In spite of all you've heard from the Dobson Gang, it starts to look more and more as though gays make better parents. We are at least more likely to be involved in our children's schools:
A study of LGBT parents has found they are more likely to be involved in their children's K-12 education than the general parent population.
It found that the parents were more involved in school activities and were more likely to have consistent communication with school personnel. . . .
The report, "Involved, Invisible, Ignored," was prepared by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, in partnership with the Family Equality Council and COLAGE.
It examined school experiences of LGBT-headed families using results from surveys of LGBT parents of children in K-12 schools and of secondary students who have LGBT parents.
Compared to data from the National Center for Education Statistics LGBT parents are more likely to attend a parent-teacher conference in the past year (94 percent to 77 percent) and more likely to volunteer (67 percent to 42 percent).
Unfortuntely, it looks as though that might be at least in part because our children are more subject to harassment and discrimination:
"This report casts doubt on schools' inclusion of different kinds of families in our education system. LGBT parents are actively engaged in their children's education yet are often not accepted by school communities. Further, their children are often harassed in school simply because of the makeup of their families. All families in a school community should be valued and respected as equals."
More than half of LGBT parents described various forms of exclusion from their school communities: being excluded or prevented from fully participating in school activities and events, being excluded by school policies and procedures, and being ignored and feeling invisible.
In addition, LGBT parents reported mistreatment from other parents in the school community and even from their children's peers at school. Twenty-six percent of LGBT parents in the survey reported mistreatment from other parents and 21 percent reported hearing negative comments about being LGBT from students.
The only way to counter this sort of thing, I think, is to continue to be visible and active. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that those who know gays and lesbians personally are less likely to be hostile to them.
There really should be a statute of limitations on anti-gay remarks. Sorry, but stories like this get me just the least little bit frosted.
Chanting `homophobia has got to go,' members of Regina's gay community rallied at the constituency office of a Conservative MP who made homophobic comments on an old video.
About 60 placard-carrying protesters demanded redress from Tom Lukiwski over anti-gay slurs he made on the 16-year-old video that surfaced last week.
``Obviously something has to happen to Tom Lukiwski, either he be stripped of his duties or he resign,'' said Nathan Markwart with the Gay and Lesbian Community of Regina.
What anyone said about gays and lesbians sixteen years ago can be more or less irrelevant today. Fortunately, there is information on Lukiwski's current record:
Markwart noted that just three years ago Lukiwski told the Commons that legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy and social decline.
I'd like to hear more about what he's up to know, his voting record in parliament, and the like. This is one of those cases where dialogue might be more appropriate. It's also one of those where the activists have left their agenda hanging out and it's getting in the way of actually doing some good.
The protesters called for funding for anti-homophobia organizations, asked the federal government to reverse a ban on sexually active gay men donating blood or organs and urged the Saskatchewan government to end homophobic bullying in schools.
This is the sort of thing that gives activists a bad name -- and just adds ammunition to the stockpile of the anti-gay Christianists.
If you're running out of money, time to call a boycott. It seems on the face of it rather unimaginative, but then if you're espousing a cause that doesn't have widespread popular support, you have to stick to the tried-and-true. Andrew Sullivan quoting Donald Wildmon:
"And this is so strange, because it's the family that McDonald's appeals to -- children's playland, you know, all the little toys, all of that. And they are promoting a lifestyle that would utterly destroy the traditional family."
Aside from the fact that it's all bullshit -- and we've seen ample evidence that Donald Wildmon is full of it -- it's not very original. On the originality front, the votes go to Rick Pearcey:
My son and I often stop by McDonald's for a bite to eat after homeschool bowling on Fridays. But not today...
Not today, in light of reports that McDonald's has decided, apparently, to declare war on my family. And to declare war on the civilization of liberty, independence, creativity, and humanity under God that my Dad fought for in World War II.
I'm not going to link to Pearcey's blog -- the rest of the post is even worse -- it's way beyond loss of contact with reality. I can only characterize it as "obscene." Perhaps if I can compose myself well enough to write a polite note about what a travesty he makes of Christianity, I'll go back and leave a comment. ( I just noticed, via Jim Burroway, that Nancy Pearcey, Rick's wife, is from the Discovery Institute, the organization dedicated to keeping biology safe for Jesus. I keep telling you -- they're all the same person.)
Sullivan's comment is typically Pollyannaish:
If Wildmon could have seen our wedding, he would have witnessed two families, of all generations, bringing two men more closely together and in greater communion with their own parents and sisters and brothers and nieces and cousins and nephews and friends. Having the support of our families - and supporting them in turn - is what our marriage is partly about.
A reader points it out:
That is precisely what would have horrified Wildmon about your same-sex wedding. For fundamentalist Christians, a wedding is about the joining of a man and woman in a way that reinforces certain ideas about patriarchy and divine authority: God over man; man over woman; couple over child. When you and Aaron married, you rebelled against the idea that marriage and family is a way of submitting to the correct order of creation. Instead you replaced it with all sorts of horizontal and egalitarian commitments that celebrate love, equality, companionship and the joining of families rather than the production of children within a hierarchical family unit.
No wonder Wildmon sees you as a threat to civilization. If we followed your example, pretty soon we'd be out of metaphors for a God who looks a lot like an abusive, judgmental father-lord.
Here's more from Pearcey via Jim Burroway
For human beings, this is a matter of liberty under God — Why help finance groups that turn their backs on the Declaration of Independence, the Founding vision, and the living Creator who holds it all together?
You see what I mean about obscene?
As an antidote to watching America become a third-world country, watch this commercial from Brazil. Notice particularly the last couple they show. (It's in Portuguese, but you'll get the idea. The tag translates roughly as "families may change, but the way they care for each other doesn't.")
No comments:
Post a Comment