Boy punished for saying the word "Gay" in school...

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Marcus could have responded that he had two mothers without commenting on their sexuality

When I was .... 8 ... I believe it was, my father explained the word, "gay" by saying that it meant two men who wanted to live together as if they were married.

In some states, the difference between an annulment and a divorce is whether or not the husband and wife have had sex after they were married.

I think the problem here is the teacher's prejudice. "Gay" does not just refer to homosexual intercourse; such a definition is blatantly prejudicial.

Of course, that's the problem when the "gay battle" centers on Christian mores and sexuality: all the rest gets set aside.

I'm also waiting for a couple of news transcripts, one I believe from CNN, in which an ACLU representative indicated that a complicating factor in this is that the school has apparently offered a second version of what happened which does not accord with their own documentation. A very curious development if true.

Tell me, if a student tells his class that his mommy is pregnant, should you discipline the child?

 

[coolsoldier]

Re: (Insert Title Here)

Originally posted by tiassa
"Gay" does not just refer to homosexual intercourse; such a definition is blatantly prejudicial.

There is no prejudice in the way you define a word. Discussion of sexual preference is inherently sexual. It doesn't matter whether you are saying "gay" or "straight", either word is sexual in meaning. There is no prejudice in the way the words are defined.

 

[Tiassa]

Looks like young Marcus is correct

CoolSoldier

... if a student tells his class that his mommy is pregnant, should you discipline the child?

I'm curious about your position on the above.

In addition, there's not only one reason that a child might have two mommies; daddy could be long-dead or running around the world with a string of other women. That other mommy might be an auntie or a mommy's best friend. Reducing someone's family to profanity is just plain wrong.

When I was younger and speaking of idealistic days, my best friend and I had a "My Two Dads" joke that if one of us had a child whose mother ever went away, we would raise the child together. I can't say I know anybody, or even know of anybody directly who lives under such circumstances, but if my child would be able to describe that living arrangement if my friend and I were not gay life partners, I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to describe that living arrangement if we were.

Lastly, a usage note:

gayness n.

Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to homosexuals, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice. Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used. Like the other names of social groups derived from adjectives (for example, Black), gay may be regarded as offensive when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in There were two gays on the panel; here phrasing such as gay members should be used instead. But there is no objection to the use of the noun in the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether men alone or both men and women are being discussed. See Usage Note at homosexual.

Italics, hyperlink, and boldface reflect original source; color emphasis is mine.

It would appear that young Marcus used the word gay reasonably enough even to satisfy those who would make a person's family a profane word.

Notes:

• "Usage Note: gayness." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton-Mifflin, 2000. see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gay

 

[coolsoldier]

Apparently definitions are tainted by source: AH (via Dictionary.com) differentiates "gay" from "homosexual" (as you pointed out), while Webster's (via m-w.com) under "gay" just says "see homosexual". Personally, I generally get my definitions online from Princeton University's WordNet, as they tend to be based more on common perception than the "king's english". At the very least, the meaning of the word is controversial (at least judging from the discrepancies between sources of definitions). The fact that "gay" is often taken, and can be justified by at least some definitions of the word, to have an explicitly sexual meaning does justify preventing the boy from using it, even if you believe that the definition used by the school is prejudiced (I still don't understand this). AND, for those who do believe the definition that was applied in this case was prejudiced, it seems like you should be praising the school for preventing the use of this "prejudiced" word...

And, no, I would not punish a child for saying his mother was pregnant. Pregnant does not have a sexual meaning. It can be an effect of sexual intercourse (although test tube babies, surrogate pregnancies, etc. demonstrate that this is not always the case), it does not have a sexual meaning:

The adjective "pregnant" has 3 senses in WordNet.

1. pregnant (vs. nonpregnant) -- (carrying developing offspring within the body or being about to produce new life)
2. meaning(prenominal), pregnant, significant -- (rich in significance or implication; "a meaning look"; "pregnant with meaning")
3. fraught(predicate), pregnant -- (filled with or attended with; "words fraught with meaning"; "an incident fraught with danger"; "a silence pregnant with suspense")

 

[Tiassa]

CoolSoldier

You're really splitting hairs in order to make a family condition profane. If it's that important to you to bash gays, fine. But I just think it absurd.

