Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Razola]

Causing an Uproar

I suppose I can see where the parents are coming from. Homosexuality is not normal by any stretch of the imagination (by normal I mean rate of occurence) and it's a touchy subject that kids should be exposed to when they are a bit more mature.

[shazza]

Haha. But yeah, I don't see the big deal these days. Kids are learning about homosexuals younger and younger, it is on TV more etc. But it is their child and I can see reason as to not wanting her to know about that stuff until she is older.

[Little_Pikachu]

If kids are going to learn about love and relationships they should be able to learn about all kinds. If children are exposed to homosexuality at a young age they wont think as much of gay people as being different when they're older, this would see a huge drop in homophobia and associated violence amongst that generation.

[Roarkiller]

Whats the big deal? Japan has lots of homos in children's manga. CCS anyone?

But yeah, to have a book focusing on gay relationships is pushing it too far. If u say its acceptable, then its arguable to say that porn is acceptable in some families too. Sick ones, that is.

[shazza]

Japan is a very different culture to ours, Roarkiller.

[pokemaniacbill]

You mean where the Prince marries the other Prince? The one people are whining about, with the same issue that's been debated over for god-knows-how-long?

Good lord, I don't care, as long as it's bloody explained to the child. It'll confuse them if homosexulaity and heterosexuality aren't explained properly.

[RedStarWarrior]

Well, I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I don't see a problem with this book as it will allow people to get used to the idea of homosexuality at a young age and thus allow us to have a more accepting society.

[Green_Pikachu]

homosexuality is normal. and i dont care about the rate of occurence. having a leap year every four years is normal, is it not? just because it doesnt happen often/aren't a lot of something doesn't mean it should be considered abnormal.

[Mewtwo-D2]

I only hope this will convince more parents that it's their job, not the school's, to raise their children. More and more parents have given up teaching their children their families beliefs about morality, letting the school do it for them. It's an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and it's sad that more people don't notice it at all.

The reason that I don't think they should have that book is that sex isn't something that first graders need to be learning about. This culture has been pushing sexuality on younger and younger children, and it's doing far more harm than good, considering how many parents are letting the schools raise their children. I don't particularly like it myself, but it would be better to have a book about homosexuals in middle school, and keep it and all other books concerning sex out of elementary schools. When I was that age, I never thought 'Oh, Princess Aurora and the Prince are going to have sex'. I didn't know what sex was. I just thought a man and a woman lived happily ever after and babies never really concerned me. But books about alternate sexual practices can raise fairly awkward questions about a subject that their parents may not want them to know about yet. What if the book was about a prince who's true love turned out to be a hardcore S&M bondage queen? Should parents have to accept that because it's intolerant of people with S&M fetishes to not teach first graders about it?

Leave the sex and politics out of elementary schools. They'll only be children for so long, so why are we trying to ram adulthood down their throats?

[Ferilian]

The problem doesn't lie in the book, but within the people. America and most of the Americans are homophobic *chough*bush*cough*, and also assimilated into thinking homosexuality is gross and a big joke. (hrumpf, goes to show how mature we are 8-|) So, when we see something as simple as a childrens book showing a type of relationship that the majority is not, or that is different than the majority, we freak and want to censor it. It's sad how so many can't accept something different than them.

Sorry for ranting, but we're doing a ton on censoring and that sort of thing in school recently.

[Green_Pikachu]

The problem doesn't lie in the book, but within the people. America and most of the Americans are homophobic *chough*bush*cough*, and also assimilated into thinking homosexuality is gross and a big joke. (hrumpf, goes to show how mature we are 8-|) So, when we see something as simple as a childrens book showing a type of relationship that the majority is not, or that is different than the majority, we freak and want to censor it. It's sad how so many can't accept something different than them.

Sorry for ranting, but we're doing a ton on censoring and that sort of thing in school recently.

ahahahha. this kid is so right. "oh no, boys holding hands, that's not right!!!! HEAVENS NO!"

