School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

how the hell is telling them that everyone is equal,denying them a normal childhood? The fear you have,is irrational,and probably built from hate. What you got against poofters then?


Hey, if all the teacher had done was tell the kids 'all people are equal .. be kind to everyone whether or not they're different to you and your family and friends' then fine.

But she didn't do that, did she ?

If she had --- this thread wouldn't be here


As to the rest of your post .. well, it says quite a bit about you.

Originally posted by schism85
I don't think we can be sure that they are being explained to what the word gay actually means.

What do you think the word gay actually means?

I'm not picking on you – I really respect your mindset in this thread so far. But I think this is a key issue and part of why people become so afraid and reactive about the very idea of talking to kids about homosexuality.

At that age, I don't think they would teach kids anything more specific than, while some adults like to spend time with members of the opposite sex, there are some who like to be with members of the same sex, and even live with them like parents might live together.

Homosexuality is about love and intimacy, not just bathhouses.

Just like heterosexuality is about love and intimacy, not just whorehouses.

Quite a bit about me,oh do go on....

And if it was that easy to stop hate crime,by just saying "everyone is equal" then there'd be no hate crime. That hasn't worked up until now,so it's time for a new approach. Do you agree,that it is a good thing,to try and to stop children being bullied? Or is it just a part of growing up?

It is very serious,and not just for gay words,all words that are used in hate abuse should be dealt with. Otherwise this list of dead kids just gets longer and longer.

www.bullyonline.org...

But that's ok,cos it's just part of grwoing up,I'd rather my kids were ignorant to it all. that line of thinking is sick.


edit cos I ballsed the quote up,this is a reply to Dock6

[edit on 2/11/2008 by Acidtastic]

reply to post by Dock6


It sounds like you handled that situation tactfully Dock BUT those two guys are not indicitive of the entire GLBT crowd.

It sounds like they were just desperate for attention. It's very tactless of them to do that in front of your kids, too.

I don't think that the premise is bad but kindergarten is really too young for a child to understand sexuality at all.

I don't think a kid is going to realize that he is gay or bisexual until he is close to puberty. He may show some tendancies but as far as actually putting it into sexuality, I don't thinkt hat shows up until much later than 5 or 6, just like a straight kid's desire to be romantic with the opposite sex doesn't kick in until the hormones are released.

Although this is not true from Transgenderism, which is a separate phenomena... most of my transgendered friends said that they knew the sex they were supposed to be since their earliest memories, even if they didnt' act on it.

reply to post by americandingbat


I think that would be okay, after all, a child at that age doesn't recognize 2 people having sex. In their eyes the stork brings babies to all people.

BTW, I don't even know what a bathhouse is. And you couldn't pick on me........... bully.




ETA: I also don't know what kind of agenda the organization who presented the cards have, so I only go off of what I know.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]

reply to post by schism85




I'm showing my age

Go ahead and Google it if you want; let's just say that it was a pretty close parallel, though my understanding of the phenomenon of the bathhouse (and I'm a straight woman, so I'm not going on personal experience here) involved less cash exchange.

Reply to Asmeone2 I agree that a kid won't understand or be able to identify their own sexuality at that age, but do you see the point in trying to teach tolerance to others at that age? To teach them that words like "fag" are bad and should not be used as schoolyard insults?

I have no fear in my posts or my thinking.
I have reason.
Reason without emotions is analytical and logical.
Reason without passion or prejudice.
Current resentments are the intellectual product of past unresolved emotional experiences.
An adult GLBTH hears one five year old tell another five year old "You are a queer."
This adult GLBTH is reminded of their past when they were called the same.
Because this adult did not resolve their own hurt and pain, they emotionally reason, via resentment, that they will prevent this from happening again, more because they are ill at ease with their own unresolved feelings, than the one kid calling the other kid a name.

So they set out upon a course to stop all name calling.

And still do not ever deal with their own baggage.

Phobias are the ultimate example of unresolved feelings from the past.
People with phobis KNOW how silly, irrational, illogical their actions are but continue to act in phobic ways in spite of logic, reason, analysis.

I feel angry at preferential treatment. Because it engenders resentment in persons outside of the protected group.

Pledge cards will make the matter worse, in the long run, not better.

