I’m flummoxed by your reasoning.
Comment by Amy K. — December 18, 2009 @ 8:29 pm - December 18, 2009
People don’t send their kids to school to be indoctrinated in anyone’s political philosophy — Left or Right. Not the public schools, anyway. That our tax money is being spent teaching kids how to put condoms on bananas is absurd.
When I was in high school, everybody wanted to take a new elective being offered called “Marriage and Family Living” because — gasp of titillation — it was going to teach about sex. That teacher scared the hell out of us. We learned the real consequences of teenage pregnancy and STD’s, which is all the public schools should be teaching anyway.
I’m sure a lot of kids remained virgins, because of that class, long after they would have otherwise.
Kids are learning, from the movies, TV and popular music, that sex has no possible consequences. That is just not true, at least not for any but the luckiest.
Gay kids will learn they are gay soon enough. It isn’t the schools’ job to help them figure that out.
Comment by Lori Heine — December 18, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - December 18, 2009
Lori Heine re 10. I got a laugh out of your remark about dripping Suzie’s pigtail in the inkwell. I did just that to Josephine who sat in the desk in front of me. That was 80 (yes 80)years ago. There is no more inkwells – not after the 60s.
Also the teacher had a switch standing in the corner of the room. Since it was in sight of all the kids it NEVER got used.
Comment by John W — December 18, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - December 18, 2009
That does kinda kill the mojo, doesn’t it?
Comment by John — December 18, 2009 @ 9:26 pm - December 18, 2009
Ironically, so do those parents who impose such views on their own gay children. At least, though, they are their parents although in some ways that makes it worse. One can easily ignore BS coming from strangers. When it comes from family it takes a lot more to put that aside.
Frankly I don’t know what to make of the whole sex-ed business in public schools. Watching my nephew’s experience, I’m so unimpressed with the quality of public school education nowadays that ALL of it leaves me disgusted. They can’t even teach the basics right. Eh, vouchers for everyone and let folks decide what’s best for their kids I suppose. Not a perfect system, but far better than what I see now.
Comment by John — December 18, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - December 18, 2009
#29: “I don’t believe parents have the right to emotionally abuse their children. Frankly, I believe that a parent excoriating their child for being gay, not matter what they use an excuse, is emotional abuse.”
“You may have parents who believe their children are going to, and deserve to, go to hell, but will do ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ thing and try to keep their bile to a minimum. You may have parents who don’t abuse their children, but still constantly remind them how awful they will be if they do, in fact, end up gay, but still otherwise raise them in a satisfactory manner.”
I stand corrected, Pat. You’re right–there are limits to parental rights and the state should be ready to step in and take over the moment that a parent crosses the line. It’s for the children. The standards applicable to the employees of state and county child welfare agencies are contained within regulatory codes that are very specific as to when a child must be taken out of the home to be protected from abusive parents. As long as the case workers are familiar with the regulations and apply them correctly then the children are protected. In fact, Pat, the government agencies that are designated to protect minors would be wise to codify your succinct, reasonable articulation of the “middle ground” that can delineate the delicate balance between parental rights and abuse.
For example, an effective set of regulations would instruct case workers that parents are perfectly within their rights to believe their children are going to hell, provided that any “parental bile” exhibited remains at a level considered “minimum” pursuant to the regulations. However, if a case worker receives a report or directly observes parental bile that exceeds the “minimum” level (i.e. defined in the regulations as “excessive” bile or “maximum” bile), then the case worker has a clear obligation to remove the child from the home until an investigation can be completed and the evidence is presented to an administrative law judge along with expert testimony from child psychiatrists retained by the agency.
And here’s another one of your fine examples illustrating how children can be adequately protected without a hint of government intrusion on parental rights: case workers should be trained that parents are well within their rights to “constantly remind” their children of “how awful they are” if they turn out gay. It’s only those situations when the “constant reminders” of the child’s awfulness rises to the level of “excoriation” (as that term is defined in the regulations) that the case worker has an immediate obligation to take the child into government custody for protection. Provided that the case worker is adequately trained to recognize the difference between “constant reminders of awfulness” and “excoriation,” then everyone’s interests are protected (and let’s be honest, who DOESN’T know the difference between the two, training or not).
