"King and King" (not spooky but news just the same)
 

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Teacher reads 2nd-graders
story about 'gay' wedding
Since same-sex marriage is legal in state, administrator says no parent OK needed
Posted: April 19, 2006
5:00 p.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


While two parents in Lexington, Mass., are upset about the fact their second-grade son was read a fantasy book in school about two princes getting married, what makes them even more angry is the fact the boy's teacher said because same-sex marriage is legal in their state there is no way a mother or father can opt out a child from such experiences.

"We are outraged," parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin told the local Article 8 Alliance. "This is a highly charged social issue. Why are they introducing it in the second grade? And we cannot present our family's point of view to our children if they don't tell us what they're saying to them."

According to a statement from the traditional-values organization, March 24 the Wirthlins' second-grade son came home from Estabrook Elementary School and repeated to his mother the story read to him earlier that day about men getting married to each other. His teacher had read the book "King and King" to the class, in which a prince doesn't want to marry any princesses, but instead falls in love with a princess' brother and marries him in a big palace wedding.

The Wirthlins say they immediately contacted the teacher, Heather Kramer, who acknowledged she had read the book to the class and admitted that it was not part of the curriculum.

It was explained to the couple that since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, discussion of the matter is fair game -- parents do not have to be informed before or after the issue is presented. Kramer reportedly told the Wirthlins that the theme of the day was "weddings" and the teacher wanted to present all points of view on the subject.

Article 8 Alliance reports other parents in the school claim Kramer attended a presentation last year by the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network on promoting homosexuality in the classroom.


David Parker, parent of kindergartner, stands before Judge Robert McKenna in Concord District Court April 28 after spending the night in jail (Photo: Article 8 Alliance)

States the organization: "Lexington school officials continue to claim that homosexuality and homosexual relationships do not does not constitute ‘human sexual relationships’ and thus do not trigger the Massachusetts parental notification law – Ch. 73 Sec. 32a."

After the Wirthlins met with Kramer and Principal Joni Jay to discuss their concerns, Jay sent an e-mail to the couple inviting them to contact Dr. Paul Ash, superintendent of the school district, "since your concerns involve district-wide issues."

As WorldNetDaily reported, a North Carolina couple was equally outraged two years ago when "King and King" was read to their daughter's first-grade class.

Estabrook School was also in the news last year when father David Parker faced prosecution for trespassing and spent a night in jail after confronting school officials about homosexuality being discussed in his son's class.
From : http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=49813

I like reading about pioneering schools. It gives me hope.

I'm torn about whether or not the parents should have been informed. They weren't talking about sex, they were talking about love,marriage and tolerance. I mean seriously kids don't really associate sex with marriage when they're 8 do they? I mean some do but overall not so much.

It's nice to see open-mindedness being protected by the law for a change.

As for the "outraged" (nice choice of word) parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin statement "This is a highly charged social issue. Why are they introducing it in the second grade?"

Well, it won't be a highly charged social issue if people learn from a young age about homosexuality as a normal part of life.

exactly!!!!


Big change is always socially charged.

Bah. Kids learn about everything eventually (once we were carpet monsters and look at us now) and keeping them in a bubble won't prepare them for life at all, even if you don't agree with other people's choices.

Why set them up for shock and failure?

I'nm guessing the parents are afraid that acknowledging homosexuality will "encourage" their little ones to become gay. Which is ridiculous.

It's like saying you can encourage a gay person to be straight. When all you can encourage is repression.

I'm surprised that there is such a law. When going to school there is a curiculum to follow, sex should be a part of it, and parents will know when it is the subject of classes.

Also interhuman relations have to deal with gay people because their are real, not just an issue on the news.

Hurray for open minded teachers, dutch teachers though might never get a licence. Here people complain if sexuality or interhuman relations and gay people are not a part of the curiculum.

*after checking this post it might appear i'm angry, but really I'm very suprised about this situation your country appears to be in, I don't understand*

The Netherlands seems to be the most tolerant country in the world. My cousin moved there to get married about 5 years ago and lives there full-time with his husband. Same-sex marriage is still not legal here in Ireland, but the political momentum will make it legal soon enough, I am positive.

A lot of Americans are weird about sexuality when it comes to their kids.

No - some people can't say anything that ISN'T anti-American but you were just sharing your genuine opinion and I full-heartedly agree.

We really are such prudes, but what can you do?

I hope it doesn't get interprated any other way, I'm not per definition against everything American, but reading the political stuff occasionaly, I know what you mean. It is the reason I generaly dislike that part of the forum.

