You really have to wonder about these people. Do they ever actually stop and think about what they say? This is from Family Research Council, which is in a snit over the film “That’s a Family!” being shown to exactly the audience it was intended for.
That’s Propaganda!
Another example of how pro-homosexual propaganda is appearing in schools–and in lower and lower grades–was reported today in The New York Times. Evesham Township, New Jersey is embroiled in controversy over a film called “That’s a Family!” which shown [sic] to a class of third-graders. Produced in 2000 with an obvious agenda to indoctrinate kids, the movie celebrates diverse “families.” It includes a child who boasts that having “two dads” is “really cool.” Interestingly enough, the film is promoting homes headed by same-sex couples–a union that, with the exception of Massachusetts, doesn’t even exist as marriage in American law.
What a weird thing to say. The film, produced by the award-winning Women’s Educational Media, isn’t about what kinds of “unions” are recognized by law as marriages.
It is about the kinds of families that real children have. This topic is in fact required to be part of the curriculum by New Jersey state law. The New York Times reports that the film introduces “children of interracial families, children of divorce, children who had been adopted “” and that did not seem to cause a ripple,” but at the inclusion of children with same sex parents “some parents complained that they should be able to decide whether their third-grade children should learn about same-sex couples in the classroom.” [Emphasis added]
At the end of the article, a parent of one of the third graders made a remark that really caused the FRC to go ballistic:
“People who don’t want the school to show the video say, ‘We can teach our own kids.’ Sure you can. But who’s going to teach you?”
This is a very good question. These people apparently need help figuring out that the film was made because it reflects the lives of the peers that their kids are already in the classroom with. They don’t have the option of “deciding” when or if their kids will learn that they have peers with same sex parents. That’s reality.
They have been lied to and told that reality = “propaganda,” and that ignorance = “truth.” What will they want to do next – forbid kids with gay parents to ever talk about their families?
People are raped and murdered, too. Shall we teach them that in third grade?
When you promote sin as being “really cool,” it is propaganda.
Families are not “sin,” Jack. Comparing a child’s family to violent crime is abuse of that child, pure and simple. Anyone who would advocate such a thing shouldn’t be allowed around children. It’s just stunning that you would actually make such a comment. You need professional help.
“What does sin have to do with a secular school curriculum anyway?”
Exactly, so they should not be teaching that it’s “really cool.”
“Love is never sinful, Jack.”
No, but sex outside of marriage is, and that’s what you are advocating.
Can’t say that I agree with you there, Jack. Failing to love your neighbor is sinful. In any case, I’m advocating that people be able to legally marry the person with whom they are in love, so you’re wrong about that, too.
So you advocate allowing siblings to marry?
No, but I advocate people marrying their dog or their toaster or their TV. Because they looooove each other.
Please spare me the repetition.
Gee, David, why should YOU be allowed to marry the person you love, but these people cannot: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2886819&page=1
Actually Jack, in-breeding in many Muslim and Hindu societies in Africa, Asia, and India is quite prevalent and there are many reasons for it, two of which are religious acceptance and tradition.
Does that make them wrong and you right because you are a Christian?
In retrospect, I should apologize for not pointing out the offensiveness of the comparison of the love between a man and his dog and a man and his toaster. To be specific, I’m quite sure that my dog loves me. My toaster, not so much. This will be self-evident to everyone, with the exception of Jack.
Gee, Jack, you are a married man, aren’t you? I assume because of this that you are able to distinguish between the love between spouses and the love between siblings. It is much more respectful of your partner, I think, to believe that your pretense of not understanding this distinction is just that – pretense.
Not at all. The people in the article that you apparently did not read did not grow up as siblings, and did not even meet until they were 27. Should they not be allowed to marry? Why not?
Well, to be honest, I don’t know what they should do. This is at best a very rare, and possibly unique, situation that really has nothing to do with the topic. As I point out in the post itself, the film “That’s a Family!” doesn’t address what kinds of unions are legally recognized as marriage, it’s about the actual families that children are being raised in.