Pat, don’t let the sarcasm diminish my point. I don’t just disagree with you on this. I think your perspective is truly warped–so warped, in fact, that in advocating your opinion as to what constitutes “abuse,” you aren’t even aware of the insanity of its underlying assumptions. Pat, you think that the line you’ve drawn between parental rights and emotional abuse is reasonable because you’re confident that the difference between a parent telling their child that gays go to hell and “excoriating” their child for being homosexual is crystal clear. But if that’s the standard between parenting and abuse (and you unequivocally state that it is), then that necessarily means that the state has the right (and the legal obligation) to elbow its way into a position to MAKE THE CALL. In other words, if the state’s job to protect children from abuse includes the obligation to distinguish between “constant reminders of awfulness” and “excoriation,” THEY’RE ALREADY TOO CLOSE. The fact that this didn’t even occur to you is WARPED.
“I think we can agree that parents should be afforded the usual rights when it comes to their children.”
The fu*k we can, Pat. It’s perfectly clear that you don’t even believe that a Christian parent has the right to instruct his own child on religious matters without being monitored to ensure that the level of bile is kept to a “minimum.” I shudder to speculate about what a fascist like you considers “the usual rights” when it comes to parents and their children, so don’t you dare assume that we could agree on anything related to this issue.
Comment by Sean A — December 18, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - December 18, 2009
Sounds like speculative bunk to me that seems to pass for real science nowadays. However, this theory does have a plus side: I get to blame the ‘rents for being gay AND left-handed! Whoo-hoo!
(just kidding. I love my folks and get along well with them.)
Back in the 70s they tried to “break” me of it, but I wouldn’t budge. Writing with my right hand was as difficult for me as acting out Carol Burnett’s description of what giving birth feels like (pulling one’s bottom lip up over their noggins).
Comment by John — December 18, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - December 18, 2009
22: You had me at Truman. Reagan was extra sweet. But then you just HAD to throw in Obama…
Comment by John — December 18, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - December 18, 2009
Says who? It’s only more dangerous health-wise when one chucks their morals out the window and beds any guy that moves. That’s where the problem lies.
Comment by John — December 18, 2009 @ 9:46 pm - December 18, 2009
“Lori Heine re 10. I got a laugh out of your remark about dripping Suzie’s pigtail in the inkwell. I did just that to Josephine who sat in the desk in front of me. That was 80 (yes 80)years ago. There is no more inkwells – not after the 60s.”
John W, I think every generation has some equivalent of the inkwell. When I was in gradeschool, back in the 70’s, it was a classmate’s dreaded pet tarantula. Most of the girls thought it was cute to squeal about how scared they were of it, and the thing ended up in their desks or coat pockets or on their chairs.
I called it The Bug, and did my best to laugh at it. I even picked it up once. It was horrible. It never made it into my coat pocket, but I remember at least one nightmare where it grew to be ten feet tall and tried to eat me.
Comment by Lori Heine — December 18, 2009 @ 9:58 pm - December 18, 2009
Me: They truly feel, like you do, that their opinions on how gay students should be taught are the ones that will bring the best results to these children.
John: Ironically, so do those parents who impose such views on their own gay children.
But the point is, the parents have the right and responsibility to raise their children the best way they know how. It is most assuredly NOT the right or responsibility of the teachers.
Comment by Amy K. — December 18, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - December 18, 2009
I believe that my sexuality is hard wired as well. But I do not then take my experience and assume that it applies to everyone else. I listen to people who say their experience has been different and there are a great many of them, and I realize that schools have no business telling children when sexuality is or is not immutable or hard wired or even natural because those are not facts they are value judgments. And schools have zero business contradicting the values of childrens parents.
You see, we cant agree to disagree, because unlike me, you want to teach your values to other peoples children. You want to make your opinion effect everyone elses children.
The fact that you simply ignored my examples of people I know whose sexuality has not been hard wired or immutable just goes to show that this is about imposing your values on others.
No, in a free world you leave it to parents. In a statist, dictatorial world you do it your way where the government usurps authority over the child from the parents
Which state are you from? Because in just about 2 seconds I looked up and found that not only are Alabama schools required by state law to teach sex-ed, but they are required by law to teach safe sex practices, despite the fact that the liberal groups all say Alabama only teaches abstinence:
And I highly suspect that similar requirements for sex ed exist in your state as well. But if you want to tell me what state you are from I can find out for sure.