Firstly, my admiration to Dock6. One of those stars was from me, for self-control. In the same situation, with two gay men trying to shock my young children, I would be arrested and they would be in some pretty good pain for a while. I try to maintain a calm demeanor throughout my life travels, but should an adult attack my children, be that attack physical or emotional, I don't think there are enough Marlboros in Virginia to keep me calm. Of course, that would place me in a bit of legal jeopardy, so Dock6's approach was clearly superior to what mine would probably have been.

The issue I have with this is not whether children should be taught to respect others; of course they should. But let's look at a little of the wording here:
Source: Photo of pledge card on www.foxnews.com...

"Daddy, what's an 'ally'?"
"Daddy, what's 'anti-LGBT'?" (I couldn't have answered this myself until a couple years ago)
"Daddy what's 'lesbian'?"
"Daddy, what's 'gay'?"
"Daddy, what's 'bisexual'?"
"Daddy, what's 'train-general'?" ( )
"Daddy, what's a 'slur'?"

OK, we got through the first paragraph, and there were only 7 words out of 17 that were clearly beyond the vocabulary range of kindergartners. 41% of the words used were beyond the comprehension level of the kids who were encouraged to sign it. Nice. And when they grow up to be an adult, there's a good precedent for signing papers they do not understand. Can anyone remember that there was a lot of anger towards banks over the housing crisis because 'the people didn't know what they were signing'?

Sexual curiosity kicks in about ages 10-12. Now I'm not saying kids don't have some normal curiosity about the plumbing and differences earlier, but that curiosity is not of a sexual nature. There is no physical difference between a gay man and a straight man. There is no physical difference between a straight woman and a lesbian. The differences are sexual, which happens between the ears. At age 5, that sexual orientation is not there.

If this were about some 4th or 5th grade teacher trying this, I would probably shake my head and go on with my business. At that age, sexual awakenings may be beginning, and despite any misgivings I might have at that point, the seeds of hatred may indeed be sprouting. That's when you cut them down. Ask any farmer, it does one no good to till the weed seeds before they sprout; but it will do great good to till them as soon as they sprout. As it is with hatred and bigotry.

IMO, this teacher is doing no different than Dock6's harassers were doing. Just because you have the right to practice something does not mean you have the right to flaunt it in my face. You want to find those sprouting seeds of hatred? Look to those who are pressing their sexual 'freedoms' into the public arena where, in polite society, no outrageous sexual activity is condoned. That's high-yield fertilizer for those seeds! If I were to dress up in tight shorts and an open-chested leather shirt, and my wife was to wear only slinky lingerie while we were out in public, we'd be shunned and looked down upon. Why is it supposedly any different for someone who acts that way and is gay? If I were to find out my kids' teacher was teaching them about what a penis and vagina were used for in kindergarten, I would be just as shocked and dismayed as I am at this. So why is it different for a teacher who is pushing the politically-correct gay agenda, but in the same way?

Look, I have four friends now who are foremost in my mind as I type this. All are either gay or bisexual. The first, who is local, I said some pretty hurtful things to a couple decades ago when he came out of the closet. We recently met back up, and he was the same person I had grown up with... except that while he still considered me a friend, he didn't think I considered him as one. That really hurt when I realized what I had done to him. I am glad to say now, however, that we are again close friends.

The second one that comes to mind, I did not even know was gay until I had known (Internet-based friendship) him for some time. It's not that he wasn't open about it; he is very much so. The subject just never came up when we talked. It finally did, but my respect for him would not allow that one difference to sway my feelings. I met him after a few years at a convention I attended. We had a great time, talking and laughing together. To this day, I consider him one of the most intelligent, caring, giving, and moral individuals I have ever known.

The third I met only briefly. I knew he was gay, because he often referenced his "boyfriend" in conversations. But, other than that one thing, he is a lot like me. We also met while I was driving a truck. I walked out of that restaurant with a big smile on my face because I had a great time sitting and talking to him. I haven't talked to him in years, but I still think of him often.

The fourth I can claim to be a closer friend with than 95% of the people I have ever known. We have met once in person, but talk on the phone quite regularly (and at great length). We often disagree vehemently on issues, but we are able to disagree, argue our cases, and at the end remain friends. I consider that a noble trait. About a year ago, I think, he confided to me that he thought he was bisexual. He asked me if it made a difference. My response was "Is it supposed to?". He laughed, brought up a good debate issue, and we had a great time over the span of four states.