 

[coolsoldier]

Chill Out!

I am not bashing gays. I do have a problem with kids discussing sexuality at schools. If you look back at my first post in this thread, I said that. Why is it that so many people on this forum are so quick to call prejudice?

On the issue of homosexuality itself, I admit I am on the fence. I do not understand it, and as something I don't understand I cannot declare it to be right or wrong. BUT, the moral issue of homosexuality (which should technically only be an issue for ~10% of the population) is NOT what I have been writing about. My concern is with the discussion of it by 7-year-olds. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Really, IMO too many people are too quick to suspect malicious intent.

 

[Tiassa]

You're not?

I am not bashing gays

Fine. Whatever. I'll take your word for it.

But please understand, it is in the eye of the beholder--that the teacher, or you for that matter, chooses to focus on the sexual aspect of the word "gay" says more about you or the teacher than it does about anything else.

I just find very unsettling the effort you're putting into it. The degree to which you're willing to split hairs in order to hold a second-grade student to fault for your own perception of his familial arrangement as verboten is ... er, yeah.

My concern is with the discussion of it by 7-year-olds

Based on what you've told me about your perspective, you're out of line. It is your own value assignation to the word "gay" that becomes the issue.

Just think: when gays are allowed to get married, this whole issue will disappear, because then Marcus could have said, "I have two moms. They're married."

How ironic, when you stop and think about it.

I completely forgot to ask a friend of mine about it. She has two moms. Last I heard, they were furious about this story, but I haven't talked to my friend about it in any real depth. But what's really strange is the reason I forgot to ask her: Nobody cares that she has two moms.

The fact that her moms are gay doesn't strike me as too much information because I, for one, am not trying to imagine these women in the throes of passion.

Sex doesn't even really come into it.

I mean, I have to choose to identify the fact that they're gay primarily with carpet-munching and no, I don't. It's not a natural focus. They're my friend's moms. They're gay. That tells me it's not her mother and an old college friend who's splitting the rent. That tells me that it's not her mother and her aunt. That tells me that it's two people who have chosen to have a family together, and if I get down to focusing on their sex life, that's my own problem.

If the ACLU takes the school to trial, be ready for a show. The school will get carved to pieces if they dare stand before the might of the US Constitution.

The ACLU's page on this story, incidentally, is here.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
but there are some things that seven-year-olds should not talk about in class, and their parents' sex lives is one of them.

You're taking a very narrow look at this situation. The kid didn't have to nessisarily be talking about what his parrents do to eachother in private, or what they get off on. At seven years old it's quite likely that the tyke doesn't even know what sex is. Calling his mother gay, encompases a lot more than what she does when naked with a member of the same sex. In this instance, I think the topic should be clear, his mother has a long standing romantic relationship with another woman, without any spacific sexual act being named, this still encompases an aspect of homosexuality, and is probably what the kid was talking about, explaining how he has two mommies. If the kid he was talking to said that his parents were heterosexual, do you think that nessisarily means he's refering spacificaly to the fact that his daddy likes sticking his dick in ladies hoohas, or that he has a mother and a father living together in a long term romantic relationship?

 

[Bells]

Re: Chill Out!

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I am not bashing gays. I do have a problem with kids discussing sexuality at schools. If you look back at my first post in this thread, I said that. Why is it that so many people on this forum are so quick to call prejudice?

On the issue of homosexuality itself, I admit I am on the fence. I do not understand it, and as something I don't understand I cannot declare it to be right or wrong. BUT, the moral issue of homosexuality (which should technically only be an issue for ~10% of the population) is NOT what I have been writing about. My concern is with the discussion of it by 7-year-olds. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Really, IMO too many people are too quick to suspect malicious intent.

This child was only telling another, after being questioned about it, that he had two mummy's. He did not give any further description other than that. I was not aware that the word gay was sexual. Gay also means happy, so to be happy one is sexual? Marcus was not discussing sexual content at school, all he said was that he had two mummy's instead of a mummy and a daddy and that his mummy liked girls and not boys. So if Marcus had said that his mummy liked his daddy and was heterosexual, that would have been fine? This school have punished a young child all because he said the word gay. What's wrong with the word gay? This is what this school has punished him for. Not that he discussed notions of sexuality, but because he said the word gay... apparently a word so dirty that the assistant principal was unable to repeat it. HUH??? The actions of the school in this matter have shown that they are homophobic. If this child had said my mummy has sex with my daddy he probably would not have been punished. But to say the word "gay"... oh my.. what a word.