[Razola]

The problem doesn't lie in the book, but within the people. America and most of the Americans are homophobic *chough*bush*cough*, and also assimilated into thinking homosexuality is gross and a big joke.

It's not a matter of homophobia, but of maturity level. Save that kind of stuff for private schools. Government schools should leave it to the parents, and keep both kinds of books out of the classrooms.

[Green_Pikachu]

...and thinking that homosexuality should be ignored is mature?


might as well get it into their head at an early age that its normal. kids do learn the most they'll ever learn from like ages 3-8 or something. i don't know the exact ages, but it's early on in their lives. might as well do it now so they don't grow up to hate gays like bush.

[Razola]

Yes it, should be ignored, along with heterosexuality. I have no problem with it in private schools, but leave it to the the parents for kids in public schools. We can wait until middle school for that sort of discussion.

And at least Bush is open with his opinion, unlike Bill "Don't ask, Don't Tell" Clinton.

[Tallest_Los]

Dude. Homosexuality has nothing to do with sex. A homosexual relationship is no more sexual than a heterosexual relationship. So by putting a homosexual relationship in a kids book, you are NOT putting sex into the book, not by a long shot. What the flying hell does bondage have to do with being gay? Ugh. Seriously, some people...

I think the book is fine. Two guys dating. OMG, run, everyone. All they do is KISS. Sexual my ass. o.o;;

[Iveechan]

When I was five, I read that story about the turtle who wanted to fly so he got a pair of ducks to hold s stick that the turtle clutched on to with his mouth, and when he greeted a bird hello, he fell and broke into many pieces. THAT made me cry and upset for days. I'm sure this book will be more enlightening than traumatizing, but I can see how people can be iffy about it. I'm not all for banning books, though this one still seems odd to me. I agree that first grade does seem a bit young. Wait 'til fourth grade when kids have more complex minds. However, if they ask questions at an early age on the subject, I see nothing wrong with the book.

[Green_Pikachu]

omg gay people are totally more promiscuous than heterosexuals! i have data that proves it, i swear, but no one can ever seen it! gays are the devil! let's kill them!

^-- thoughts running through Bush's head.

i say learning about homosexuality/heterosexuality is just as important as math and english, buddy. because really, are grammar rules as important as learning how to deal with different types of people? let's get a race course in school too. let's learn how the Americans killed all the Indians, and planted the HIV Virus in Haiti. Let's learn that.

wait, what's that? oh, yeah. we're scared to teach the REAL history.

[Razola]

wait, what's that? oh, yeah. we're scared to teach the REAL history.

I like how you say that as if it's shocking and I've never heard it in school about 5,000 times. Why not mention the crap that went on in Europe? Spanish Inquisition much? Children's Crusade lately? Sell your people to slave traders as of late? But no, we killed some indians and that's NEVER been discussed before.

[Green_Pikachu]

look in a US history book, jackass. tell me where it says we slaughtered millions and millions of Indians.

also, I didn't know we were talking about Europe. if that's the case, we can. I was kinda talking about the USA, if you couldn't tell.

[Little_Pikachu]

For as long as there have been stories about Kings and Queens, heros and bad guys, there's always been some relationship element in them. Gay relationships aren't all about sex, as with straight relationships.
This isn't about a book of gay sex positions being handed out to 5 year olds, this is a simple story in which a prince chooses to marry another man, I bet it's more entertaining than anything with all the princesses being unsiutable and such, haven't read it myself, but I bet it's the sort of material children will laugh at and enjoy rather than going to ask mom about how homosexuals work.

If they want to ban this, they should ban every other book with a slight hint of a relationship or marriage, and from what I remember in my first school, that's going to leave them with "My first dictionary".

[Razola]

look in a US history book, jackass. tell me where it says we slaughtered millions and millions of Indians.

Indians
activism of, 962, 1001-2
assimilation of, 601-2
citizenship of, 601, 602
dam-buildings as damaging to, 774, 937
discrimination against, 597, 599-602, 909

Guess it ain't so hidden after all.

also, I didn't know we were talking about Europe. if that's the case, we can. I was kinda talking about the USA, if you couldn't tell.