Well in holland being prudes used to be fashion to, about 30 or 40 years ago, some people still are. And the cultural diffrences that there might be between dutch and other people are a big factor.

but slowly the world is changing our way, we might try and take it over
*devil-ish smile*

Yes, we sick fucks the world over that believe in acceptance and tolerance alike should join forces, unite, and overthrow all that is PRUDE in the world today!

How do we start?

Unfortunately, it harkens back to the 'good old days' when people could be jailed for being gay and killing someone for being gay wasn't always frowned on.

The mentality of our society still surprises me, sometimes.

For some reason people seem to hang on to these old-fashioned notions that being gay is something that can be taught to their children. Bah, morons.

I wonder why it should bother anyone so much. It is perfectly acceptable for my uncle to bring his boyfriend to family functions. In fact, my parents' best friends growing up were a lesbian couple - and I was 14 before I ever figured it out! Who cares?

They should be hatin the playa, not the game, G! :)

Ugh.

I get to be the dissenting opinion again.

Whee.

:(

Personally I have to agree with the parents.

It is not the schools place to teach children about "alternate lifestyles".

Schools have enough trouble just teaching our kids the basics. I would prefer that any education on such topics, be received by my child from me. Thus ensuring that he gets the right information, and not the wrong information.

Not to mention First Graders in General have almost zero concept of Sexuality, which is not taught until Middle School/High School usually.

So what kind of sense does it make to introduce such a topic, when the schools do not normally educate children about Human Sexuality until they are MUCH older?

My son has a wonderful teacher, but I still wouldn't want her educating my child about Homosexuality. That is a very personal subject, and one that should be my choice to introduce to my child when they feel it is time.

Not when the Public School System feels it is right.

Imagine the confusion in a young childs mind, when they learn about things in the wrong order. There is a time and a place for these discussions, and Elementary school is just not the place.

My home is the right place, when I feel that my child is ready to understand all of the different reasons that two people decide to share their bodies and their lives with each other.

To play Devil's Advocate for a bit..

There are also people who still do not support Homosexuality for personal or religious reasons. Prayer is not allowed in school at the risk of infringing upon a childs religious freedom, shouldn't the same respect be given to families who choose not to support these alternate lifestyles for religious or personal reasons?

Schools should not have the right to make these kind of decisions.

Schools have taken the word "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead should be allowed to educate young children on issues such as Sexual Choices?

It just doesn't make sense.

If we respect a Parent's right to educate and inform on religious choice, the same consideration should be afforded regarding Individual Sexuality.

Everyone here knows that I am the farthest thing from being "Homophobic", but I still feel it is my right and privelege to teach my son about these very personal issues.

When I feel he is ready, not when a Public School System decides my First Grader is ready.

My 1.9 cents on the matter.

It's good to have a voice of dissent in a 'grown-up' discussion. Otherwise it's all just a load "yeah, I agree!". And we learn nothing new.

But what should the basics be? Is it enough to just teach maths and writing and such "concrete" subjects in school? A lot of children wouldn't be lucky enough to have a parent liek you, who would take the time to talk to them about social and personal issues, and they have to learn it from the playground or the TV where they are a lot more likely to pick up inaccurate information.

True that this is about sexuality to us adults, but the story was about marriage. As Oubliette pointed out children of that age - 7 or 8 - will not associate marriage with anything but love, or the natural social order. It's our "advanced" experience that sees this as a "sexuality" issue.


Why should it be a personal subject? It is a fact. Some people prefer the opposite sex, some prefer the same. It is true that there are a lot of nuances and layers to sexuality that need to be carefully taught. But it seems to me that this teach was gently introducing her pupils to the idea that there are more combinations than just "Mom + Dad". In fact I think she laid some groundwork and did the parents a favour by fielding some awkward questions. Although there will be more questions to follow, as is natural with children.


I have to say I feel strongly about the idea of there being an "order" to what children learn. Certainly the physical act of sex isn't something that children should be forced to learn about, because they are not physically old enough to engage in it. It is not part of their lives yet. But marriage is. And as it is a part of life in the state where this happened, it is accepted by law. In fact, considering that, isn't there a possibility that a child in that class has two dads?

The story was about a man choosing a man over a woman as his husband. As a story for children, I doubt it wwnt into much detail about the reasons why.

