Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Has your K-6 grade kid had cootie shots yet?

Dearest Matt,

Well, I noticed you didn't deny my statement, so we shall procede under the assumption that you are gay, and have a vested interest in this argument...

Please notice that at no time has anyone that is not in favor of the current gay agenda advocated sweeping and radical changes against the gay community. What I have advocated, and argued vociferously for, is for the gay community to mind their own business, especially within this thread in respect to children.

When you want to spread your agenda in the public arena, you must persuade the political majority. As it stands right now, the gay community does not have the political impetus for the remedies they seek, and are in fact quite in danger of marginalizing themselves with much of the public.

This thread is a marvelous case in point. For all of the flag-waving about tolerance, the typical PTA parent wouldn't tolerate our red shoe skit past the opening statements. I know I certainly wouldn't.

As for apologetic lip statements, I was trying to be a bit kind. However, since you do not care to do so, that is your problem, not mine.

Lot of anger there, old son. Well, you've got the same pants to get glad in, that you got mad in, and right now, here's one board member that doesn't give a rolling red rat's rectum which side of the fence you fall on.

Lastly, society is painted in sweeping statements. It is a broad canvass, and I like to see a larger picture than most.

Maybe I have a better perspective than some.

TTFN, dude.

No, the two issues are interelated, and I have taken a consistent position on both.

Its Renauda not renuda.

My name is Joe and my last name is irrelevant. Tom~*K thinks it (Joe) to be a common name so I have rightly chosen not to use it.

Amadah is an oilfield in Northern Saudi Arabia- why do you ask?

Ashamed of what?

As I have never accepted bribes I do not consider my wealth ill gotten. Nor do I feel any particular need to protect it through extraordinary means. I pay my taxes as required by law. I do expect my tax dollars to be used wisely rather than frivolously. I support public education and government administered universal health care benefits as a right of citizenship.

While it is true I am conservative about sexual matters I no more think of myself as a righty than I think of myself as a liberal. Nevertheless Jolly, Gryphon and a few others would have been shocked to learn that I am among their number. I am truly sorry for the inconvenience.

Still, a piano party in the US is a long way for me to travel for a drink and a good time. You are welcome to visit me though.

I agree that young kids should not be learning about sex--hetro, homo, or miscellaneous---in elementary school. On the other hand, I believe that all kids at a very early age should learn that some men love each other and some women love each other in the same way that mommy and daddy love each other and that that is ok.

I fail to see much difference. And I couldn't disagree with you more. There are flaws in your logic on several levels in fact. Kids are sent to school to learn to read and write. Especially K-6, shouldn't be involved in anything else. Teaching kids about differences in adult relationships is not the job of the school, it is the job of the parents. Giving the school the right to take on that task is not teaching tolerance, it is robbing the parents of their rights, and it is damaging the child. I don't want my 5-11 year old kids taught that Bobby loves Billy. I want them to learn to read and write. That's all I want out of a school. That's all a school is supposed to do. When *I* feel my kids need to know that in some cases Bobby loves Billy, I'll tell them, and they will learn about tolerance toward it in the same way I have taught them about tolerance and civility in every other aspect of life. But *I* will teach them, not you, not the schools, and not some focus group with an agenda. A 5 year old kid doesn't need this shoved down their throats - they will see it, and ask questions. The ones they should be asking about it are their parents, and their parents will determine when and how to answer. And don't hand me the line about how some parents aren't capable of teaching it, or will teach them to be intolerant. That's the problem with *all* social engineering - it comes with the assumption that those doing the engineering can do it better than anyone else. Yes, there will be some parents who don't teach their kids the right thing. So I repeat - if you want to teach kids tolerance, teach the parents how to parent. The hard part for you to understand is that if a parent teaches his kid intolerance, you're just going to have to live with that. It's *his kid*, and just because some parents are going to teach their kids the wrong way doesn't give you or anyone else the right to take that parents rights away. And that's just exactly what happens when the educational system involves itself in social engineering, spending time and money trying to do the parents' job instead of teaching them to read and write. God knows the schools have been a miserable failure in that area for the last 2 decades, maybe it's time for them to go back to the basics and leave the social conscious education to the ones who are responsible for it - the parents.