There are quite a few more people I know who are gay, but these four just seemed to pop into my mind. In my younger (and rougher) years, I had a reputation among the gays in town: stay away and stay standing. Now, as I look back at those years, I understand why I was that way. I was anti-gay (not homophobic, as there was no fear on my end) because of the gay people I had been exposed to, and the fact that I was confused about what was 'wrong' with them. Their actions, which seemed to me to be a type of 'recruitment', were unwanted and bothered me. That's all the detail I will go into here.

So to those who see nothing wrong with gay guys parading about town and trying shock therapy on the public, you are only harming your own cause; you are creating more opponents. To those who see nothing wrong with this article, you are making others see recruitment, whether any exists or not, and harming your own cause. All of the sensitivity training in the world will not overcome anger at having something one does not like thrown up into their face, and nothing you can say to a kindergartner will make them able to overlook actions that legitimately bother them later, especially sexual actions they do not even understand yet.

If you want to be gay, are gay, heck, I don't care. I'm not in your bedroom telling you who (or even what) you can have in there. I promise you I will NOT be in your bedroom for any reason. But if you want acceptance from society, you have to be a part of society. If you choose to be a thorn in the side of others, or if you condone, encourage, or simply ignore others with something in common with you doing so, you are responsible for some of the prejudice you receive as a result of that.

Let the flames begin.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by fmcanarney

An adult GLBTH hears one five year old tell another five year old "You are a queer."
This adult GLBTH is reminded of their past when they were called the same.
Because this adult did not resolve their own hurt and pain, they emotionally reason, via resentment, that they will prevent this from happening again, more because they are ill at ease with their own unresolved feelings, than the one kid calling the other kid a name.

I just don't understand why it is so bad to try and stop this behavior, no matter what the motives are? Isn't intolerance bad, and hurtful to alot of people? If it was the n word, would this even be a debate?

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Homosexual, gay, lesbian populations and subculture individualy do not reproduce, so they must recruit.

To continue to fill their ranks and remain a viable population.

They must begin at a tender and impressionable age, 5-6 year old, in order to desensitize children to what they are taught at home about moral rights and wrongs.

The boy scouts defended their policy to prohibit gay scout leaders, as this is like letting the fox guard the hen house.
Efforts will constantly be made to lure, coerce, recruit members to the GLTH way of living. What better place than kindergarten or first grade. Deliver it under the guise of "safe school" anti hate language trojan horse and who can argue against that philosophy.

This entire post is full of your fear that people are trying to turn our children gay.

Why do you think that this is even possible? Do you really think that gay sex would be more fulfilling than heterosexual sex? Or that a homosexual relationship would make you more happy than a heterosexual one?

Why do we have to worry that our kids will be "recruited"?

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thanks for the snippet. I didn't get a chance to read that card. This will raise alot of questions in the minds of children, that shouldn't be answered at that age. There is nothing wrong with teaching tolerance, but those children couldn't even of possible understood what they were signing. How do you appropriately explain to a 6 yr old what a transgender and a bisexual is??

[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The issue I have with this is not whether children should be taught to respect others; of course they should. But let's look at a little of the wording here:

"By signing this card, I ____________, am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

As an ally, I pledge to:

1. Not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) language or slurs.
   
2. Intervene, where I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students.
   
3. Actively support safer schools efforts.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: Photo of pledge card on www.foxnews.com...

"Daddy, what's an 'ally'?"
"Daddy, what's 'anti-LGBT'?" (I couldn't have answered this myself until a couple years ago)
"Daddy what's 'lesbian'?"
"Daddy, what's 'gay'?"
"Daddy, what's 'bisexual'?"
"Daddy, what's 'train-general'?" (

)
"Daddy, what's a 'slur'?"

OK, we got through the first paragraph, and there were only 7 words out of 17 that were clearly beyond the vocabulary range of kindergartners. 41% of the words used were beyond the comprehension level of the kids who were encouraged to sign it.

And if the teacher had explained those terms to the children? So you didn't have to say "sometimes two men live together like your mommy and I do"?

"Ally" seems like a pretty good word for a kindergartener to learn, actually.