The actions of this school have only displayed to this child that they disapprove of his mother and that they think its bad. How will this small child assimilate this now? They have scarred this child and his parents as well. The child and his parents have done nothing wrong, the school has.

 

[coolsoldier]

Obviously, the meaning of the word "gay" is in the eye of the beholder. However, I still believe that it is very likely that it was done in good faith -- the result of a discrepancy over the meaning and/or context of the word (hence the original point of bringing definitions into this discussion at all), not an overt display of homophobia, and as such I don't believe it is appropriate to hold the school responsible for this as if they had intentionally berated Marcus because they disapproved of his mother's behavior. Believe it or not, there is no mass conspiracy here. I'll save the issue of whose recount of the story to believe for the thread that will inevitably pop up when this goes to trial.

 

[BigBlueHead]

However, I still believe that it is very likely that it was done in good faith

I shall say what I have always said of these situations... save us from the good faith of idiots and monsters.

They came down on the kid because it's an issue that they don't want to address in school. He was the bearer of bad news. The little lad was made an example of, in the manner that public schools tend to handle things, to show that nothing outside the program will be tolerated in school even if it's an issue for people in the real world.

What does a teacher do if their 2nd grader asks where babies come from? Kick them out of school? I mean, they're talking about sex here, right?

 

[Tiassa]

Actually, that hair's been split

I mean, they're talking about sex here, right?

Actually, that hair's been split. According to Coolsoldier's argument:

And, no, I would not punish a child for saying his mother was pregnant. Pregnant does not have a sexual meaning. It can be an effect of sexual intercourse (although test tube babies, surrogate pregnancies, etc. demonstrate that this is not always the case), it does not have a sexual meaning:


quote:
The adjective "pregnant" has 3 senses in WordNet.

1. pregnant (vs. nonpregnant) -- (carrying developing offspring within the body or being about to produce new life)
2. meaning(prenominal), pregnant, significant -- (rich in significance or implication; "a meaning look"; "pregnant with meaning")
3. fraught(predicate), pregnant -- (filled with or attended with; "words fraught with meaning"; "an incident fraught with danger"; "a silence pregnant with suspense")

I know, I know. But ... well, you know ...

 

[coolsoldier]

I shall say what I have always said of these situations... save us from the good faith of idiots and monsters.

There are worse things. This was the result of a misunderstanding about the meaning of a word. Plain and simple. There is no harm done here, but I suppose if this lady wants to milk it for media attention and ridiculous court settlements, hell, we've never stopped anyone else from doing that, I suppose it's okay.

He was the bearer of bad news. The little lad was made an example of, in the manner that public schools tend to handle things, to show that nothing outside the program will be tolerated in school even if it's an issue for people in the real world.

That's common practice, and not just in public schools. With adults it's a problem. With kids it makes sense to shield them from things they can't understand. That's why we keep them in families, schools, etc. for 18 or so years instead of just throwing them out into the world from the day they can walk.

What does a teacher do if their 2nd grader asks where babies come from? Kick them out of school? I mean, they're talking about sex here, right?

Okay, I have a few problems with this paralell:

--Asking a question is worlds away from giving an answer.
--Marcus was not kicked out of school. Given the various accounts, we can't be completely sure what actually happened but none of the recounts of the story describe him ever being "kicked out of school". Stop exaggerating.

 

[BigBlueHead]

(Ya got a double post there guy)

That's why we keep them in families, schools, etc. for 18 or so years instead of just throwing them out into the world from the day they can walk.

Yes, that's true, we keep them in schools instead of teaching them anything.

If you're going to "shield" them from information until they become 18 and then shove them out the door in the belief that they're mature, how is that any better than hucking them into the street "the day they can walk"? School isn't primarily a teaching institution, it secures the child's safety for long enough that society is no longer responsible for them. After this they are on their own, usually after 12 or more years of misinformation and lies about how the world functions.

