[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=sdduuuude]
Well, maybe against the radical ones with an agenda, which is likely not very many.[/quote]
That’s my point — there is no “radical gay agenda” here.
Here’s what happened: a reading assignment mentioned, in passing, 2 women adopting a child together. Where exactly is the “radical agenda?” I don’t see it.
OP’s takeaway: “Radical gay agenda! It sickens me!”
You are giving him a pass by saying it’s not about the gays, that it’s about early discussion of sexuality.
First, there’s nothing radical about that. I remember getting sex education in 5th grade. That was in 1981. And it was way more explicit than this, which is really just about two women adopting a child together (you could probably skirt the sex part pretty easily if the child asks about it).
Second, if it’s just about any mention of sexuality, why is the title The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools? Why isn’t it The Radical Early Sex Education Agenda?
So, like I said (more succinctly) in my first post:
oblique mention to a youngster of two women adopting a child ==
an “agenda”, and also, “sickening”
Sounds pretty anti-gay to me.[/quote]
See CDMA’s answer. Explained it very well.
[quote=CDMAEng]
Why did it have to be a “two mommies” scenario as the OP said? There is no other explanation to this other than to introduce the idea of a homosexual family to the reader. Simply… that is an agenda.
But why bring sexual identity at all into this?
Why not simply say something like “a loving couple adopt a child”… Strip all sexual identity, hetro or homo, from the argument and leave “two loving people” in the story. [/quote]
Plus, I interpreted “still in her early years of elementary school” as well before 5th grade. Still, the point is – “the right age” for some may be too early for others.