Nice. And when they grow up to be an adult, there's a good precedent for signing papers they do not understand. Can anyone remember that there was a lot of anger towards banks over the housing crisis because 'the people didn't know what they were signing'?

I agree about the signature thing, as I've said in my other posts. And if people in this thread were objecting to the teacher soliciting a signature, I would not be here arguing. But I don't think the people who are offended by this would be equally offended if it had been an oath card to not judge or make fun of others based on their religious affiliation.

Sexual curiosity kicks in about ages 10-12. Now I'm not saying kids don't have some normal curiosity about the plumbing and differences earlier, but that curiosity is not of a sexual nature. There is no physical difference between a gay man and a straight man. There is no physical difference between a straight woman and a lesbian. The differences are sexual, which happens between the ears. At age 5, that sexual orientation is not there.

If this were about some 4th or 5th grade teacher trying this, I would probably shake my head and go on with my business. At that age, sexual awakenings may be beginning, and despite any misgivings I might have at that point, the seeds of hatred may indeed be sprouting.

But the hatred towards gays is already being taught, and the children are already using words that refer to gays as generalized insults. That they don't understand sexuality is beside the point.

No flames, just thoughts

reply to post by Acidtastic



Heterosexuals go to quite a bit of trouble, time and expense in the creation and raising of a child.

I'm doubtful you have such experience, or your approach and manner would be different to what you've displayed here.

A five year old is a very vulnerable little creature, not worldly wise, not cynical, not hard bitten, not bitter.

A five year old who's just commenced kindergarten is attempting to deal with a lot of new, unexpected and often anxiety-causing experiences and emotions. They're separated from their parents for usually the first time. They're in a new, often frightening and difficult environment.

They're learning to share toys, space and attention. They're learning that not everyone thinks as they do or reacts as they do.

It's a lot to take on board.

The child is experiencing much that's new and unknown.
So are the parents.

Only parents can understand the above.

If you haven't had children of that tender age, you cannot understand.
You can't understand what it's like to surrender your child to the big world, or understand the anxieties experienced by parents about doing so.

To learn their young, very young children have been exposed to discussion or even the suggestion of discussion of sexual matters at kindergarten .. particularly without prior consultation by the teacher .. is tantamount (in a parent's mind) to gross impropriety or even an assault upon their children.

You appear to be viewing this as of no account.

You have said that if this prevents one guy from being bashed outside a gay pub, then it's justified.

Which sounds self-centred. Your concern is for gays. I've asked where is your concern for the right of children to enjoy their childhood without having the sexual orientation of adults drawn to their attention ?

I don't go to pubs, gay or otherwise, because as a female, it's not safe. It has never been safe. Drunks, rapists, muggers and their ilk make it unsafe. If I decide to go to a pub or to walk down a street after dark, or wait for a train on a darkened railway station ... there's a possibility I might be attacked or robbed, etc.

My choice. Choices have consequences.

Yes, it would be nice to be able to go wherever I liked, in safety. I might even claim it's my right. Often, we're compelled to take calculated risk.

But if I undertake to go somewhere in the knowledge I'll be targeted simply because as a female I'm smaller and weaker and regarded by elements within society as 'prey'-- then insisting on my 'right' to proceed unmolested will not be much defence against a determined attacker.

So I limit my activities because others in society have no respect for what I regard as my rights.

Many men who're physically smaller and/or weaker than the majority are compelled to exercise the same caution as women. They don't enjoy it, but they'd enjoy being beaten or killed even less.

Do you see what I mean ? We're all confronted by potential danger and unpleasantness throughout much of our lives. We all fall into one or another 'minority' group.

If we're intelligent, we limit our exposure to danger and we do so by curtailing our own activities. It's not the ideal. But if we hope to survive, we have to make the adjustment instead of attempting to force the majority to adjust. Because the majority is bigger, stronger and more powerful than we are and always will be.

Should the kindergarten teacher have included on that list

* women
* those men who are smaller and weaker than average
* the elderly
* the less intelligent
* the emotionally vulnerable
* sailors with one leg
* people with parrots on their shoulder
* people who believe in little green men
* the Amish
* people who speak another language
* the dyslexic
* people who're poor at math
* people with bad hair
* people with tattoos they regret
* people with knock-knees
* kids who're bad at sports
* kids who don't like brocolli

The list could go on for pages

We all fall into one or another minority groups

Why did the teacher focus so much on sexuality ?