The fact that "God" was dropped out of the pledge of allegience was because it was a pledge that everyone had to take regardless of religion, right? By leaving "God" in, it was forcing those who did not believe in "God" to lie. Giving information on different lifestyles is not the same, I believe.

thanks E_P_S,

In holland it is accepted that when marriage is discussed in a class, as it might even been done whilst children are 4 or 5, the posibility of gay love, as in the way your parents like eachother, might be mentioned. Nothing radical, just confirm the existence of the thing and pointing out that the feelings for eachother are just as strong as between (normal people) your parents. preferably without the use of the word normal, as to prevent training the viewing of gay's as abnormal.

In the same way as teachers might occasionaly be asked how babies come to this world. It actualy is a part of teacher training to give an awnser without deminishing the parent influence on the subject. Such as, "what do you think?" and after letting the child tell what mummy daddy told, the teacher might give a general awnser; something with when mummy and daddy like eachother and choise. Mostly though children are told babies come from (out of) your mother. I do remember being told, by my mom, about a (small)baby hole that my mom has, I was 5 at the time, and I lost intrest because the truth was boring.. (ofcourse regained at later age).

At my school it was normal for a mother to tell the teacher she is expecting a child, and that a questions or stories concerning babies might be forthcomming from their earlier kid(s). The teacher might then consult other parents or send a news letter to the parents. But in general the teacher knows the parents, so most of the time there is no problem.

On the sex part I do agree with E_P_S, and finding a line between getting babies and making babies and explaining those two different matters seperatly is hard. It also has something to do with teacher- parent relations and that part is not for me.

I forgot this last bit,

I hope that it has become clear why I don't understand the law. If it all works as it should there is no need for it. In holland part of the bringing up of children falls in the hands of teachers most of the social stuff anyway.

edit I now see i'm a slow writer, between reading the thread and posting 2 more posts have been made.

Just remember that the country was settled by fundamentalist and extremist Christians who felt that the the Catholic Church should be strongly condemned, and that the government should do the condemning. Go Puritans!

now we wonder into areas I'm not very familiar with, but when you say it finds its way into the pressent, I agree. But these couses and results are for another thread, I think.

Then the problem must be with reading them a book about marriage, period...because if teaching them a book about a gay wedding teaches them about gay sexuality then it stands to reason that reading them a book about straight marriage is teaching them about straight sexuality...to be fair to everybody they should throw it all out then.

The big difference here is the difference between "teaching to" and "teaching about". It seems that those people with the most to fear are the ones most unable to comprehend the difference.

Please forgive me if I don't respond to every question, I have a beastly headache right now.

But as far as the comment about, "What is the proper order?", I will say this in response.

To me it doesn't make sense to teach my child about alternate views about sexuality, when he doesn't yet even know what sexuality means yet.

And yes, Marriage goes part and parcel with Human Sexuality.

It's a case of putting the cart before the horse in my opinion.

I also still believe that we should be respectful of other families who do NOT support Homosexuality, even if we don't agree with them.

Our schools support religious diversity, and take great pains not to tread on any religious toes during the school day. Advocating a lifestyle that some people do not believe in for religious reasons, seems like just as much of a "no-no" to me.

The teacher admitted that the book was not part of the schools curriculum. So she made a deliberate choice to select a controversial book not for simple "storytime" purposes, but to "educate" her students about "alternate lifestyles".

Again, when most schools in America do not educate children about Reproduction and related issues until they are MUCH older, introducing these topics before that time makes no sense to me.

And yes, Marriage goes hand in hand with sexuality in the eyes of a child.

My son and I had our first Sexuality discussion, because he wanted to know about Marriage and why boys don't make babies with boys and girls don't make babies with girls when they get married. Children commonly associate marriage with reproduction.

I am not saying these issues should never be adressed, but instead should be adressed when children are older. It makes more sense to cover these topics in Human Sexuality/Health.

Thus giving the parents plenty of time to adress these issues at home, and children plenty of time to mature and be able to process these new thoughts and ideas.

I still firmly believe that for the most part, the religious rights and views of Parents and their children should be accpeted.

I live in one of the most liberal states in the nation. However Gay Marriage was voted down here, which tells me that there are still MANY people who don't agree with it.

Again to play Devil's Advocate, why should their rights and opinions about this subject be disregarded?

I plan on teaching my son, what I believe, what other people believe, and finally to allow him to decide what he believes with all of this information. I have taken great pains to allow these very important discussions to happen in their own time.