Much as Mystech says, a lot of kids don't have nearly as much of a problem with sex as they do when they're older... maybe it's better to teach them about sex when it's an academic exercise for them, instead of waiting for them to build up a big head of steam about it.

 

[coolsoldier]

School isn't primarily a teaching institution, it secures the child's safety for long enough that society is no longer responsible for them. After this they are on their own, usually after 12 or more years of misinformation and lies about how the world functions.

School is a teaching institution, and at some point it makes sense to teach kids about sex. But the schools can't and shouldn't expose kids to everything at once. That defeats the purpose of having schools in the first place -- so the process can take place gradually enough that it doesn't do them any more physical or psychological harm than necessary in the process.

maybe it's better to teach them about sex when it's an academic exercise for them, instead of waiting for them to build up a big head of steam about it.

Maybe it is. I'm no child psychologist, but it's possible. That doesn't change the fact that such a system would be unacceptable right now in the society where this event took place. After all, schools and kids alike do have to function in real society.

Society at large (especially in Louisiana) would have had a problem with Marcus' remarks as well, had he made them in some arena other than the school. Would it have been better for the school to have deluded Marcus into thinking that his comments were acceptable, knowing that society would have been equally, if not more, harsh in response to similar comments elsewhere?

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
School isBut the schools can't and shouldn't expose kids to everything at once. That defeats the purpose of having schools in the first place -- so the process can take place gradually enough that it doesn't do them any more physical or psychological harm than necessary in the process.

I couldn't agree more. In this particular case, I think it would have been best if the teacher and school administration held off on letting Marcus learn that even though he's been taught to respect certain adults, and has been placed in their care, that that doesn't exempt them from being a bunch of buffoons and lunatics. It’s a valuable lesson, but he’s at something of a tender age to have to learn it.

 

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Mystech
I think it would have been best if the teacher and school administration held off on letting Marcus learn that even though he's been taught to respect certain adults, and has been placed in their care, that that doesn't exempt them from being a bunch of buffoons and lunatics.

So (quoting myself),

Would it have been better for the school to have deluded Marcus into thinking that his comments were acceptable, knowing that society would have been equally, if not more, harsh in response to similar comments elsewhere?

 

[BrainWithAGun]

He shouldn't have been punished.

-fin-

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Would it have been better for the school to have deluded Marcus into thinking that his comments were acceptable, knowing that society would have been equally, if not more, harsh in response to similar comments elsewhere?

Well luckily for Marcus it's pretty unlikely that people would get all uppity just because you said the word gay. Believe it or not people say it a lot, and there's little if any response at all, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here. If you're referring to how he has two moms. . . well I honestly haven't heard of anyone having a problem, in their adult life with someone going ballistic over who their parents happen to be (Unless they happen to be celebrities, mass murderers, or a Capulet/Motague) so I'm thinking that it's not going to be a huge issue.

Another thing is that later in little Marcus' life he can just tell people who have a problem with his family to just fuck off, something which I doubt would have helped in this situation, as teachers/ school administrators do hold quite a bit of power over poor little seven year olds. In other words, this is extremely unlikely to be as big a problem later in his life as it is right now, especially seeing how as the whole ordeal is probably going to scar him for life, and make him just lie about his family rather than put up with a possible fiasco in the future, which is an unfortunately skewed view of the way things REALLY work.

This whole issue reminds me of Pink Floyd's "another brick in the wall" In fact I name that song to be this news story's theme song.
o/` Hey, teacher, leave them kids alone! o/`

 

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Mystech
Well luckily for Marcus it's pretty unlikely that people would get all uppity just because you said the word gay.

Been to Louisiana lately?

I haven't been back there in a few years, so society might have changed completely since '99, but I spent most of my childhood there, and quite simply there are some things you don't say in public if you want to remain a functioning member of society. And I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but "My momma's gay" is one of them.
What Marcus has to write lines for today, he would in a few years be at best ostracized by his peers as well as a significant segment of adult society in a region populated primarily by conservative catholics.

Yes, there are some times when it is appropriate to keep one's mouth shut in public (unless you are specifically trying to make a scene). And although you can get somewhere by playing the victim, the observers that accept that line tend to sour on it pretty fast.