Gay Books for Kids: Censoring Lesbian Moms & Penguins Dads

When was the first time you saw a portrayal, positive or otherwise, of LGBT existence? If you came of age before the Internet, chances are it was an exaggerated sitcom character or a tragic victim of AIDS -- hardly encouraging for a young person questioning their sexuality or forming an opinion of LGBTs. It’s good to know, then -- the next time you see two gay men pushing a stroller and doting over their little bundle of joy -- that the kid’s toy chest will likely include books depicting LGBT families along with staples like "Goodnight Moon" and "Where the Wild Things Are."

[BUCK]

Everyones read showering with Maplethorpe, and dining with Dahmler? Whats next jacking with Jackson?

[Josh in New Orleans]

BUCK wrote:

Everyones read showering with Maplethorpe, and dining with Dahmler? Whats next jacking with Jackson?

Of course not, but I would expect no less of you than to think otherwise. People like you see the love an companionship of two members of the same sex and think of it only in terms of smut! You're discusting!

When I see two people dedicated and loving toward one another; married, living hapily-ever after and raising children, it puts a smile on my face regardless. Love is a beautiful thing, and children need to know that there are many different kinds of families. Some are like their own, some have two mommies, and others have two daddies. Its as simple as that!

However, I'm sue that you're probably raising your own kids with the same prejudice once bestowed upon you by your own father.

[KirkW]

BUCK wrote:

Everyones read showering with Maplethorpe, and dining with Dahmler? Whats next jacking with Jackson?

I really enjoyed "How to screw little Boys" by the priests of the Catholic Church. Or how about "How to kill a fag by tying him to a fence"

Or better yet "Teach your straight child how to properly shoot and kill the gay child at school"

You really are just a simple creature Buck.

I mean really, do they have a name for what's wrong with you?

Wait, my friend tells me they do...ignorance (or perhaps inbreeding).

[nhjeff]

BUCK wrote:

Everyones read showering with Maplethorpe, and dining with Dahmler? Whats next jacking with Jackson?

Have you managed to publish "Bumping with Buck" yet? Oh, nobody's interested? Hmmm.

[KirkW]

Doubter wrote:

<quoted text>Reply:
A necessary reply to "Come home with me, Sam, I wll show you my arrowheads, or, "Come join me in my tent, Tommy, I will show you how to keep warm", or "Billy, come to my house, I will teach you how to read". Yeah, sure. Why are so many teachers gay?

I don't have arrowheads...to me, "camping" has a whole different meaning girlfriend, and I do my teaching in a masters class on religion and history at a university. Not all gay teachers are into little boys. To most of us in the gay community, that particular perversion is every bit as disgusting as it is to the straight population.

So please don't assume I diddle kids just because I'm a gay teacher. Hell it's legal for me to sleep with my students in university but I don't even do that because it's just not the right thing to do.

You see, some gay teachers have scruples. But even if some gay (AND straight) teachers stray from the path and do things they shouldn't do with kids, that's still no reason for one student to shoot and kill another, or to beat gay people on the street, or to tie a gay college student to a fence on a cold Wyoming night and let him there to die.

One crime doesn't justify the other...they're both wrong.

[thespinnychick]

Just to set the record straight.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely separate things.

One is attracted to children. We call this pedophilia.

The other is attracted to the same sex (to put it simplistically for the conceptually impaired). We call this homosexuality.

There ya go. A working definition.

[nhjeff]

KirkW wrote:

<quoted text>

You see, some gay teachers have scruples. But even if some gay (AND straight) teachers stray from the path and do things they shouldn't do with kids, that's still no reason for one student to shoot and kill another, or to beat gay people on the street, or to tie a gay college student to a fence on a cold Wyoming night and let him there to die.
One crime doesn't justify the other...they're both wrong.

As a society, we restrict the rights or punish those who have actually committed crimes. If we punished entire groups by association--however vague--then every heterosexual man in America would be "guilty" of pedophilia or rape.[Yes, I realize there are some groups that seem to believe this, but I don't subscribe.] Since more of these crimes are committed by heterosexuals than gay men, it makes no sense to target the homosexuals.

[BUCK]

thespinnychick wrote:

Just to set the record straight.
Pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely separate things.
One is attracted to children. We call this pedophilia.
The other is attracted to the same sex (to put it simplistically for the conceptually impaired). We call this homosexuality.
There ya go. A working definition.

Lets really set the record straight. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two of the same, its pederasty. Thats a better working definition in this thread.

[BUCK]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you managed to publish "Bumping with Buck" yet? Oh, nobody's interested? Hmmm.

There is no revelence to pushing any alternative sexuality in school literature, considering the overwhelming majority of students and teachers in this country are hetero, concieved and raised by heteros. This is nothing short of an attempt to sexualy brainwash young kids,by people who do not choose to have children, but are so willing to exploit them as their political and sexual objectives.