Funny, because in liberal Washington DC where schools teach everything you want taught and more, they have THE highest HIV infection rates in the country. But according to you, they should have among the lowest, because the schools are teaching everything you want taught.
New York, New Jersey, California, all also have very liberal sex ed policy, and yet HIV infection rates are on the rise among young gay men. A TWELVE percent rise! Precisely the people we just finished spending all that time, money and effort educating.
It already is. And your proscribed policy is already a proven failure. So why are we doing it again?
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2009 @ 4:45 am - December 19, 2009
oops..”switches” should have read.. “SNITCHES” …sorry ..typing from my BB late last night…and it was having techincal difficulties.
And just to be clear..this LLL…went from Kucinich to McPalin…(had it been Hillary this discussion would never have been an issue!)
jennings in my opinion crossed the line…and the silence on this from the lgbt community is mind boggling..so many who would rather justify his behavior quite frankly disgusts the hell out of me and I think sets us up for an undeserved backlash and tha pisses me the hell off..I have already experienced hate crime …have no desire whatsoever to revisist this…and resent those who would justify the actions of these jackasses! My and others best interests are not being taken into consideration..any parent with a gay child has a right to be concerned for their childs safety from those who love to spew their hate all over them…those in the leadership roles of this community have an obligation and a responsbility to make damned certain that what has happened in the past does not happen in the present of the future…and as far as I’m concerned those leaders have failed this next genreation big time with their silence.
I am not a parent..but I would hope that if I were one I would do like my mother did…get books and read them…try to understand just what my kid was going thru..Mothers all have this incredible 6th sense…you all “know” just what’s gong on to a certain level..trust it…and proceed accordingly…AND along with that REACH out to others whom you may know are not so tolerant…help them to understand your point of view..and just how you can still love your kid …it’s their path…OUR path to explore what and who we are…my mother told me years ago about the lesbian couple in our town and about how she did NOT want us exposed to them… funny thing is..if it’s in your kids journey they will as I did find it…or it will find them…I came out to both my mother and my father before they both passed…it took years for my father to “accept” it…but eventually he did and we parted as friends…as did my mother and I. I consider myelf one of the fortunate ones..but then again…I was not one to let my parents views decide for me just who it was I am. And they understood that. I think in the end it made me a hell of alot stronger.
Kids today also have something that we did not have growing up..access to a computer! should they really want to learn about something…they can go online and look it up..if their computers at home are blocked there is always a friends’ or the library…they are not as helpless as they have been made out to be.
On Love…trying to ‘teach” a teenager about Love..that thing that is so abstract…hell a kid has a crush and they’re “In Love” …for them this is what it’s all about..sex not even having happened yet…so to try to get them to “wait” hmm…some will…but many like myself..won’t …Also..tell a kid to NOT do something..HA…you’ve just pretty much given them the greenlight to DO that very thing…(again not for everyone just the ones like me) …
WHen I was in HS.. our “sex ed” was about the reproductive system…like I had stated in a previous post up thread…don’t want to do it ..NOT because you should wait until you meet the right person…nope..don’t do it because you might get pregnant……although I still started pretty early…from S Jersey…not much to do around there but watch the grass grow ..and explore sexually….
I am curious why that conference was even necessary..and why parents would let their kids go …wasn’t there an itinerary before hand sent home with the kids..I mean as much as I fault Jennings and GLSEN …parents don’t get off scott free on this one…there had to have been some kind of program listing in advance…nowadays too many parents just drop their kids off someplace…maybe because it’s just easier to NOT deal with the hard stuff…like this topic… their kids have very little depth of character (for the most part..NOT everyone) and I think this is more of a reflection of the times and of their parents…I for one am becoming very afraid OF our next generation…
I had read a book quite sometime ago re: hetero/homo sexual relationships…and there was one passage which has stood out in my mind to this day…I am going to try to phrase it correctly as best I can from memory…but the gist was…
Why do they call it hetero/home SEXUAL relationships..once we do that we have just put the relationship in the bedroom…why not call it heteo/homo genius realtionships ….thereby taking it OUT of the bedroom and into the heart… (that last bit I am sorry to say I paraphrased because i cannot recall the exact ending to the thought…but I think you get the idea.)
