So today the Supreme Court ruled against a case against Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass.,by parents outraged over a book their children read that featured a gay couple as parents among many other types of families.
Bob Unruh, a news editor for World Net Daily, reported on this decision.
The story is too large to copy and paste into this entry, so I have linked it above for you. He has also followed the story since it began at the beginning of this year. Here is my response to his article.
________________________________________________________________
Mr. Unruh,
I am truly intrigued at your logic that showing a gay couple in a children's book will somehow turn children gay. Do you believe that being gay is so awesome that the temptation would be too much to resist? Do you believe that simply by knowing something exists, children will automatically want to emulate it?
I believe to any parent's right to have control over what their children do and do not learn in school. I look at Governor Palin, who advocates so strongly for abstinence only education in public schools, and congratulate her on her teenage daughter's impending motherhood. Do you think it was because she saw a mother in a children's book and just couldn't stand not being one herself? Perhaps so. But could it possibly be that children (and teenagers) make better decisions when they can be informed of both sides and make the distinctions for themselves? Many unbiased studies have shown this to be fact.
If you truly believe that homosexuality is a choice, and you believe that you can influence your children's sexual preference, then you should absolutely have the right to put them into religion-based schools or home school them. One book in school featuring a gay couple will not turn a child into a homosexual any more than a book featuring a bank robber (the hamburgler ring any bells?) would make a child choose that profession. Children are impressionable, but they are also very smart and can make the decisions for themselves on what to believe is right or wrong. If you are doing your job as a parent and taking an active role in your child's life, then you should have far more influence on their future choices than any book.
But the simple fact of the matter is that gay parents do exist, and under current legislation, are allowed to send their children to the same schools as christian parents. Therefore they have the right to have their family represented as much as anyone else.
Miss Sugarbee
*While I know that World Net Daily is a very biased "source" and Bob Unruh is a super-conservative, I felt like sharing this as a general letter appealing to the arguments against "gay indoctrination" in schools.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Baby Borrowers
I'm completely fascinated with this new NBC TV show "The Baby Borrowers" in which 5 teenage couples have agreed to undergo a social experiment in which they take care of a child "from babies, toddlers, pre-teens and their pets, teenagers and senior citizens -- all over the course of three weeks."
I've been watching Part 1 all night, and think this is brilliant. Within a day, the teen couples who were so excited to finally take care of a baby are living the reality of teen parenthood. They get to see the frustration, sleeplessness, and constant bickering that occurs between the two of them. They are rewarded during the precious moments that caring for a child can bring, but it doesn't seem to be outweighing the cons of the situation for the young parents-to-be. I wish that every teenager could go through at least Part 1 of this experiment. Each couple has the baby for three days, so that they can experience a small part of the full scope of being a teen parent.
After this, they receive a toddler, then three days later, they will care for multiple pre-teens as well as their pets, then the task of taking care of teenagers, which must be the most difficult for them, and then the show ends with each couple taking care of a senior citizen.
The intent of the show is the give these teen couples (and anyone watching the show) a new perspective on the choices that they make in life and the consequences of their actions. I find this type of reality TV very intelligent, curious, and a breath of fresh air from the "Housewives of Orange County" or "Living Lohan." I'm really excited and curious to see how the teenagers handle the other phases of life, and how drastically this experiment will change their family planning decisions.
The Baby Borrowers air Wednesdays at 9/8 central, on NBC.
I've been watching Part 1 all night, and think this is brilliant. Within a day, the teen couples who were so excited to finally take care of a baby are living the reality of teen parenthood. They get to see the frustration, sleeplessness, and constant bickering that occurs between the two of them. They are rewarded during the precious moments that caring for a child can bring, but it doesn't seem to be outweighing the cons of the situation for the young parents-to-be. I wish that every teenager could go through at least Part 1 of this experiment. Each couple has the baby for three days, so that they can experience a small part of the full scope of being a teen parent.
After this, they receive a toddler, then three days later, they will care for multiple pre-teens as well as their pets, then the task of taking care of teenagers, which must be the most difficult for them, and then the show ends with each couple taking care of a senior citizen.
The intent of the show is the give these teen couples (and anyone watching the show) a new perspective on the choices that they make in life and the consequences of their actions. I find this type of reality TV very intelligent, curious, and a breath of fresh air from the "Housewives of Orange County" or "Living Lohan." I'm really excited and curious to see how the teenagers handle the other phases of life, and how drastically this experiment will change their family planning decisions.
The Baby Borrowers air Wednesdays at 9/8 central, on NBC.
Pregnancy Pacts? Are teenagers just getting dumber or are we just failing them more miserably than before?
Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High School
17 students at Gloucester High School, none older than 16 years old, have become pregnant, many of them joyfully. Many reports are saying that the girls have confessed to a "pregnancy pact" in which they actively tried to get pregnant by any means possible and vowed to raise their babies together.
I don't think anyone could argue that this is disturbing on many levels. My first reaction was "this is why we need more comprehensive sex education in schools."