The point is that by teaching tolerance and understanding at a young age you: (1) allow kids who start to realize in middle school that they may be gay to understand that they are not freaks, not alone, that they do not have to commit suicide to escape it, and (2) teach kids who are hetrosexual to accept the fact that others are different and that the differences should be respected rather than denigrated. These messages have to begin at a young age because otherwise it is too late.

Then TEACH THE PARENTS. Leave the kids alone. The vast majority of the kids are *not* going to be homosexual. Those that are should look to their parents, not the schools, for answers to their questions. You do not have the right to invade the lives of the entire population just to accomodate the few. Your very description of "These messages have to begin at a young age because otherwise it is too late" is clear evidence that this is nothing more than indoctrination. Your sentence is exactly how any *cult* explains how to program people to accept the cult's teaching. You aren't teaching tolerance, you're indoctrinating, programming an agenda.

In my mind, it's not a question of whether a parent "approves" of homosexuality, because homosexuality IS. It's a question of whether we are going to teach our children (finally) to respect and be tolerant of those who may be different, whether by race, religion, or sexual preference.

That's a poor way of expressing it. It has nothing to do with "approving" of homosexuality. It has to do with talking about things that a child isn't mature enough to deal with, it has to do with usurping the parents' authority, of using the school system to do the parents' job instead of what the kid is there to learn - reading and writing. *WE* aren't going to teach my kids anything. *I* am going to teach my children about sexual issues, about religion, and about race. The *school* is there to teach my kids how to read and write. If you want to do some beneficial social engineering, stick with teaching parents how to parent, and let the school stick to its purpose - teaching kids how to read and write. Get your social and political agendas out of the schools just like you want religion out of schools. Don't spend my kid's school day telling him about how some people like one sex and some like the other, and that we should be tolerant of that. Don't spend my kid's school day telling him if he wants to wear high heels and makeup that it's ok. Spend his day teaching him to read. Leave the other to me. It's my responsibility, and you have no right to infringe on that. And just as the "you" is a generic "you", the "I" is a generic "I", because I will bet every dime I have that this is the way the vast majority of parents feel. Even in the extremely remote possibility that it isn't, it *still* comes down to the children - leave the little kids alone about sexual issues.

Joe, I apologize.
I was angry but should not have lashed out like that.
Sorry.
I will leave my posts as evidence of my stupidity.
Ever since the gay marriage thing hit the news it is really sinking in that gay people ARE discriminated against.
I had just gotten used to it.


Either gays are bad or they are not.
If they are bad, then plan A.
If they are not bad, then plan B.
Plan B is equality.


K-6 is a critical time.
The foundation wiring is taking place in the brain.
Certain things MUST be taught early, or they will never take.
Sunday schools are evidence of this.
I have already stated that I think the play in question is over the top.
Still tolerance must be appropriately taught by schools and by parents.
Just cause you are hetero, you must teach your young ones that different is not bad.
Just go on a playground and hear how those k-6ers talk.
7 th grade is too late.

Also, You can pretend to "tolerate" and not be a gay basher and claim to have adjusted to the existence of gays – at least to the outside world of adults.
BUT - what you teach your kids in the home is where the rubber meets the road.
People see their kids as their 2nd chance.

No need to apologize. I did not think your posts or opinions as being stupid in any way.

Parents and teachers are models for children. Tolerance can be taught by modelling behavior. If you want children to be tolerant of diversity then demonstrate tolerance in your behavior- accept people as they are and laugh with people and not at them. Walk away from intolerance as fighting it only adds fuel to its cause.

Tolerance is not and nor should it be treated as a measurable outcome of school curriculum. There is no need for political, religious or social (i.e. sexual) ryhmes and stories which contribute further to the hidden curriculum in our schools. There is enough hidden curriculum that already infects the school to confuse children and dilute learning in the classroom.

Perhaps you should spend less time trying to analyze my motives than explaining your own. I should also point out that you have not refuted some of the labels that others have pasted on you, so should we procede under the assumption that you are arrogant, dogmatic and condescending? You seem to feign compassion for homosexuals, all the while trumpeting the call that they should not be let out of their "place" in society. CYA in action, eh? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

But, I do, in fact, have a vested interest. But not in the manner you and your haphazard assumptions might think. You see, I have strong reasons to believe that a now deceased close relative was, in fact, homosexual. His own life and the lives of those around him were traumatized by the fact that he was never able to come to terms with this aspect of himself. Outwardly, he was the epitome of masculinity, rough, crude and overbearing. He married, three times, and fathered five children. Yet, he would disappear for days at a time, and when his wives would question his whereabouts, he invited them to kiss his fist or stare down the barrel of a handgun. All three wives were subject to the most heinously degrading treatment. This man also had little to do with his children, and treated them as their mothers' concern, not his. He engaged in innumerable types of self-destructive behaviors, such as heavy drinking, gambling and borderline criminal activity.