---->My point






---->You

The US has done a lot of cruel and bad things, but other countries have done just as much, if not more. You act as if the US has some sort of dark history, when we're just as much a jackass a everyone else.

[Green_Pikachu]

uh...you gave me page numbers. that means nothing, lol. i bet on none of the pages it reveals the true history. it probably says something to the effect of, "and americans kept moving west, pushing the indians further off their land." instead of saying that we slaughtered them.

and yeah, other countries have done bad things. but i live in america. why would i talk about other countries that i don't even live in?

[Razola]

uh...you gave me page numbers. that means nothing, lol. i bet on none of the pages it reveals the true history. it probably says something to the effect of, "and americans kept moving west, pushing the indians further off their land." instead of saying that we slaughtered them.

Probably not, since it is from 1870-Now. But I've been hearing about the Indians and the trail of tears since fifth or sixth grade. It's tragic, but not a secret. Hell, the History channel talks about it a lot, when it's not showing five hour Hitler marathons.

and yeah, other countries have done bad things. but i live in america. why would i talk about other countries that i don't even live in?

Compare and contrast. Sure, we do bad things, but it's not like we're unqiue. I also hold an interest in world history, not just ours.

[Green_Pikachu]

oh no, not the trail of tears! lol. who DOESN'T know about that. that's not what I'm referring to at all.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Pariah, I have no idea what kind of school you go to, but at my old one, they never stopped telling us how many Indians died when the Europeans came over. The REAL history they don't teach is that white people are not the source of all evil in the world. In fact, we spent five chapters on the effects of European exploration- such as spread of disease, death, chaos, and the rounding up of Indians to put them in special camps consisting of the land we didn't want. They spent one chapter discussing World War II, and didn't even name any of the battles except for the Normandy Invasion. The war in the Pacific was reduced to a mention of Pearl Harbor and a five-page diatribe of why it was wrong that we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.

As for the book raising questions about sex, it's because the image most kids will be familiar with at that age is mommy and daddy, man and woman. If I had read a book at that age about daddy and daddy I would've had a lot of questions as how does that work? I think for first graders they should stick with things like Winnie the Pooh, early Betsy~Tacy, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and things like that. Books about children, written specifically for children. They have nothing to do with any relationship other than friendship. Friendship should be one of the main values we're teaching to elementary school children and we're not. You can promote tolerance afterwards, but a child should not be taught to assimilate with what the school board considers to be the norm. They shouldn't be sexualized at that young an age. They should learn about real friends, manners, how to stand on their own two feet. They should have the kinds of books that teach that in their library and on their required reading lists. They have to learn that it's normal to not agree with or like everybody, but should also learn when it's okay to speak up and when they should be quiet about it. Go ahead and take out all the books that deal with relationships other than friendship from elementary school libraries, even Tom Sawyer if they feel the need to. That leaves a lot of books, and a lot of them are much better suited to the age group. Let the parents teach their children about adult relationships. Keep those books in public libraries, in the childrens section and let the parents decide which ones they want their kids to read.

The only books I can think of that they would take out would be a few fairy tales, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, and the Babysitters Club. I still have most of the books I had when I was 6 or 7, and very few of them deal with relationships stronger than friendship. A lot of them barely mentioned the parents, except for Besty~Tacy and the Little House books, and plenty of them had single parents, whether from death or divorce. I think parents should have more control over what their children are being sent home with at that level. No book should be assigned to the required reading list without having a meeting that involves parents. If they don't care enough to show up, then so be it, but the parents who actually care about their children should have a say in what their children are being forced to read.

[Razola]

oh no, not the trail of tears! lol. who DOESN'T know about that. that's not what I'm referring to at all.

I could've sworn you were talking about it in general. I don't recall any technology back then that could kill millions of Indians instantly. There's also general killing caused by the manifest destiny, along with the Massacre at Wounded Knee. There's a lot of examples. What more do you want?