So, to get back to that, if you don’t think kids should see this film, do you also think that the kids in any given class who have same sex parents should be told not to discuss their families, because the parents of some of the other kids “don’t want them to learn about” these families? “I’m sorry, Billy, you’re not allowed to tell your friends that your Mommies are really cool. Their parents think your Mommies are an abomination, and we don’t want to offend them.”
What about a kid being raised by a single parent? Should she be forbidden to mention her family? What if she thinks it’s “really cool” that Mommy kicked Daddy to the curb because he wasn’t very nice to them, and set an example for her to never tolerate abuse from anyone? That sounds pretty cool to me, under the circumstances.
What you are advocating is wrong for two reasons. First, it is abusive to the many kids who are part of families that, for one reason or another, don’t meet your criteria. If your reasoning is that parents have the right to determine whether their child is exposed to gay or single parents families, your de facto argument is that the children from such families must be told to shut up, and I’m sorry, you don’t have the right to do that.
Secondly, you are doing a grave disservice to all the children by giving them an inaccurate picture of the world. You are saying that the schools shouldn’t teach the children reality, because you don’t like it. The reality is that most children love their parents, and maybe even (until they’re 11 or so) think they’re “really cool.” It doesn’t matter whether the parents are gay or straight or different races or divorced or adoptive, it’s the same for everyone who has loving parents. That sounds like something to celebrate, not criticize. You really need to have an agenda to see it otherwise.
Good, David — make up a strawman that I am not advocating, but say I am advocating it, and then knock it down. I never said that CHILDREN could not discuss their “families.” But that is a long way from the SCHOOLS’ advocating such “families.”
(I am using quotes because such “families” do not fall under normal of definitions of families. One can say that the live-in butler who has been with the family for years is “part of the family,” or that the dog is “part of the family,” but that does not make them related by blood or marriage.)
“Secondly, you are doing a grave disservice to all the children by giving them an inaccurate picture of the world.”
Not at all. I’m just saying that there is no need to provide such detail to third-graders. Do they need to know about inc3$t and b3$tiality in third grade, too?
Dave — since we have amniocentesis and abortion, you objections to siblings getting married have been trampled by technology. The man could also get a vasectomy. Would that not satisfy your objections?
It’s not a strawman at all – as I explained, IF your argument is that the complaining parents have a right to prevent their children from learning that families headed by same sex couples exist – which is in fact their argument – then I don’t see how you can think it’s ok for those same children to learn the exact same thing from their peers. If the children are all equally encouraged to talk about their families, isn’t that the same lesson that’s in the film? There are all kinds of activities that elementary school classes do that would illustrate this. Make a collage that shows the members of your family and tell the class about it, for instance. I don’t see the substantive difference. They are all teaching tools.
I’m just saying that there is no need to provide such detail to third-graders.
I’m not sure what detail you are talking about here. It’s a film for little kids, with little kids talking about their families. The kids in the film are real, as are the kids in the audience. They are not abstractions. They are as detailed as any little kids are.
As I’ve reminded you before, if the only way you can talk about our families is to use scare quotes in an attempt to demean them, don’t talk about them at all. This is our house.
” IF your argument is that the complaining parents have a right to prevent their children from learning that families headed by same sex couples exist – which is in fact their argument…”
No, it is not. Their argument is that the SCHOOLS should not be promoting such living arrangements.
“C’mon Jack, are you comparing a third grader talking about his two mommies to one talking about ‘my daddy screwed my sister’ or ‘my daddy screwed my sheep?'”
I’m talking about the SCHOOLS’ promoting such things as “really cool.”
” It’s a film for little kids, with little kids talking about their families. The kids in the film are real, as are the kids in the audience. They are not abstractions. They are as detailed as any little kids are.”
Shall we also show them the little kids whose parents sexually abuse them? Such kids are real, too.
“Having them marry and using amniocentesis and abortion to eliminate obvious birth defects is just sick…”
Having them marry in the first place is sick, too. So is having two men marry.