He only ever really talked to one of his daughters, and the things she tells of their conversations makes both her and me believe that his frequent absences were centered around anonymous homosexual encounters. We have both been trying to understand why it is that this man was so wantonly destructive of both his own and his family's lives. The only conclusion we have been able to come up with is that he was completely consumed by self-loathing as a result of his inability to reconcile his homosexual proclivity with the straight world around him. He tried to fit in, but doing so caused far too much pain and suffering for himself and those who loved him. Thus, I am convinced that had society been more tolerant of his homosexuality, he wouldn't have felt compelled to try to appear straight, and thus might not have caused all the emotional upheaval.

But, hey, that's my family. I'm sure nobody else's family has any similar tales. Surely this is a unique and isolated instance.

I am always fascinated by the dichotomy of your opinion on politics. On one hand, when it's convenient, you remind people that this is a Republic, not a Democracy, and that simple majority opinions are not political mandates. Yet, at other times, you seem to insist that the majority should rule with its values, and the minorities should just shut up and butt out. I detect a paradox here. Care to explain?

Not only is there no anger on my part, I actually feel a bit of sorrow. It saddens me to see an obviously intelligent man reduced to name-calling and crudeness in an attempt to defend an untenable position.

A classic case of desire not aligning with reality. You may believe you're seeing a broad picture, but it's more likely that your perspective is blocked by the blinders of the narrowness of your definitions and limitations of your experience. Thus, there are vast areas of the canvas that must be uncharted territory for you. Yet, you somehow feel compelled to opine on areas where your involvement is only marginally tangential, and certainly not personal.

Larry,

I didn't like the skit, but I have to agree with JackFrost on several points. While Kindergarden may be too young, my public school's sex education began in the 5th grade. That was not too early. I've helped deliver babies to 13 year old girls.

The one skit from cootie shots that you posted bothered me, for several reasons. I suspect I'd support many of the other skits.

No matter what you think, schools do not just teach reading, writing, and math. They also teach history, science, political theory, music, art, and hopefully, in doing so, they teach children to think.

Schools should try to expose children, in a safe way, to things they will experience and be faced with after school. That may be that after 8th grade, or after 22nd grade. No school that just teaches reading and math is worth attending. You know that. And while parents have the right to teach their kids intolerance, the public school system has the right to incorporate things to try to teach tolerance. This doesn't have to be social engineering, but it clearly will offend people who want to teach the opposite philosophy to their children.

Back to the skit, given it covers a sexual topic and has a value attached to it. It think that was wrong. I think the parents should have been given the option of opting/out even if that skit hadn't been part of the presentation, but if parents don't want their children to learn history, political thought, and social studies, they can home school them or find a private school. Most parents want their children to get the most out of school they possibly can.

Todd

PS) Earlier in this thread, I was as guilty of homosexism (making an assumption that someone is homosexual) as Jolly. Usually most of us are very heterosexist in our thinking, it's just playing the odds. This thread is an exception to that tendancy.

There is a saying..

"do not judge another man till you have walked a mile in his shoes"

Some of y'all need to do some walkin.

Matt, thanks for sharing your story. As moving as it is, I dare say, it is not terribly uncommon. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all of those who are so quick to condemn homosexuality were similarly forced to reckon with their own homosexual brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, children, co-workers within their owns circles.

This thing of saying, "Hey, based on what you say you must be gay?" is K-6 playground bully stuff.

Even if he is gay, so what?
Even if he is straight, so what?

Perusing his orientation does not reflect well on you.
His orientation is not relevant to the discussion.
Besides, being gay is okay so this is not the treat you intend it to be.
He has nothing to fear.

Remember the civil rights movement?
White people to supported it were called n***** lovers.

All this parenting and school talk brings to mind the battles over school integration.