I have little faith in the Public School System as it is here in America. I certainly would not entrust this delicate topic, to my Seven Year Old's Elementary School Teacher.

She doesn't teach him about God, she has no business teaching him about Sexuality at his age either.

Respect should be given to Parents on both sides of this issue, plain and simple.

The basic idea is that the parents right were violated when this teacher decided to read something that was contraversial to her students without asking the parents or running it by the school board.

This teacher must have known that this was going to cause a problem but instead of getting input she decided to do it anyways. And that's wrong. It's not fair to the parents, they have a right to know what their children are learning.

I have nothing against homosexuality but I think the parents of these children should be able to decide what is being read to them. What would have everyone said if the teacher decided to "educate" them about bestiality? Would have everyone have been so open then?

This isn't a good analogy; no, beastiality would have been abhorrent all around, as would some hard-core porn, but those have to do with exclusively sexual material. It isn't like after the Princes got married the scene cut to the marriage night where all manner of debauchery took place - they merely got married.

on the other hand (regardless of age) if teachers only teach what perants want/ aprove with, how will they learn at school, no one will get a bit of tolerance in them.

The book might only have contained a "normal" story as childrens books usualy do. the story in itself is harmless. And as a response to "can males have children" the awnser is no, because bla bla. If they understand part one, they might get part two.

And because kids copy there parents they opt for straight.

The teacher is not completly wrong in my opinion for pointing out that the above mentioned can happen. To the children it probebly does not matter, unless mommy or daddy, have said it to be wrong. Kids, in my opinion, can deal with a lot of things. The problem lies with what parents think. In the case of E_P_S they will learn all they need to know, but in other cases that might not be the case.

He should however have notified the parents, with a letter explaining his reasons (without going to the extreme), in holland that would more then enough, though a lot of parents in the article would have kept them home.

Sometimes kids just come straight out with things, questions and the suchlike (on a lot of issues). I got put on the spot quite often.

So - a genuine question - if I could just pick the brains of those of you that have children...

If your child did ask their teacher such a question, how would you prefer it was handled?

Why shouldn't social things be taught in a social environment?

The thing about this issue is that children of homophobic parents are more likely to be homophobic as well, ESPECIALLY if they're not exposed to these things as being acceptable, and homosexual rights will not get far.
I do agree, to some degree, that the parents should have been informed.

And anyway, we read stories about straight marriage to kids, why not treat homosexual marriage stories the same way? What about Shrek? Cinderella? Don't they have marriage in them? Don't we show them to our kids? It's not like homosexual stories are necessarily more sexual than heterosexual ones.

I agree with you on the fact that parents can be stupid, unwise, and easily fooled, but so is the rest of society. It all depends on who's giving the information.

YAY E_P_S ! I'm glad their is someone else who agrees that the whole subject is presented way to early.


To others: Please be tolerant of prudes, and respect their right to their own opinion. People should be allowed to raise their children with the views and values that are important to them. When those children are grown, they can choose or decide differently if they wish. They will anyway.

I totally respect and see the reasoning of those whose opinion differs - but I really can't help feeling that if they shouldn't be reading stories about gay marriage because that then brings up the question of gay sexuality, then they shouldn't be allowed to read them stories about straight marriage.

Times area a-changing and if it's so charged an issue then it probably shouldn't be taught or included in classes at all.

This reminds me of when I was in high school - a group of teens in my area formed a 'Gay-Straight Alliance' club whose mission was to promote tolerance between students, NOT to promote the 'gay agenda'.

In the end, we had to get rid of all non-curriculum related clubs - even Christian Club, Jewish Club, and Muslim Club in order to ban the Gay-Straight Alliance Club.

I can't help feeling that the kids are being caught in between the agendas of adults and are the only ones suffering because of it.

I am a great believer of the value of community. My ideal is that the community would be responsible towards each individual and vice versa. Therfore, I do not believe that the parents of children should be solely responsible for their upbringing. That is why we have schools in the first place. So the community has a hand in educating and raising children. For example, if someone has white-supremecist values or some other socially detrimental views should they be allowed to raise their children to believe they are superior to others because of their skincolour?

It can only be beneficial to children to have a wide set of views presented to them at a young age. This sets a trend for their adult life.

Obviously, since there are a lot of traumatic and potentially harmful truths about life, the problem is what kind of information should the children be exposed to while they are at a mentally vulnerable age.

I don't believe learning about the different types of marriage is potentially harmful information. Marriage is presented to children as a fact of life from the start. As pointed out already, every fairytale ends in marriage.