“By that logic, an adopted child is not part of a family because (s)he is not related by blood or marriage, only a legal contract.”
Fair enough, but David and Jonathan don’t have a legal contract, either. They are not a family any more than their butler is.
“Either way, the definition of a family, in this case, is what the third graders perceive it to be.”
Exactly, and this film is trying to define that perception for them.
So you admit that you would tell a child that their family is not, in fact, a family. That was my point.
“So you admit that you would tell a child that their family is not, in fact, a family. That was my point.”
No, David. I wouldn’t tell them ANYTHING, one way or another, and neither should you.
Dave (not Weintraub), by saying that two men living together makes a family, contrary to traditional and legal definitions, IS trying to redefine the word family. The point is to get them thinking that at a young age, so that they will vote the way you want them to when they are old enough.
“Isn’t that what schools are for? Educating children about reality?”
Not in third grade. Teaching them to arithmetic, reading, and writing, and perhaps music, should be sufficient.
“They end up making better choices that way.”
People make better choices after they have learned logic. Presenting children with a morally questionable situation and telling them it is good is propaganda.
“Other things… seem to be non-issues when you’re young, but get scarier when you’re older…”
Yes, some people are afraid of quotation marks.
No, David. I wouldn’t tell them ANYTHING, one way or another, and neither should you.
Jack, it’s exactly what you’ve been doing, right in this thread, and in many others. Don’t you understand that? Or do you not believe that our readers, our community, have children? I doubt that any 3rd graders are reading this blog, but certainly older kids and teenagers do. There’s a reason we don’t tolerate sexually explicit talk or profanity (which always seems to come from the anti-gay folks, hmm) – this site is family-friendly.
Of course, kids think that any adult telling them the opposite of what they can see with their own eyes is crazy. I can assure you that children know who is a part of their families. It’s clear that you just don’t want it acknowledged.
“The only way a third grader is going to learn just arithmetic, reading, writing, and music, is if you keep them in a bubble.”
I said that’s what SCHOOL is for, the rest is up to the parents — particularly the teaching of morality. You want to teach third-graders that same-sex parents are “cool.” They’re not.
I sense some slippage in your comments, Jack. The film gives a voice to children from different kinds of families, who all think their families are just fine. If a kid thinks his parents are “cool,” guess what: They are. Who are you to say otherwise?
Who are you to redefine family?
“(I am using quotes because such “families” do not fall under normal of definitions of families.)”
Sorry Jack … Here are definitions of family. I assume you will find similar definitions in other references. I am sorry that there is not just one singular definition of a family to fit into your ideals;
– parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not.
– the children of one person or one couple collectively.
– the spouse and children of one person.
– any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins.
– all those persons considered as descendants of a common progenitor.
– Chiefly British. approved lineage, esp. noble, titled, famous, or wealthy ancestry.
– a group of persons who form a household under one head, including parents, children, and servants.
– the staff, or body of assistants, of an official.
– a group of related things or people.
– a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together.
Yes, Russell, the butler and the dog are family, too, by your definition.
Sorry Jack. I do not claim ownership of the definition. You may have to bring your grievance to the attention of dictionary.com.
“We are not redefining anything. We our living our lives as God created us to do.”
“God made them male and female.” Are you not familiar with the question, “Do you renounce the evil forces of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?”
“Love makes a family. Otherwise, adoption is fraudulent.”
Isn’t that sweet. Unfortunately, there are many families without love. (Liberals, in fact, would rather kill a baby than have him come into the world unwanted by his parents. And they would rather the parents just divorce rather than work out their differences.) Legal documents make an adoption. Thus, marrying a woman with children does not make her children yours, no matter how much you love them. You have to go through the adoption process.
“God made them male and female.”
Even if that were true, which it is not, biologically, it has no relevance to sexual orientation.
I love it – you think that laws and contracts trump relationships in determining what a family is? Um, no. Human relationships are independent of the laws that rulers have devised to regulate them. Translation: We don’t care.