Does the teacher have issues with her own sexuality ?

I do believe the teacher should have restricted her message to a more general one, such as ' If we wish to grow up to be good people and have lots of good friends, we need to be kind to those we meet, even if they seem different to us '.

It wasn't the teacher's place to introduce sex to such young children without prior consultation with the parents and unless her message was part of the approved curriculum.

This kind of sums things up a little.

The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.

How could it of been if the children didn't even know what they were signing. I think its inappropriate to teach a child what a bisexual is, or a transgender. The school knows they messed up. If they wanted to teach kids about tolerance, they should have done it in an age appropriate fashion.

reply to post by schism85



I agree with you

and again, in order not to contravene the 'one liner' policy

I agree with you

First . . . if not for FOXNews, there wouldn't even be a discussion on this . . . so, that's your first clue right there.

Second, as a parent of 5yr old (beit a 1st grader) I have no problem with this at all. My son signed a pledge card like this, in Kindergarten, although his "pledge" was against all hate speech and slurs. While other race/gender examples were given, at the time, it still included LGBT terminology. Not once, since then, has my son "inquired" about what it means to be "homosexual". No where in this lesson, or the one at my son's school, did they "teach" kids about the sexual nature of being LGBT or describe "how they work".

I see the fervor over this having to do more with parents that grew up during an age of intolerance and succumbing to antiquated religious and societal stigmas. So, if you go to church and the pastor/priest speaks about the "evils of homosexuality" . . . that's okay? However, telling kids to not hate, is wrong?

It's your job, as parents, to "amend" what your kids learn in school and see in the media . . . if you are a lazy parent and don't actively participate and talk to your kids, I can see why this article might scare you. Moreover, if you think 5yr olds are "clueless" to sexuality/gender roles/differences between people . . . you either don't/haven't had a 5yr old or are/were clueless to what actually goes on in their development and what they are exposed too. It's a quite a stretch to equate teaching tolerance to showing diagrams of homosexual sex or "recruiting". Those notions are spoken from fear . . . fear that your kid will be homosexual . . . or that one day the homosexuals will come for you?

Those opposed bring up an interesting point . . . kids are too young to understand what it means to be LGBT. However, they are not too young to learn hate . . . you can either perpetuate hate or fight it. Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's our culture to perpetuate hate . . . always has . . . and it's still alive and well today.

I have a gay family member. He is young. My advice to him has always "Don't let WHAT you are define WHO you are." I.E., flamboyant behavior, etc. Why? Because there is no need for it.

If i see straight people slobbering all over each other, that is disgusting, too.

This is a stupid thing to do. Those cards have no reason to be in the hands of kindergartners, and i would likely rail to have the teacher removed from her position over it. Do i hate gays? Oh God no. Not in the least. But should lifestyle choices be pushed on children in kindergarten? LOL...yeah, obvious answer.

Matters of sex are personal, and therefore should be private. bottom line. Not keeping it that way is inappropriate.

If words hurt, like "queer", then i would think that they need to get over it. Allowing a word to have such power over you is silly.

There are two lesbians that i go visit annually in New Braunfels. One is the sister of my best friend, and i absolutely love her. She sees no problem in calling someone a "fag", and she uses that word freely. Not as a gay slur, but as a slur in general. And when she says something is "gay", she means it is stupid, or lame.

Don't let words have power over you. It is pretty simple. Look at my name...do you think i mind the word "fat"? Nope, and i have usurped any chance of power it may have over me by freely using it.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by schism85


I just don't understand why it is so bad to try and stop this behavior, no matter what the motives are? Isn't intolerance bad, and hurtful to alot of people? If it was the n word, would this even be a debate?

I refuse to debate the appropriateness of a word that a group uses to define itself.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


Don't let words have power over you. It is pretty simple. Look at my name...do you think i mind the word "fat"? Nope, and i have usurped any chance of power it may have over me by freely using it.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

I have to comment on that. I have a gay friend who refers to lame things as gay. In fact, he calls ebay, egay all the time, because he thinks ebay is lame. He actually reffered to himself as a homo once or twice. And he is all about gay rights and what not. I just wanted to say that I have had similar experiences too.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]