k that’s it…that’s my story and I’m sticking to it… NO teenager (gay or staight) should be taught the “How to’s” of sex …and especially NOT by an adult other than said teen’s parent(s) if they deem it appropriate… it isn’t as I’ve said before…rocket science…just common sense… and Dan as for abstinence…yeah good luck with that one…
If there was just some way to harness that incredibly beautiful and bountyful energy…into say something creative..as it is pretty much the same chakras…
there was a line..it was crossed…but if no one is there to speak up about it..will anyone ever really care in the future…
Oh yeah.one last thought…sorry…but since the repubs have made themselves out to be the moral authority on sexual practices..is it really any wonder why this has gone on for so long..and why the repubs have been in a way ignored or mocked…sorry guys but you and your leaders over the years have set yourselves to be seen as prudes..and asexual…. hence the ammunition for the left…
Overall the country is having a tough time figuring out just where She grows from where we’ve been…..what is the middle ground..what aspect of sex are you willing to see your kids having…at what age would you find it acceptable for them to do so…I have not seen that addressed…
Alright I’m done…
Comment by left leaning lesbian — December 19, 2009 @ 4:47 am - December 19, 2009
so don’t you dare assume that we could agree on anything related to this issue.
Whew, Sean. After your frothing, irrational diatribe, I do think you’re right in that we couldn’t agree on anything related to this issue. My apologies for even trying.
Comment by Pat — December 19, 2009 @ 9:17 am - December 19, 2009
I think we can agree that parents should be afforded the usual rights when it comes to their children.
No, we can’t.
You see, Pat, in your language, parents only have the rights that the state pleases to give them over their children.
It is the reverse. The state only has those rights over children that parents choose, through voting, to give it.
Your hypocrisy in this matter comes from your insistence that the state has no right to prevent gays from adopting or fostering children based on the beliefs of others, but that the state has perfect right to prevent heterosexuals from raising children, including those that they produce themselves, because you don’t like those peoples’ beliefs on homosexuality.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - December 19, 2009
Very well said NDT
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - December 19, 2009
You see, Pat, in your language, parents only have the rights that the state pleases to give them over their children.
Not quite, NDT. I am fully aware that the people have the right to decide. And the people have chosen that abuse of children is unacceptable. I’m just expressing the opinion that parents excoriating their children for being gay is abuse. If you disagree, then fine, we’ll agree to disagree, and leave it up to the people. Further, I also stated there are some gray areas, and admitted that I don’t have the best solution for those situations, and just expressed my humble opinions.
Your hypocrisy in this matter comes from your insistence that the state has no right to prevent gays from adopting or fostering children based on the beliefs of others, but that the state has perfect right to prevent heterosexuals from raising children, including those that they produce themselves, because you don’t like those peoples’ beliefs on homosexuality.
If I have ever stated that, I’ll be happy to retract such a statement. If you believe I implied that, well, we’ve been over that before, and once again, you’re wrong.
Comment by Pat — December 19, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - December 19, 2009
“I’m just expressing the opinion that parents excoriating their children for being gay is abuse.”
I agree. But there are many more people in this country who still believe that even allowing gays to raise kids amounts to child abuse. We can’t protect gay parents who want to raise their own kids without protecting homophobic straight parents, too.
We have to give up the statist fantasy that we can work our will on the other side without their doing the same (and perhaps even worse) to us.
Liberals love to talk about their great commitment to “democracy” They talk a blue streak about it. But whenever the numbers are against them, they prove perfectly willing to steamroll right over the masses who disagree with them just to get their way. Some commitment to democracy.
Comment by Lori Heine — December 19, 2009 @ 7:23 pm - December 19, 2009
#49: Frothing and irrational, Pat? I’m not sure you understand what those two words actually mean. However, the best way I can think of for you to learn the true meaning of those terms would be for you to take a job as the principal of a junior high school and then inform the Christian parents of a despondent, effeminate male student that you’ve contacted a child welfare agency because they “are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality.” Now that’s something I would really like to see. Thanks to arrogant Leftists like you who clearly believe that Christian parents raise their children at the pleasure of the state, those parents have understandably developed protective instincts comparable to those exhibited by angry, 600-pound grizzly bears just out of hibernation. I believe such an experience would provide you with a far better understanding of the terms “frothing” and “irrational” (as well as several other terms that you previously understood only in a theoretical sense).