And Mewtwo-D2 speaketh the truth. I'm not looking for a pardon for any atrocities of the past, but this hidden history you go on about is already part of the curriculum.

[The Decapitated Mole]

Pariah, I have no idea what kind of school you go to, but at my old one, they never stopped telling us how many Indians died when the Europeans came over. The REAL history they don't teach is that white people are not the source of all evil in the world. In fact, we spent five chapters on the effects of European exploration- such as spread of disease, death, chaos, and the rounding up of Indians to put them in special camps consisting of the land we didn't want. They spent one chapter discussing World War II, and didn't even name any of the battles except for the Normandy Invasion. The war in the Pacific was reduced to a mention of Pearl Harbor and a five-page diatribe of why it was wrong that we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.

As for the book raising questions about sex, it's because the image most kids will be familiar with at that age is mommy and daddy, man and woman. If I had read a book at that age about daddy and daddy I would've had a lot of questions as how does that work? I think for first graders they should stick with things like Winnie the Pooh, early Betsy~Tacy, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and things like that. Books about children, written specifically for children. They have nothing to do with any relationship other than friendship. Friendship should be one of the main values we're teaching to elementary school children and we're not. You can promote tolerance afterwards, but a child should not be taught to assimilate with what the school board considers to be the norm. They shouldn't be sexualized at that young an age. They should learn about real friends, manners, how to stand on their own two feet. They should have the kinds of books that teach that in their library and on their required reading lists. They have to learn that it's normal to not agree with or like everybody, but should also learn when it's okay to speak up and when they should be quiet about it. Go ahead and take out all the books that deal with relationships other than friendship from elementary school libraries, even Tom Sawyer if they feel the need to. That leaves a lot of books, and a lot of them are much better suited to the age group. Let the parents teach their children about adult relationships. Keep those books in public libraries, in the childrens section and let the parents decide which ones they want their kids to read.

The only books I can think of that they would take out would be a few fairy tales, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, and the Babysitters Club. I still have most of the books I had when I was 6 or 7, and very few of them deal with relationships stronger than friendship. A lot of them barely mentioned the parents, except for Besty~Tacy and the Little House books, and plenty of them had single parents, whether from death or divorce. I think parents should have more control over what their children are being sent home with at that level. No book should be assigned to the required reading list without having a meeting that involves parents. If they don't care enough to show up, then so be it, but the parents who actually care about their children should have a say in what their children are being forced to read.

So... you're saying that children should not be taught tolerance from a young age? Leave tolerance until they're older. How about puberty, the time when they're likely to be the least tolerant? Or how about after that, when they've already had it drilled into their heads for 19 years that these people are wrong? Teach tolerance at an early age, it will get through. Friendship just happens naturally. It's not something you have to teach/learn about.

And as for the "sexuality" of the book: that book is about as sexual as Aladdin. And if memory serves that's rated what, G? What, the guys kiss? OH NO!!! OUR KIDS ARE BEING BRAINWASHED TO BE NYMPHOMANIACAL BI[or homo]SEXUAL FREAKS! BAN EVERY BOOK WITH THE LETTER "S" IN IT!!! Also, the child was not "forced" to read this book. She checked it out of a school library, according to Raz's article. Why ban any of these books? I've been reading since a very early age, and all the books you listed to be banned are wonderful books, and also books which were not written for 1st graders. Let the 3rd+ grade kids read Nancy Drew. Who cares? Is Nancy Drew going to change the way they see the world? I think not.

o_0
jimm

[Iveechan]

... that's why I said to explain homosexuality at the fourth grade level. At that age, kids are surprisingly intelligent and did not hit puberty yet. And, as ideal as homosexuality being fully excepted and considered "normal" is, in this day and age we still have countless homophobes or folks who are just ignorant of same sex relationships. I think the book is a great idea, I just don't feel that it's ready to be safely put in a public place yet. Try and be a bit realistic.

[Zak]

I saw this coming, and I'd like a big round of applause to whoever's idea it was. It would drop the rate of homophobia, and to everyone thinking "OMG GAY SEX", gay romance =/= gay sex. Of course, I'm not surprised there's an uproar about this from mainly Christians. The only difference is that homosexuals are a MINORITY, yet that would make banning this even worse. That would mean to ban all books involving minority religions and races.