As an "alternative lifestyle", it is only alternative if you are straight (and even so "alternative" is misleading - it makes it seem like there is choice involved).

And the story the teacher read presented it as a purely joyous occasion, related to love and happiness. How is this harmful?

I am not againt homosexuality at all, but this teacher made a big mistake. She introduced to elementary school students an idea which is very complicated,even teenagers at my age have a hard time understanding. I mean kids believe everything adults tell them, they'll think that to have happy life they should marry a person from the same sex. Instead of going home and playing, they might start wondering how come they don't have two dads, or two moms. I agree with E_P_S, they should learn the bases first( how are kids born....) and they have plenty of time when they grow up to be taught about homosexuality. Hence, I think it was a bit too early for that.

As I live in a country where these problems once existed, yes they did, and sometimes still do.

We do teach about the option of gays liking eachother (the word sex not mentioned) at the same time as we might talk about straight marriage, first grade (4/5 year old). Kids do accept that part and understand that part. You don't talk about sex in a straight marriage at that time, now do you? You might at the same age talk about having babies, if someone has a little brother or sister. They also understand that you need a mom and dad to make a baby. so there you may solve the can gay poeple have babies. They do understand that.

almost every dutch kid does, and they are NOT smarter than any other kids, they have different parents.

The problem with mentioning gays is that most of the time parents talked about how bad it is, and there you get the problems. All the anti gay stuff has been brought out and kids copy that. Erasing those things involve the areas you most defenetly don't want to talk about. Such as, gay is bad because the do things with your ass. It usualy evolves around these basic parental fears that children think its bad.

Also at a later age, it is much harder to introduce the topic, as most opinions are already formed and near imposible to change.

We solved the situation by just teaching them at an I early age, provoking a lot of parents, but sucseding to our goals fast. At the same time we had public debates, and the rest of the stuff. without any (to much) violence the stuff got solved.

I am hoping that's half a sentence. Otherwise, you can raise your children to "Kill the Queers, Jews, ******s, etc."

That day the theme was different kinds of weddings, and that was one of the books about weddings that was read. King and King wasn't in any way a focus, except of course for parents. Kids in elementary school should be able to learn about different types of marriage ceramonies IMHO. I don't have kids however, and I may feel different about it when I do.
(I'm no good at organizing my thoughts)

Also sexuality and marriage don't necessarily go hand in hand in the mind of a first grader.

Actually they do equate the two together, Sexzie..

See my conversation above I detailed with my son.

Both of our boys appear to equate marriage with having babies for some reason.

It has made for many uber interesting conversations.

:)

*passes hookah*

We have laws because things don't work as they should.

Is it possible this is because you're kids are more intuitive then most? I mean if they'e anything like their mom... ;)

Smart/Intuitive/Curious kids are always more tricky (at least from what I've heard and observed) .

Sometimes in order to bring about change you need to shake things up a bit.


Oh and bestiality is like cannibalism, it is cross-culturally taboo, and doesn't even deal with same species relationships (let alone sex), therefore does not compare. I probably missed some sarcasm in there somewhere.

After that post and the reactions on it, I realised that it is not as simple a thing as I thought it was.

Also If you read my other posts you might notice I am trying to walk the midle road. Because I now understand what kind of a hot topic it is.

I'm am wondering however about the black and white kind of opinions there are. Or better, the contrast between the opposing parents in the article and the pro people in the forum, and the opinions about how to ensure the education of open mindednes to children.

Also relating to my previous post, I think america will get there, it wil take a generation, but ot will happen. If people find (and they need to try) a compromise between the opinions things will work out. It is harder in a large country than in a small country, but it will happen.

Of course, the problem is, homosexuality is also looked at as a cross-cultural taboo. Even though the taboo has been broken by many, is it still a taboo to some people, non-the-less. Is stealing a cross-cultural taboo, and do people do it? Yes.

Yet, the ironic part from my experience is, the smartest kids, don't let you know they are smart. No offense intended to EPS.

Jim Crow Laws anyone?

Yet, if you didn't know about it, or were denied the information to formulate your own opinions, then how could you understand it in the first place?

For some reason, this made me think of this: You say they have "Plenty of Time". I see kids, in my school, at ages thirteen and fourteen, and even younger, who are racist, arrogant, and stupid. Do you want to keep that information from them, so that they have no experience, and nothing to formulate an opinion, save the dogma that parents give out?