And by the way, as an attorney, if two Christian parents came into my office and told me that a liberal busy-body like you had informed them that they were “clearly” not the best people to deal with their own child, I would gleefully offer my services pro bono for the privilege of making your life a living hell. I would use every option available to me under the law to strip you of your authority, your job, your financial security, and your smug, misguided belief that you know better than a child’s parents what’s best. In such a case, the school has to make a choice to either back the employee (which keeps the state on the hook for liability purposes if the court determines that the employee crossed the line) or to throw the employee under the bus and save themselves, leaving the employee to fend for himself. And to someone like you, I’m sure that sounds harsh and ruthless, but it’s absolutely necessary in such a situation because it’s the only course of action that gets a liberal’s attention. Liberals like you think nothing of turning a Christian family’s world upside-down by reporting the parents to a government agency based on your warped definition of “abuse.” Liberals bask in the adulation of their colleagues for their “courageous” actions as long as they risk nothing personally. Thus, the only way to effectively re-establish the appropriate boundary between parents and the state–a boundary that you have unequivocally rejected–is to ensure that liberals who attempt to usurp parental rights do so at great personal risk if they cross the line. And that’s the point at which liberals consistently crumble and slink away, revealing that their self-righteous beliefs aren’t backed-up by real courage (the kind that is needed to face the risk of personal sacrifice).
So, for your sake (and for the sake of all parents), I hope you’re not employed by the public schools. If for some reason you are, then I hope that if you ever put your personal, sickening definition of “abuse” to the test that the parents of the child victimized by your narcissism hire a lawyer that is dedicated to ensuring that you end up unemployed, financially destitute, emotionally destroyed, and a cautionary tale to Leftist educators everywhere.
Comment by Sean A — December 19, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - December 19, 2009
#52: “If you disagree, then fine, we’ll agree to disagree, and leave it up to the people.”
Leave it up to “the people”? Pat, what “people” are you referring to? If you mean the voting public, then that’s a lovely concept but the reality is that the “people” with the most dangerous amount of control in this area are the self-righteous bureaucrats working for child welfare agencies who are responsible for drafting and promulgating the regulations that govern their ability to intrude on parental rights. And unfortunately, the majority of them (especially in California) have agendas and ideas that are even more warped than yours. Your definition of “abuse” would never prevail at the ballot box even if it were put to a direct vote. It also wouldn’t succeed through the legislative process because even the most committed leftists in the state legislatures would be hesitant to undertake such a high profile assault on Christian parents. Therefore, the filthy job of chipping away at the rights of Christian parents is left to the insidious bureaucrats running the agencies who are free to incrementally re-shape the law to suit their agenda through the regulatory process. At the federal level, the “people” I’m talking about are commonly referred to as CZARS. And no surprise, Obama has been wildly enthusiastic in appointing them to oversee virtually every mundane aspect of our existence.
“Further, I also stated there are some gray areas, and admitted that I don’t have the best solution for those situations, and just expressed my humble opinions.”
“Humble.” Yet another word that you need to look up in the dictionary, Pat. Despite the insincere disclaimer that you “don’t have the best solution for those situations,” the very fact that you have identified Christian parents “excoriating” their gay children as a “situation” that you believe needs a government “solution,” suggests that your concept of humility has nothing to do with the definition found in Webster’s.
Pat, your solution is not only not “the best,” it’s the WORST. You state that there are “gray areas” and then idiotically suggest that the solution is to redefine “abuse” to include parents “excoriating” their children for being gay. If you believe that is a solution to will diminish the “gray areas” then you are either intellectually dishonest, or a complete fu*king imbecile. So, it seems to me you have to either (a) renounce your definition of “abuse” as categorically, objectively wrong and an assault on parental rights, (b) stand your ground as an intellectually dishonest liar, or (c) cop to being a complete fu*king imbecile. Your choice. Tick tock.
Comment by Sean A — December 19, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - December 19, 2009
#53: “I agree. But there are many more people in this country who still believe that even allowing gays to raise kids amounts to child abuse. We can’t protect gay parents who want to raise their own kids without protecting homophobic straight parents, too.”
Excellent point, Lori.