Also, I'm sure at first people in first grade may be like "wtf I thought love was only between a man and a woman" and just like all shocks, they can learn something. It's just as shocking as learning all those odd science facts, but I'm sure over the years people will get used to this, and it will hopefully drop.

~Zak

[Mewtwo-D2]

What books that I suggested banning? I've been reading since the age of 2 and 1/2, and if to be fair, they leave books with adult relationships completely out of the first grade levels, then so be it. I was pointing out some good books that focus on children.

As for the teaching of tolerance, they don't. They teach everything that is not straight white Christian is good, and that's plenty intolerant. They should teach not everyone is going to agree, since that's real life. They should teach that the 11th Commandment is not 'Thou Shalt Not Offend Anyone Who is Not a Straight White Christian'. What goes into the school library should be voted on by the parents of the community. Let them decide what to ban and what to allow. There will still be public libraries where the kids can read whatever the hell they want. Teaching homosexuality to first graders won't promote tolerance: in fact, it's likely that plenty of parents will be outraged and treat their children to long lectures about just why homosexuality is wrong. The kids whose parents are more accepting of homosexuality may have already heard of what it is, or the kids whose parents are strongly in favor of homosexuality will be treated to lectures on why homosexuality is right and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe. That's a nice and confusing thing to dump on a 6-year-old, isn't it?

Iveechan is right, if they must teach sex education in elementary schools, do it in the fourth, or maybe fifth grade. Let the children be children, and leave the kindergarteners, first-graders, and second-graders. As for third-graders, they'll read anything you tell them not to, so there you go.

[Kris]

I only hope this will convince more parents that it's their job, not the school's, to raise their children.

Exactly!

Parents need to teach their own children the facts of life firstly, if they dont then its their own fault for the kids not understanding and getting confused about the subject!

[Craig]

homosexuality is normal. and i dont care about the rate of occurence. having a leap year every four years is normal, is it not?

by comparing the rate of occurence of homosexuality to leap years,you are in a way saying that the world has 1.5 billion gays as of right now.

Keep the book, this is a new age... Maybe it will stop kids from getting the nasty habit of saying things are gay , that would be :k-rad:

[GirlRepellant]

Well obviously parents CAN'T be depended upon to teach kids tolerance, or else there would be a hell of a lot more of it in the world. Mewtwo-D2: What kind of idiot are you? I'm a straight, white, middle-class, suburban, ex-Christian American, and I can guarantee that I've NEVER been truly discriminated against. I don't know what kind of books you read in school, but none of mine went into how white Christian males are the devil. Sure, the books document the terrible things they've done in the past: the Holocaust, slavery, massacring natives, etc. But what do you want them to do? Exlude that stuff because it might offend us sensitive straight white Christian males who have been discriminated against and held down for so long? How DARE they dessimate my culture like that by focusing only on the bad, and ignoring all the wonderful things us whites have done; such as installing Democracy in many parts of the world, inventing the cures to countless diseases, revolutionizing every field of science... wait, we do cover that in textbooks. Oops, I guess I'm just a bigot.

Oh, and as far as the "normalcy" of homosexuality is concerned, estimates put about 8% of the U.S. population as being gay. By contrast, only 1.5% of America's population has red hair. Should we not portray redheads in childrens' books because "they aren't used to it?"

[The Muffin Man]

For as long as there have been stories about Kings and Queens, heros and bad guys, there's always been some relationship element in them. Gay relationships aren't all about sex, as with straight relationships.
This isn't about a book of gay sex positions being handed out to 5 year olds, this is a simple story in which a prince chooses to marry another man, I bet it's more entertaining than anything with all the princesses being unsiutable and such, haven't read it myself, but I bet it's the sort of material children will laugh at and enjoy rather than going to ask mom about how homosexuals work.