The last pride parade I was in did not have NAMBLA there. I personally think that the pedo's of NAMBLA are disgusting and don't think they should be allowed to be in gay pride marches. I guess some think that they should be allowed because it's technically an 'alternative lifestyle.' Be that as it may, it's not one to be proud of. Pedophilia is a sickness and by associating with the gay community, the pride marches especially, NAMBLA makes people equate homosexuality and pedohilia. Pedohilia isn't an orientation. It's not about love, about being connected emotionally, spiritually. It's about having power over someone smaller and less powerful - a child. Most pedo's are heterosexual and have been abused themselves. (I'm not saying there aren't any gay pedo's because there are, but the vast majority are straight.) Instead of being proud of being pervs, the members of NAMBLA need psychiatric and psychological help.

Kenny.....children should be taught about sex when they are old enough to understand about biology. My kids have watch million 'nature' videos and the idea of mating is familiar and natural. Animals mate to reproduce and that is easy to understand... at least I would find it easy to explain in that context. I don't know how I would approach the subject of homosexuality. I'd like a year or two to mull that over.

The one gay man my children see regularly (and Kathy - he is a church organist BTW) would be mortified if they were to question his gayness.

To put things in perspective, I'm conservative about alot of things. I don't like music that tells a woman she'll get it in the butt. I don't let my kids see even PG 13 movies. I don't let them say trashy words. A play about cross-dressing seems a little 'out-there' to me. Shoot! I've only met one cross-dresser in my life, and I have hung around some wild people.

It's probably worth while pointing out that this "play" is all of 100 words or less and is only a tiny part of the greater production of "Cootie Shots". The play right before it in the book (200 words at best) is a conversation between two students, one a Muslim and one a Mormon.

Ariel, you'd like the one just before that, it's called "Bright Orange Fingernails" It's based on a true story about 4 young children who paint their fingernails different colors. Two of the children are girls and two are boys. The play is about what happens when the father comes to pick up one of the boys. BTW, there are loads of straight men in NY who get manicures. And it is something that existed years before "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" came on!

The play before that is called "At Your Age?!" and it's about age discrimination. The poem before that is about race, called "Chocolate Face". There's a play about a young girl in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy. Then there's a poem, "The Princess Petunia" about a princess who loves Violet instead of the prince her father has in mind. I like the way this one ends:

It warmed the king's heart, hearing Petunia's laughter,
And the two princesses lived happily ever after.
But the cherry on top of this chocolate-fudge sundae,
Was the king's proclamation, starting this Monday:
"All the peasants below and royals above
Are now free to marry whomever they love."



There's a play called "Matzoh", it's about being Jewish. There's "The Golden Rule" a dialogue between a young christian girl who explains the ashes on her forehead, a Jewish boy who explains his yarmulke, a sikh boy who explains his hair, his turban, and Guru Granth Sahib.

There are more plays and poems and songs about homosexuals, religion, ethnicity etc.

So although same-sex love figures in the production, it is not the focal point. There is no focal point other than diversity and tolerance of differences. I think it's unfair to hang "Cootie Shots" up by the thumbs for pushing a perverted agenda.

Bernard, you can cover a cow pile with chocolate icing, and it will look like a cake. Much of it will be sweet and taste good. Keep digging however, and you find you're eating **** just the same.

Larry, I really appreciate your sharing this thread with us. I had never heard of "Cootie Shots" before, and now that I have, I think I'll see if I can get our school system to arrange some performances. What a great idea - what a great way to teach kids tolerance and respect at an early age!

Here's their website.

Cootie shots - the play

Ok. And I'd like to schedule a weekly session with your kids, to teach them about the Republican party, Conservatism, and patriotism. I want to do plays and skits that shows the superiority of that choice over the one you've given them, and let them know that it if they feel this political philosophy is more to their liking, they should ignore you and go with it, because you are tolerant and won't mind.

Jack Frost,

What color does KathyK paint your nails?

No, it doesn't.

Don't take my word for it. Do a bit of googling and see how well the black community is reacting to the association between the Civil Rights movement, and the current activity in the gay community.

You may be surprised at what you read.

Or, all black people can be homophobic bigots, also.

There is no denying "Cootie Shots" is pushing an agenda. It's just that the adgenda is not corrupted or perverted and I see it as a way of promoting the "Golden Rule".

Frankly, Larry, I think you're over reacting. You're more than free to create your own production pushing your own agenda. There is, furthermore, a way in which Cootie Shots' adgenda differs from yours; it doesn't presume to be superior.