Comment by Sean A — December 19, 2009 @ 8:52 pm - December 19, 2009
I agree. But there are many more people in this country who still believe that even allowing gays to raise kids amounts to child abuse. We can’t protect gay parents who want to raise their own kids without protecting homophobic straight parents, too.
We have to give up the statist fantasy that we can work our will on the other side without their doing the same (and perhaps even worse) to us.
I agree Lori. I get your point, an perhaps that’s the point Sean is trying to say in between his frothings of the mouth. We all have different opinions of what bad parenting is. And I see plenty of examples of it even when it doesn’t involve sexual orientation of the kids. Almost all of the time it doesn’t reach the threshold of abuse.
Sean, I gave up trying to have a civil argument with you, but I’ll address two of your points.
However, the best way I can think of for you to learn the true meaning of those terms would be for you to take a job as the principal of a junior high school and then inform the Christian parents of a despondent, effeminate male student that you’ve contacted a child welfare agency because they “are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality.” Now that’s something I would really like to see. Thanks to arrogant Leftists like you who clearly believe that Christian parents raise their children at the pleasure of the state,
If I ever became a middle school principal, you wouldn’t see it. Even if I wanted to, I would not contact child protective services unless there was evidence of neglect or abuse as defined by the state laws. If you think I would jump the gun, that’s why there are laws set by the state and personnel to investigate and see if there was, in fact, abuse.
Leave it up to “the people”? Pat, what “people” are you referring to?
Ask NDT. He brought up the point first, and I responded to it.
Comment by Pat — December 20, 2009 @ 10:28 am - December 20, 2009
One other thing, Sean.
So, it seems to me you have to either (a) renounce your definition of “abuse” as categorically, objectively wrong and an assault on parental rights, (b) stand your ground as an intellectually dishonest liar, or (c) cop to being a complete fu*king imbecile. Your choice. Tick tock.
There’s also a choice d. You are protesting way too much here. I’m not saying I’m not wrong, or even way off-base. But you clearly read more into what I said, and got wildly vicious about it. I could also read more into what you are saying, or more aptly, trying to say, but won’t bother, since it wouldn’t be fair.
I never said that Christian parents who believe homosexuality is a sin cannot raise children. And I never said that all situtations in which these parents have gay children is abuse. But there are times when it does turn into abuse. However, perhaps you are consistent. Perhaps you go off on Christian parents who even hint that gay couples shouldn’t become parents.
Comment by Pat — December 20, 2009 @ 10:41 am - December 20, 2009
Well I’m somewhat surprised this hasn’t been mentioned in this thread, but there is/should be an Option C for gay teenagers stuck with religious abusive parents: legal emancipation.
Simply put, children rights should trump both the state authority and parental rights. Not all teens would be capable of such arrangement, however it’s an option that should be used much more frequently. If a gay teen protests against a his/her parents shoving anti-gay religion into them, then there should be a good case for legal emancipation with alimony.
Like stated in this thread, the problem concerning guidance for gay teens is complex. However I think one way of simplifying it is by distinguishing them from complete dependents and allow them to choose guidance from a school teacher or counselor without legal repercussions from their parents. As for Jennings, the only issue I have is that he could have done a better job in counseling ‘Brewster’ by warning him of those trying to take advantage of him.
A lot of gay conservatives here lament the void of morality in the mainstream gay community (especially Ashpenaz here). Well that void didn’t occur out of thin air. A lot of parents despite being capable of raising straight children, even non-religious ones, just aren’t properly capable raising gay children. They’re partly to blame for this void they enjoying chastising. Fortunately there are organizations like PFLAG that help equip those parents, but not all of them want to make the effort.
Also related to the subject, have any of you seen the statistics on homeless youth? A significant percentage of them are gay and lesbian. So what should be legally done with their parents?
Comment by Rob — December 20, 2009 @ 1:56 pm - December 20, 2009
#58 Pat:
I never said that Christian parents who believe homosexuality is a sin cannot raise children. And I never said that all situtations in which these parents have gay children is abuse. But there are times when it does turn into abuse. However, perhaps you are consistent. Perhaps you go off on Christian parents who even hint that gay couples shouldn’t become parents.
