(continued from OtisPTA post 5/16/09)
I had a friend whose mother found out she was gay, beat her with a hairbrush, and threw her out of the house. My mom took her in and she stayed with us for months at a time. I think my dad guessed - he went on a regular dinner-table rant about those awful homosexuals he saw downtown in SF when he was at work, and she would just sit there, quiet as a mouse, trying to disappear. I didn't know she was gay - only her succession of "roommates" did. When she finally told me, I didn't really understand what it meant; I didn't have the means to really support her; I wish now that I'd said "I love you and I'm proud of who you are and I'm glad your my friend" instead of "oh! That explains a lot" without having a clue what it explained. She went through a series of disastrous relationships trying to fit in. She bounced in and out of the military, mental hospitals, a bad marriage to a straight man, prescription drug abuse, and severe depression; eventually we fell out of contact. I wonder what her life would have been like if her mother had understood she was born that way and had a right to happiness. Several of my other friends have married people who came out of the closet after years of marriage based on a lie. Love might have been there, but it wasn't enough; and everyone suffered. Is it necessary to raise more generations of people who must lie to fit in, or even survive?
It's very important this curriculum is about relationships, not about the mechanics of sex. Thinking back to my own prurient (or at least precocious) little self, I was looking up the f-word in the dictionary at age 8 or 9. Unfortunately it was missing out of the Webster's New School Abridged 1962 edition in our school library. If my parents had just explained the basic plumbing and functions, it actually would have put the whole question to rest. It's sad they were able to explain how my nose worked, but taught me to mistrust and fear my own - um, things down there. So instead, I learned about "doing it" from another kid. Who had learned it from a friend at age 6... and his definition and vocabulary were not only lurid but inaccurate. This led to all sorts of confusion, embarrassment, and misapprehension.
This curriculum hardly touches on sex and doesn't need to go much further than in discussion about a conventional nuclear family; something along the lines of "when two people love each other very much, they choose to create a family." And when you go into the biomechanics of it - whether you approve of it or not, it's basically science and kids will only absorb what they are ready for. "Doctors combine genetic material to make a complete baby, which then grows safely in a mommy's uterus until it's ready to be born. "
As I told the City Council - I don't approve of the British Royal Family's doings. I don't believe in the Divine Right of Kings. I hate the idea of arranged and loveless marriages. I think the Prince of Wales dresses funny. But I acknowledge that they exist and are a cultural force to be aware of, and they are different but have their own quirky charm, funny hats and all. They may be one weird family, but they have a right to be themselves, and on a Social Studies level, my daughter needs to know about them.
She has been acquainted with, and been curious about, several gay couples and families; I remind her that love is a gift, and that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whom they will love, and whether they will start a family. She has occasionally noticed men in dresses or women in suits, and had friends who liked to dress a little differently; and I remind her how she'd feel if she were only allowed to wear dresses, or only pants, or only green, or never pink. Her world is a bigger, richer, and more interesting place with no harm done. God save the queens!