What I mean by comprehensive sex education is not just the "tab A goes into slot B, but not until you're married because condoms don't work and you'll be covered in hideous flesh eating STDS for the rest of your life" type bullshit they dole out in 60% of America. I'm talking about a program that not only talks about the "what goes where" but also talks about the consequences of teen pregnancy, how to negotiate sex for the first time with a partner, healthy relationships and power dynamics. Many young people are not spoken to about these issues, and maybe don't develop the healthiest view of relationships and sex. In the US, 75% of people have had sex by the time they are 20 years old, according to the CDC. Abstinence-only education has proven to be ineffective, as our teenage pregnancy rate is nearly twice that of European countries who have sexual health programs similar to the one I described.
Young girls seem to get very conflicting images from the media (though blaming tv alone is a copout) about pregnancy and parenthood. Movies like Knocked Up, Juno, and Saved! paint a very easy looking picture of what it's like to be young, single, and pregnant. And TV shows like "My 27 kids" and "John and Kate plus 8" are certainly turning America's focus back on the family. Jamie Lynn Spears' enthusiasm over her pregnancy must also be likewise confusing. Art is certainly imitating life, but is it making it more acceptable for teenagers to take on adult responsibilities?
I certainly don't think that movies, tv shows, and celebrities are to blame for the actions of young people. We all have free will and minds of our own. But when the media is telling you one thing and school is not telling you anything, then someone needs to be there to tell you the reality of sex and relationships. I think that is what is lacking in the lives of these young girls. There needs to be a force to counteract these images of young single moms dealing with a little bit of alienation, but otherwise being being blissfully happy, and the notion that having a child will bring them unconditional love they haven't found elsewhere.
Babies are cute, babies are snuggly, pregnant women are pampered and baby showers are tons of fun and you get tons of neat gifts. It's totally adorable when you get to dress the baby up in cute clothes and when they fall asleep on you? oh MAN, best ever. Babies are totally awesome!
HOWEVER, babies also are eating and pooping machines that cry at any and all hours of the day and night, need your constant (and pleasant) attention, they will fight you every step of the way and they will interrupt your breakfast, lunch, dinner, and any movie you wanted to watch or any trip to the mall you thought you'd be able to take that week. Babies can be very very frustrating.
Teenagers need to stop thinking about babies as cute accessories like Paris Hilton treats her dog, and more like the fragile living creatures they are. They have minds and desires of their own and you have to learn their language as you go. Parents and schools alike need to start educating teens and children on the realities of sex, pregnancy, stds, condoms, relationships, etc etc, and stop the ridiculous logic that if you don't tell them about it, they won't do it.
17 students at Gloucester High School, none older than 16 years old, have become pregnant, many of them joyfully. Many reports are saying that the girls have confessed to a "pregnancy pact" in which they actively tried to get pregnant by any means possible and vowed to raise their babies together.
I don't think anyone could argue that this is disturbing on many levels. My first reaction was "this is why we need more comprehensive sex education in schools."
What I mean by comprehensive sex education is not just the "tab A goes into slot B, but not until you're married because condoms don't work and you'll be covered in hideous flesh eating STDS for the rest of your life" type bullshit they dole out in 60% of America. I'm talking about a program that not only talks about the "what goes where" but also talks about the consequences of teen pregnancy, how to negotiate sex for the first time with a partner, healthy relationships and power dynamics. Many young people are not spoken to about these issues, and maybe don't develop the healthiest view of relationships and sex. In the US, 75% of people have had sex by the time they are 20 years old, according to the CDC. Abstinence-only education has proven to be ineffective, as our teenage pregnancy rate is nearly twice that of European countries who have sexual health programs similar to the one I described.
Young girls seem to get very conflicting images from the media (though blaming tv alone is a copout) about pregnancy and parenthood. Movies like Knocked Up, Juno, and Saved! paint a very easy looking picture of what it's like to be young, single, and pregnant. And TV shows like "My 27 kids" and "John and Kate plus 8" are certainly turning America's focus back on the family. Jamie Lynn Spears' enthusiasm over her pregnancy must also be likewise confusing. Art is certainly imitating life, but is it making it more acceptable for teenagers to take on adult responsibilities?
I certainly don't think that movies, tv shows, and celebrities are to blame for the actions of young people. We all have free will and minds of our own. But when the media is telling you one thing and school is not telling you anything, then someone needs to be there to tell you the reality of sex and relationships. I think that is what is lacking in the lives of these young girls. There needs to be a force to counteract these images of young single moms dealing with a little bit of alienation, but otherwise being being blissfully happy, and the notion that having a child will bring them unconditional love they haven't found elsewhere.
Babies are cute, babies are snuggly, pregnant women are pampered and baby showers are tons of fun and you get tons of neat gifts. It's totally adorable when you get to dress the baby up in cute clothes and when they fall asleep on you? oh MAN, best ever. Babies are totally awesome!
HOWEVER, babies also are eating and pooping machines that cry at any and all hours of the day and night, need your constant (and pleasant) attention, they will fight you every step of the way and they will interrupt your breakfast, lunch, dinner, and any movie you wanted to watch or any trip to the mall you thought you'd be able to take that week. Babies can be very very frustrating.
Teenagers need to stop thinking about babies as cute accessories like Paris Hilton treats her dog, and more like the fragile living creatures they are. They have minds and desires of their own and you have to learn their language as you go. Parents and schools alike need to start educating teens and children on the realities of sex, pregnancy, stds, condoms, relationships, etc etc, and stop the ridiculous logic that if you don't tell them about it, they won't do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