Icarian-just to clarify, when you say that faggishness is a cross-cultural taboo, are you saying that it's banned or that it's not looked at the same way as breederism? On a cultural viewpoint, homosexuality is actually accepted much more in other cultures than over here in the good ol' US of A. Now this doesn't imply that it's preffered, but that it's accepted as a fact of life much more than here. To say that there's a "cross-cultural taboo" about it is simply wrong from a sociological point of view. (and yes, if you wanna debate, I'll throw the examples out...I've been drinking, so I'm too lazy to do so at this exact second)

Eyes Of A Tragedy-I'll get into the "parents right" thing with EPS, but for now.....to toss out the bestiality comparison is just sick and wrong, and even though plenty of people here have already pointed it out to you, I don't think there's been enough force with their voices, so I'll re-iterate=HOW IN THE FUCK CAN YOU EVEN DARE TO COMPARE HOMOSEXUALITY WITH ANIMAL FUCKING!!!????? I mean, really? The act of two consenting adults of the same species versus the exploitation of one species against another? Sorry, but your argument (if you had one...and again, I'll deal with that with EPS) just lost any validity with that bit oif hyperbole you tacked onto the end there....and if you're wondering how the validity got lost, let me toss in this bit of knowledge.....in Texas, where they're all pissed that anti-sodomy laws can't be used to fuck with homos anymore, a bunch of the Republican legislators are trying to find a way to outlaw faggotry and get the populace to denegrate homos without seeming discriminatory. Alot have taken from the Santorum page in this crusade by comparing of homosexuality with incest and bestiality. Yet (and this is fucking hilarious) a number of these same legislators are also trying to quietly REMOVE the already existing laws that criminalize bestiality from the Texas lawbooks......now, I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm just pointing out that your argument is a repeat of the same argument that legislators from Texas have used....you probably heard it and copied it because it sounded good...and I'm just pointing out that these fucktards (and their arguments) aren't exactly on the lofty pedestal you're putting them on, and therefore, their hypocrisy becomes your hypocrisy.

EPS-I agree that kids shouldn't be learning about fucking at school until they're in 6th grade. However, the story (and I got curious, so I hunted down a copy and read it....,and yes, it's as crappy as all pre-teen literature) has nothing to do with fucking. It has to do with love. And I hate to point out the obvious, but being a fag isn't as much about who you fuck as much as it has to do with who are you attracted to, and thus, who can you fully express your love with.

Now, your son looks at breeding as being connected with marriage. Good for him (and really, no sarcasm there). My son, however, knows that babies involve sex. How do I know that he knows this? It has to do with him asking me "why do people have to have sex to make babies?" (and I said "it has to do with biology"...."oh, I hate biology"....and thus, I staved off the fully detailed talk another month or so).

owever, even with his knowledge of the activity of sex, he also understands this little thing called "love"....he's seen so many examples of different kinds of love-me and him, me and Laura, me and movies, him and his sister, him and his mom, his mom and her boyfriend...he knows that sex and love aren't neccesarily connected, and that love is MUCH more important than sex.

Now, I'd agree with you if this book were about fucking, but it isn't. It's about two people that fall in love. And this is what the lesson should be=what fucking problem is there if the two people who fall in love happen to be of the same gender? As far as I see, that was the lesson, and there's no problem, period.

As far as parents rights are concerned...sorry, but I'm gonna be a bit cold here-if the parents beliefs are detrimental to the child becoming a well-rounded human being, then the parents should be told that they're fucked up. Let me give you an example (and this is one I saw in high school)-history teacher is going to teach about the holocaust. Kids parents are holocaust deniers, and pull their child out of class by invoking the "parental rights" clause. Now, were the parents in the right for pulling their child out of classes that went against their personal beliefs, even though those beliefs were straight up wrong?

And yes, I know there's plenty of debate over homosexuality....hell, it's this very debate that got Bush into office in '04 (and don't debate me on this one....I'm only saying that Bush got elected because he hates fags because...well, that's what the people who voted for him said. Sorry. Any other kind of spinning is just bullshit). I'm just saying that going after a teacher who's pointing out that fags are human beings is just ludicrous to the point of absurdity....to steal from Vonnegut, it's liken to putting on a suit of armor to attack a banana split.

To summarise-I know where you're coming from, but you've got the wrong outlook on this subject. And I hope you know that I'm not attacking you, but that I have to point out the missing points in your argument...

(note to self-don't drink so much before going behind friends keyboard...you sound like such a pussy when you're fucked up, Loy)