If they want to ban this, they should ban every other book with a slight hint of a relationship or marriage, and from what I remember in my first school, that's going to leave them with "My first dictionary".

But it might say sex! Or kissing!! Or even hug!!

*Gasp*We can't have that evil, dirty book! It TEACHES things!


EDIT - FFS...Gay relationships ARE NOT SEXUAL EDUCATION...It's teaching TOLERANCE. No one said to teach our kids sex education in first grade. They want them to accept that gay couples are not only possible, but acceptable. They're not promoting sex. Stop equating gay = buttsex so damn much. There's more to a gay relationship than constant promiscuous sex y'know.

[Mewtwo-D2]

GirlRepellant, were you not aware that the Holocaust was carried out by majority neo-pagans?

I live in an area of extreme political correctness, and am probably a lot more effected by reverse racism then many because I'm a conservative activist. I've been told I owe blacks reparations despite the fact that not a one of my ancestors ever owned a black slave. The only slaves my ancestors ever owned were the Vikings enslaving other whites. In my area, straight white Christians are all but demonized by the schools. I was in the honors program, and maybe that's why, but the accomplishments of whites were glossed over, and we spent twice as much time studying the cultures of non-whites. I think they should give equal time to both subjects, but when they reduce Isaac Newton's discoveries to a paragraph, and devote a chapter to the religious practices of Aztecs, that strikes me as a tad imbalanced.

In my former high school they had orginizations for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, and none at all for whites. If you had suggested such a thing as a white student group you'd have been stoned. The golden rule was don't offend the minorities, even if it offends the majority. They were even going to paint over a mural of WWII because it contained a swastika. What next? Banning textbooks because they have swastikas? Not that that would make much difference, since WWII was only in one chapter. Maybe the area you live in uses different text books than mine did, but you couldn't get much more discriminatory.

[Razola]

Upon further reflection, I'd say that you can either have both types of books or none at all. Either one works for me.

[Dean]

This is pathetic. I am seriously sick and tired of society judging people and deciding that other people should only believe what they believe. Parents don't want kids to learn about homosexuals and evolution? Maybe I don't want bigot assholes telling kids what to learn. By teaching children "christian morals" and by excluding or including certain details in their teachings, you are essentially brainwashing children to think what you want them to think. That's NOT how you teach someone. Free will my ass, if you are told what to believe from birth then you aren't making a choice, it's already been made for you.

[Andrew]

I'm wondering why the title of the book isn't Queen&Queen j/k

I think its an interesting book concept really, just a glance at the cover made me think it was just another storybook, but I reckon it'd bring up a few questions in storytime, and only the most foolhardy teacher would really read it to the class, and then, I can see a mob of angry parents coming up and abusing them

If they made it part of the lesson plan then the parents really wouldn't have the basis to complain. But its good that well they're educating kids about different relationships, I had no idea gay people existed til they advertised the Gay and Lesbian MardiGras on tv as a televised event to which I was told "They're dirty, evil people!"

So I reckon these kids are getting a good idea, but I don't think that they should have it rammed down their throats either.

[GreenShirT]

I suppose a book with a hint of a gay relationship in it would be more of a twist than the average run of the mill story of which everyone is used to so wouldn't really get anything from it and find it dull (being able to predict the ending and general story)

Honestly I can't see any harm in it. Plays and storys in the past featured gay relationships and people weren't bothered about it I guess parents and society are way too 'protective' and taboo on subjects like these...

[Heald]

I am a raving homophobe. Please slap me.

What a moron.

He also says 'it's not in our beliefs'. What isn't? The fact that there is homosexuality in the world or you think that homosexuality is morally wrong.

I can guarantee that this is on his favorites.

WARNING: The above link is rather extremist and so do not click unless you want to be bombarded with Bible quotes.

Frankly, people need to know about homosexuality and why it is a real issue. When people are sheltered from homosexuality, they begin to believe that it is wrong and hence may perform attacks, both verbal and physical, on other homosexuals.

And besides, I hate the word 'gay' being used as an insult, especially if used as in a derogatory manner.