The question though is that can Christian parents who believe homosexuality is a sin can properly raise gay children? From my personal experience, I think the best they can do, is a half-baked job (and that’s for the best cases. The worst ones are the parents of those homeless youth) and that many gay teens who aren’t capable of graduating from the school of hard-knocks (which is a travesty of it’s own), require outside guidance and support. IMHO, parental rights only accepted due to the circumstances that a child may not be able to consent, but it is still antithesis to individual rights.
Comment by Rob — December 20, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - December 20, 2009
“IMHO, parental rights only accepted due to the circumstances that a child may not be able to consent, but it is still antithesis to individual rights.”
That’s right, Rob, as far as it goes. But most kids do eventually grow up. My parents didn’t raise me to accept my homosexuality, but in time I was able to figure it out. Truth has an amazing power — a life all its own.
That’s why GoProud’s involvement in CPAC, incidentally, is so important. Rational beings from the gay world are actually going to be interfacing with those from the straight world. Many of those straight conservatives are parents. They may very well come away from the experience with a better understanding that we don’t all have horns, and that, in the long run, will be a tremendous service to society.
Comment by Lori Heine — December 20, 2009 @ 2:21 pm - December 20, 2009
#57: “Even if I wanted to, I would not contact child protective services unless there was evidence of neglect or abuse as defined by the state laws. If you think I would jump the gun, that’s why there are laws set by the state and personnel to investigate and see if there was, in fact, abuse.”
Pat, your comments make it perfectly clear that you would support a state agency’s expansion of the definition of “abuse” to include situations in which Christian parents don’t keep their bile to a “minimum” and “excoriate” their children for being gay. Considering that a large percentage of public school teachers would get “excoriate” wrong on a spelling test, and that many of them believe their legal responsibilities include calling out a SWAT team when a child is caught with a Bible, your perspective reflects the usual backward approach to these situations that all liberals exhibit. The state bureaucrat’s competence and integrity is presumed while the beliefs and actions of the parent are viewed with suspicion, and it should be the other way around. And Pat, before you disingenuously try to defend yourself by stating that I’ve read too much into your comments, let me remind you of the words you’ve used to frame this issue:
“These parents are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality. And thinking these parents are best able to deal with their child’s possible suicidal thoughts is like saying a wolf is best able to protect a flock of sheep.”
Sorry, Pat. You don’t get to define “abuse” the way you have and analogize the relationship of a Christian parent to their gay child to that of a wolf and sheep, and then feign shock that you are not presumed to be a fierce guardian of the parental rights of Christians with an uncompromising allegiance to the letter of the law.
I haven’t misinterpreted your views on this issue or been unfair in my characterizations of your comments at all. What upsets you, Pat, is that I haven’t taken into account your subjective GOOD INTENTIONS which you think should immunize your opinion from the harsh criticism it deserves. Every useless government bureaucrat has good intentions and like yours they don’t mean jack sh*t. You’ve advocated a standard of “abuse” and a misguided trust in state bureaucrats that, if implemented, would lead to devastating and unwarranted intrusions on families.
Pat, I was a gay kid in a family of evangelical Christians, and of course there were conflicts and periods of sadness and alienation. But even in my darkest hours, I did not want or need some do-gooder liberal jacka*s like you coming to rescue me. 99% of families work these things out on their own. My parents ultimately recognized that I have a right to live my life the way I want and today, we have a great relationship and they treat my partner like a son. I realize that it doesn’t work out that way for everyone. Yes, some gay kids get thrown out of their homes and some commit suicide. That happens to a lot of straight kids too, for other reasons. The problem here is that you think it’s up to you and your fellow liberals (cloaked in layers and layers of good intentions) to ensure that no gay kid ever feels alienated or depressed or commits suicide. I know this is going to come as a complete shock to you, Pat, so brace yourself: THE FACT THAT GAY KIDS SOMETIMES FEEL DEPRESSED AND ALIENATED FROM THEIR CHRISTIAN PARENTS ISN’T YOUR PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
Pat, you and other liberals pat yourselves on the back because you see every incident of a gay kid feeling depressed or committing suicide as a call to action for you to do something about it and make sure it never happens again in the future. However, what you believe is altruism, is really just narcissism because you apparently think that you have both the power and the obligation to keep REAL LIFE from happening to other people. What you really need is a healthy dose of butting the fu*k out. You have no business injecting yourself into these issues and trying to fix them, and as with everything liberals undertake, your efforts would inevitably make the problem catastrophically worse.