[nhjeff]

BUCK wrote:

<quoted text> There is no revelence to pushing any alternative sexuality in school literature, considering the overwhelming majority of students and teachers in this country are hetero, concieved and raised by heteros. This is nothing short of an attempt to sexualy brainwash young kids,by people who do not choose to have children, but are so willing to exploit them as their political and sexual objectives.

Do you also believe that teaching about Judaism and its world history is irrelevant because the majority of students and teachers in this country identify as Christian? If there are but five blacks in a class of 35, should we ignore the fact that they are black? Moreover, many gay couples do have children--usually by choice. Many heterosexual couples prefer not to have children and--unfortunately--quite a few of those do anyway.

So you're arguments were basically (1) gays and lesbians are a minority, so the majority shouldn't care. In other words, because you're a bigot and you think the majority agrees.(2) Gays and lesbians choose not to have children, so why should we include them in our teaching? First, gays and lesbians all attend school, the same as everyone else. Their needs should be addressed the same as everyone else's. Second, the statement that they don't have children is simply false. You're not only a bigot but a liar. But that's actually redundant. I've never met a bigot who doesn't justify himself with lies at some point.

[KirkW]

BUCK wrote:

<quoted text>Lets really set the record straight. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two of the same, its pederasty. Thats a better working definition in this thread.

There isn't really a word that decribes how mind-numbingly ignorant you are.

[Josh in New Orleans]

BUCK wrote:

<quoted text> There is no revelence to pushing any alternative sexuality in school literature, considering the overwhelming majority of students and teachers in this country are hetero, concieved and raised by heteros. This is nothing short of an attempt to sexualy brainwash young kids,by people who do not choose to have children, but are so willing to exploit them as their political and sexual objectives.

First Buck,
I am not a pedophile, and pedophilia and homosexuality are NOT one and the same. Secondly, just because I'm homosexual doesn't mean that I've given up on having children. In fact, I do plan on having children. Whatever motivations you may think I have for doing so, that's your problem. In case you might be wondering rather than assuming, I'm planning on having children for the same reason everyone else does: I want to raise a family. And when I do have children they are going to need to understand how our family is different from others. Other children could benifit from that knowledge as well as it would help them understand also that there are many different kinds of families.

[BUCK]

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
First Buck,
I am not a pedophile, and pedophilia and homosexuality are NOT one and the same. Secondly, just because I'm homosexual doesn't mean that I've given up on having children. In fact, I do plan on having children. Whatever motivations you may think I have for doing so, that's your problem. In case you might be wondering rather than assuming, I'm planning on having children for the same reason everyone else does: I want to raise a family. And when I do have children they are going to need to understand how our family is different from others. Other children could benifit from that knowledge as well as it would help them understand also that there are many different kinds of families.

I can just picture the horror on your future childrens faces,when you inform them how their mother was used as a reproductive system for your family scheme. It will do wonders for their self esteem, knowing half their DNA and biological make-up is "insignificant". Only then will began to realize that your motives toward them are simular, revealing the true nature of your objectives.

[Dasein9]

BUCK wrote:

<quoted text>I can just picture the horror on your future childrens faces,when you inform them how their mother was used as a reproductive system for your family scheme. It will do wonders for their self esteem, knowing half their DNA and biological make-up is "insignificant". Only then will began to realize that your motives toward them are simular, revealing the true nature of your objectives.

Huh??

Oh.
My.
God.

You have a very sick imagination, indeed, Buck.

[BUCK]

Dasein9 wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh??
Oh.
My.
God.
You have a very sick imagination, indeed, Buck.

Look to your right,at the story of the ex NJ Governor James McGreevy,it is not imagination, it is fact!

[Josh in New Orleans]

BUCK wrote:

<quoted text>I can just picture the horror on your future childrens faces,when you inform them how their mother was used as a reproductive system for your family scheme. It will do wonders for their self esteem, knowing half their DNA and biological make-up is "insignificant". Only then will began to realize that your motives toward them are simular, revealing the true nature of your objectives.

Biology is pretty insignificant Buck. If it were so tramatic to not know your own bioligical mother then adopted kids would be the worse off for not having either biological parent.

Regardless, the surrogate mother will not be a stranger to my future children. Only their biological mother (the egg donor) will be until they turn 18.

This isn't some kind of cold plan I've enacted to futher an agenda, its about my own personal desire to become a father and raise a family. Does that sound selfish? I guess it might, but its no different a motivation than anybody else who decides they want to raise a family.

For that matter, I would rather adopt than go invitro. For starters, invitro is really really expensive. However, there are major problems in society right. If my children are not of my own blood, then I have no gaurentee that the state would allow me to raise them no other reason than my sexuality.

[Josh in New Orleans]

Correction *for no other reason than my sexuality.