Laws may deny my family benefits and equal treatment, but have zero import as to the relationships that make it a family. I’m sorry to inform you that, in spite of your best efforts, your use of language does nothing whatsoever to alter this.
“Human relationships are independent of the laws that rulers have devised to regulate them. Translation: We don’t care.”
Fine, then stop trying to get government recognition for your [redacted] family, and stop trying to bring your definition of family into government-run schools.
You miss the point. We are stating facts, not “our” definition. The film that so upsets you states facts, also. That is the purpose of education.
Reality being what it is, we will remove the artificial impediments to having the same rights and benefits bestowed on our families as you have bestowed on yours – but make no mistake: That is not what makes them families.
You are stating your definition. The law does not recognize your association as a family, and neither do the people who have voted for marriage amendments across the country. The plan is to get third-graders to accept your definition of a family so that they will vote your way when they grow up. That’s propaganda.
“Reality being what it is, we will remove the artificial impediments to having the same rights and benefits….”
Hilarious. The “rights and benefits” are themselves artificial!
So you think no one should have them. Give them back, then.
Well, the people of the state decided that it was in the interest of the state to give me those benefits. They decided that was not the case with you. Who are we to argue with the collective wisdom of the people?
“Jack, that’s called tyranny by the majority and inevitably leads to revolution.”
It’s also called DEMOCRACY. You would prefer tyranny by the few? You would rather have the courts make the laws?
“You can define the word ‘family’ any way you want, but reality doesn’t change because of it.”
You’re the ones trying to do that.
The divorce rate increased due to selfishness — on the part of both spouses. The divorce rate is declining because the marriage rate is declining: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm
Yes, you liberals sure are having a good effect on marriage.
Democracy:
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
Seems like there is alot of equality in democracy.
Democracy — Three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
“Every court ruling, the ones you like and the ones you don’t like, have, by definition, the force of law.”
It’s too bad they just make it up as they go along, rather than following the Constitution.
“Just trying to show third-grade reality to third-graders.”
Homosexuality is NOT third-grade reality.
I think the point, Jack, is that the Constitution is there for the sheep. Find something else to eat.
Is heterosexuality third-grade reality?
“It’s too bad they just make it up as they go along, rather than following the Constitution.”
Hmmmm.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” … Thomas Jefferson, 1812 ““ inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial.
“¦ Hence, Article V of the Constitution.
And, like it or not, the US is a common law country in simple terms, and as such, law is created and/or refined/interpreted by judges based on a variety of factors. Where there is no law, judges have the authority and duty to create law by precedent and other considerations in the absence of statute from legislature, in which case, it circles back around to judicial review.
So, yes, it is made up as we go along “¦ as envisioned it should, otherwise we would not have 27 amendments.
You seems to be contradicting yourself, Russell. If the courts can just make it up as they go along, then what is the point of a Constitution at all, and why have amendments that the courts can just ignore at will?
Actually Jack, no, I am not contradicting myself. I’m just interested in how my country really works instead of living in denial and taking the word of people who want nothing more than to see me live my life by their ideals and care nothing of others not like them.
Your local library and the works contained therein, including those works of constitutional and law scholars, are a great source of this information if you care to make good use of your tax dollars.
But if you are afraid of being seen there, or not willing to accept a social benefit in further educating yourself, the internet is a good place to start.
I am just puzzled why you remain in this country when you have so much animosity towards our systems of managing it, when so many people risk it all to come here because of them.
Russell — I have animosity to the ABUSE of the systems of managing this country. Just look at the abuse of the interstate commerce clause. The feds have taken that little clause, that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and twisted it to mean that the feral government can make a crime out of anything unpleasant that may have involved interstate commerce. The abuse of the general welfare clause is just as egregious, and the ninth and tenth amendments may as well not exist.
Did you really mean to say “feral government”? We may just have a point of agreement there.
I did indeed, David. When the 17th Amendment was ratified and the Senate was elected by the people, the United States government ceased to be a federal system, because its connections with the state governments were broken. I think we would have a much more civil nation if we repealed the 17th Amendment and the state legislatures took over appointing the electors.