Comment by Sean A — December 20, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - December 20, 2009
Sean, you are still way overreacting to my comments here. Also, I’m glad that everything worked out for you and your parents.
Also related to the subject, have any of you seen the statistics on homeless youth? A significant percentage of them are gay and lesbian. So what should be legally done with their parents?
Rob, it depends on why the teens are homeless. If it’s because the children were abused or neglected, then the parents could be charged. But there are plenty of reasons why children leave that are not because of abuse, or even because of bad parenting.
Comment by Pat — December 20, 2009 @ 6:53 pm - December 20, 2009
That’s right, Rob, as far as it goes. But most kids do eventually grow up. My parents didn’t raise me to accept my homosexuality, but in time I was able to figure it out. Truth has an amazing power — a life all its own.
Yet in this age of information, gay teens are becoming more aware of their sexual orientation and come out at an earlier age. Many will figure it out before the age of majority and this is why I believe that legal emancipation should become more relevant in these situations.
That’s why GoProud’s involvement in CPAC, incidentally, is so important. Rational beings from the gay world are actually going to be interfacing with those from the straight world. Many of those straight conservatives are parents. They may very well come away from the experience with a better understanding that we don’t all have horns, and that, in the long run, will be a tremendous service to society.
Well I hope it will have a positive effect. But I think it can only reach out to the rational conservatives in the mold of Buckley and Goldwater (well Goldwater was more suppotive of gay rights than most Democrats of his time) and turn their tepid support into something stronger. The social conservatives on the other hand won’t budge if they can’t even react to what ex-gay survivors are saying. I’m sure they’re polite in person, but so was Joe the Plumber. It’s only their successors who will change in the next few generations. Who knows when the time the social conservatives will be the ones promoting same-sex marriage.
Comment by Rob — December 20, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - December 20, 2009
Rob, it depends on why the teens are homeless. If it’s because the children were abused or neglected, then the parents could be charged. But there are plenty of reasons why children leave that are not because of abuse, or even because of bad parenting.
Don’t be naive Pat. It wasn’t because they refused to eat their veggies or go to school that those gay youth ended up homeless. Besides, some of the studies do go into causation.
Comment by Rob — December 20, 2009 @ 11:52 pm - December 20, 2009
One aside I forgot to mention.
I have had the occasional conversation with a minor who was on an adult site (they’re lying to get on there, since the one I visit is ‘18 and up’. It’s one of the reasons I log everything and have a catagory marked ‘jailbait’ when I suspect or confirm that they’re under 18. I tell ‘em flat out that I’ll chat about most anything except D/s and to think long and hard about doing anything with anyone who will offer to ‘talk shop’ or ‘teach’. “He’s already breaking several laws offering to teach you anything, do you really think he’ll obey laws concerning your safety?”
I’d assume the same thing should apply to teaching teens about ‘vanilla’ as well.
“That’s nice Brewster, but think it through, he’s already breaking the law by buggering a 15 year old, do you really think you’re dealing with an ethical old man?”
“But, sir, Tim said he was a nice guy…”
Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2009 @ 6:56 am - December 21, 2009
I guess I’m getting hit from both sides here.
Don’t be naive Pat. It wasn’t because they refused to eat their veggies or go to school that those gay youth ended up homeless. Besides, some of the studies do go into causation.
That may well be the case, Rob, for all I know. My point is that children need to be protected from abuse. We also need to discourage bad parenting when it happens. And yes, in my opinion, it includes when parents treat their gay children horribly, even if it doesn’t cross the line of abuse or neglect. The good news is that now teens see that such behavior from parents is wrong, and see that many don’t suffer through the same garbage as others. But like many things, it can also turn to the other extreme, where teens may seek refuge even when things are more of a trivial nature. I’m not saying that’s what is happening here, as I don’t know what the statistics are in this case (your link lead me to a French abstract or something).
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2009 @ 9:57 am - December 21, 2009
[...] him twenty years to figure out that he should have handled the Brewster situation differently. GayPatriot How Should Public School Teachers Handle Gay Kids? A gay person with common sense. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your [...]
Pingback by Revisiting "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings----Explicit material. - Page 11 - Ajarn Forum - Teaching and Living In Thailand — December 23, 2009 @ 4:03 am - December 23, 2009